Must the mailed Annual Meeting notice include a blank proxy, or can shareholders be advised that they can be obtained upon request?> Join the conversation
We are in a small coop (10 units) built in 1921. We have an outer lobby door and an inner lobby door. Our apartment buzzers are in the outer lobby, not on the front of the building. You have to enter through the outer lobby door to get to the apartment buzzers. The building has a rule that the outer lobby door must be locked after 9 PM--to keep out intruders who might decide to sleep in the outer lobby. This has happened a few times--once recently, unfortunately, when that door was left open. The problem is that emergency workers then do not have access to the building in an emergency. This has also happened, when we once called an ambulance late at night and forgot that they had no way to buzz our buzzer. They wound up rousing our neighbor, who let them in--we were too busy tending to the sick person to be watching the door. I was told that not having emergency access to a building via doorbell or buzzer is against the law in NYC--so I am trying to locate that law in order to force the rest of the board--I am Secretary-- to seriously consider going through the expense and trouble of installing a new system. (We are landmarked, so that is admittedly a hassle, but some similar buildings have done so--it's definitely possible.) Some of us are more worried about intruders in the outer lobby than about ambulances and fire trucks. They just ignore the concern. Does anyone have any advice on this?> Join the conversation
I'm the new Treasurer for a NJ coop and am reviewing admissions applications.
Our by-laws only allow us to deny a purchase based on poor financials. Do any coops out there have a minimum credit score they try to stay away from?
What do you consider when looking at the credit report?
Our in-house finance committee, made up of shareholders who review the management reports on a quarterly basis, discovered that the corporation has been paying the ‘Verizon FiOs’ package for the building super, including cable, phone and internet. The super has a cell phone which is used for work purposes, so the landline with the package would be for the super’’s personal use.
Just wanted to throw it out there - is this expense considered optional or required for the resident super? The Board is generally ticked off that this cost may have been passed on erroneously to the coop for quite some time. Please share your thoughts... Thanks!
Curious to see if other buildings have not received their credits from Star and NYC Co-op tax abatement?
Our managing agent explains that ..."The abatement numbers have not been finalized by the city despite for 16/17 or 17/18...." I have tried emailing the DOF, NY taxation and 311. According to 311 our building did receive credits for Star and according to NYC Finance "letters" were mailed to the managing agent.
It is hard to get a straight answer, so looking here for a simpler explanation.
We have two openings on our board and only two candidates that no one want to vote for.
If we don't meet the quorum at the annual meeting, is there a time limit before a meeting is called for the express purpose of voting in new board members.
We understand that without a quorum, the state of the co-op can be discussed but voting can not take place.
We would like a month or two in order to find viable candidates to run against the current ones.
Greetings all. We're in the process of finalizing our keyfob system and currently grappling with how to respond to requests for extra fobs for their emergency contact. We are a Mitchell Lama coop and only those listed on our annual income affidavits receive fobs. Some requesting fobs for emergency contact state it that simply... others have more detailed requests. We're agreed that management oversee the distribution decision, and management has suggested issuing temporary id passes after a formal request is submitted. There is concern around not wanting security to have access to specific personal information submitted on the request. We also have a suggestion that specific coded fobs be issued and access history reviewed to detect abuse. Has anyone addressed these issues, and if so, how did you handle it/them. Thanks for your replies.> Join the conversation Comments (2)
I just received this email from Otis, one of my elevator companies...
"As your elevator service provider, we are informing you that the NYC Department of Building has adopted a new mandated requirement for all existing automatic passenger and freight elevators – Door Lock Monitoring. All elevators under the NYC Department of Buildings jurisdiction must comply with this new requirement by January 1st, 2020. Our goal is to complete these upgrades quickly and efficiently so that you will be in compliance by the effective date.
Attached you will find the Door Lock Monitoring proposal for your specific building’s elevator(s). Please be aware that demand, labor and price for this task will be expected to increase closer to the compliance date, therefore, it is best to take action as soon as possible. "
The quote was for 23,000. ... wow, what a shocker!
So I did some research, especially since the elevator was a complete Mod done by Otis last year and found out the following:
All controllers built to meet the A17.1-2000 Code (which came out in 2000) should have the door lock monitoring provisions already built in... It was only prior to 2000/02 that NYC followed the A17.1-1996 Code so it’s safe to assume older controllers do not have provisions, but the newer ones should.
“As per ASME A17.3 of 2002, as modified by Chapter K3 of Appendix K Section 3.10.12 of the New York City Building Code, all automatic passenger and freight elevators must provide a system to monitor and prevent automatic operation with faulty door contact circuits by January 1, 2020.”
That said, be careful, know when your system was installed or upgraded and question your elevator company .... don't just sign the blanket proposal they probably send out to all their clients!
Due to the litigant nature of society, we should Prohibit, to the extent possible, sharing of public video surveillance data with third parties, including private litigants, and restrict sharing with other governmental entities.
Communities should restrict use of public video surveillance data by third parties. Especially to the extent the data reveals identifiable individuals, sharing of data with private litigants or other governmental agencies without the consent of the affected individuals severely undermines confidence in official motives for collecting such information, further threatens constitutional rights and values, and could generate legal liability for law enforcement. While releasing footage may be beneficial in some cases, such as to enlist public aid in apprehending a suspect or to perform an audit, in general, disclosures to third parties creates increased risk of the information being used for improper and unaccountable purposes.
I want to come up with a set written policy and procedure for my buildings and an indemnification of some sort to be signed when I actually do provide access to video… Plus a reimbursement fee to pay for the superintendents time for the retrieval process….
That said: Does anyone have any existing written policies and procedures in place? Possibly an indemnification and hold harmless for those entrusted with information? What are your policies?
Introduce yourself to other members of Board Talk! Log in below or register here.
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.
Habitat U: learn about how to manage a building, and what you should know as a co-op or condo board member.
Search, by word or phrase, all magazine articles from January 2002 to present. You may print or email your results. Print subscribers receive free access to the Habitat Article Archive.