I don't think your insurance company would like that idea?

As I understand it, NYC's Dept of Health requires all coops and condos with pools to have a lifeguard on duty whenever the pool is open. To check this, call the Dept of Health, at 212-676-1520.

You should not review any package until it is complete with all of the documentation that your application specifies, including all of the required schedules from income tax returns.
If the applicants are unable or unwilling to provide the requested information, the board should vote to reject the application.

The same holds true if documentation is provided but does not make sense. When we receive an application that does not fully explain where the funds are coming for the deposit, the balance due on closing, or the required income we will direct our property manager to ask the applicants for clarification. If the applicants are unable or unwilling to provide enough additional information to satisfy the board's questions, they should do their fiduciary duty and vote to reject the application.

As to your legal responsibilities, they lie with the corporation and its shareholders. The fact that an applicant may be unable to satisfy the questions of a co-op board does not mean that the applicant has done anything illegal. It is completely out of the scope of your responsibilities to involve the corporation in accusations which could result in costly legal actions against you and the corporation.

Bottom line - unless the board is comfortable with all of the information, reject the application and move on.

Ditto Board Prez's comments. The Board's fiduciary duty is to its shareholders/the corporation - not the US government, the IRS, or any other body.

Seek full financial disclosure to protect the co-op's interests; if it's not forthcoming, reject.

Board Prez - Yours was such a helpful response. Another factor we've encountered was with our management company, which wasted everyone's time and the coop's money, by sending us copies of an application package that was incomplete and, without realizing that, we interviewed the applicant. Of course it had to go back for more documentation and another interview. The application still did not have full supporting documents and for that and other reasons the person was turned down.

In this case it started with the property manger -- that person should know better than the volunteer board if an application is complete. If there's sloppy or inept work on the part of management, then the coop suffers. But that's another topic altogether.

Riverdale, I'm glad our experiences were helpful. If it does not already exist, have the managing agent or someone on the board who is most familiar with the process, create a check list for the application. Until there is a check mark beside each item and a sign off at the bottom, the board should not move forward with an interview.

Another idea...use a couple of board members as a financial review committee (or ask the property manager) to summarize the application on a single page with the most pertinent information including sales price, financing, income and asset requirements - only facts with no editorials. That review will make it easier for the entire board to review the application and will disclose if anything is missing.

The fact that you interviewed a second time suggest that you were discussing the financial portions of the application at the interview - a big no-no. The interview is a chance to meet the applicants face-to-face but should NEVER be used to discuss finances. If you have to reject an application for financial reasons and you have already met them, you may inadvertently open the corporation up for legal action, particularly if the applicant is a member of a protected class.

Good luck!

SidZ - If your coop doesn't know where funds came from for a buyer's deposit on a sale, also consider that it may have been given to the buyer by his/her parents as a "gift" or a "loan". Or it could be from an inheritance or a trust fund. This income could affect the buyer's tax filing. It wouldn't involve your coop but might answer your question as to where funds for a deposit on a sale came from. If so, ask your coop attorney if you can request proof of this from the buyer.

I would ask for written documentation of the source of the deposit. The reason is that it could be a covert loan from someone, with an equally covert, undisclosed agreement to pay the money back, which could affect your assessment of the adequacy of the applicant's income to meet the maintenance on the apt. I wouldn't take general verbal assurances as a substitute. If it's a loan, talk to your lawyer about how you can protect the coop against a future covert repayment agreement.

Every building had a different way of computing the shares per apartment. In our neighborhood, we are one of two virtually identical buildings, e.g.: number of apartments, floors, size of apartments, etc. Our total share count is near 90,000, while the nearby “twin” share count is closer to 60,000. Both buildings have 500 units. Floor plans are identical. Both converted to co-op on the same day.

In my co-op building, the cost for a three bedroom apartment with about 1,500 sq. ft. is $1,800 a month for ten months and $1,550 for the other two months. But be very careful in comparing this cost with any other building.

This cost is inclusive of the pro-rata cost of operating a central heating and a central air conditioning plant, as well as the regular maintenance, taxes, yearly assessment (spread over ten months) and indoor parking.

The only added cost is the electric bill for lights, window units (not PTAC, just fans as the central plant provides heating and cooling liquid to the pipe/fins in the unit), TV, PC and that’s it. All kitchen stoves are natural gas fed and that cost is in the monthly maintenance. And, the building supports a valet cleaners, security (24x7), doorman (24x7), porters and maintenance staff, tennis courts, basketball court, outdoor pools (3) and playground.

Of the $1,800 for the ten months in which the assessment is collected (tax isolation purposes), the assessment for the three bedroom unit totals about $2,500 a year. Based on all shares outstanding, the co-op now collects about $850,000 a year for capital improvements. The assessment was not always at this level as it has been raised about 50 cents a year over the life of the co-op.

Also, the co-op has no underlying mortgage, having retired the original mortgage without ever extending it, taking a 2nd mortgage or refinancing. And by comparison, the “twin” today has a $20,000,000 underlying mortgage having refinanced multiple times.

During the past 25 years, our co-op expended about $15,000,000 in capital improvements e.g.; refurbished upper and lower parking levels, upgraded recreation deck, rebuilt our outdoor pool, performed façade upgrades, replaced about 80% of all windows (remainder are to be completed in 2010), elevators (total overhaul and upgrade), central site cooler/evaporator systems replaced, automated controls installed for heat, domestic hot water and chiller systems, outside driveways and parking completely replaced, all curbs and sidewalks replaced, generator installed for emergency pump, lighting and some elevator operation, installed a new roof (32,000 sq. ft.) installed safety rails around the edge of the flat roof as building had none, refurbished all terraces (most units have a terrace).

Oh and our co-op is one of the lowest cost residences in our neighborhood and we are considered a luxury co-op.

So there are two reserves. Our capital reserves fluctuate and probably never go below $250,000 at year end. Our cash reserve is enough for two months maintenance. And we have a ten digit line of credit at very good banking terms as a safety net. The credit line is employed to pay for capital expenditures only in anticipation of assessment income. We always pay off the line of credit by year end.

It has been said in these forums that every building should collect 13 to 14 months of maintenance. I would agree and lean towards the two extra month value as all buildings age and capital improvements are de rigeuer.

The worst scenario is to take on an interest only mortgage (e.g.: balloon payment) to finance current capital expenditures, thus enjoying short term lower costs and saddling future residents with the costs incurred by past shareholders. In my view, this form of “deferred” financing is fiduciary impropriety or malfeasance.

Finally, our costs each year rise between 3.0% to 4.5%, almost in line with the historic inflation rate.

Hi, Sarah,
The other poster is correct: there's no easy formula. However, if you would like to see one shot at establishing one, go to
http://www.thepinehurst.org/residents.htm
and scroll down to "Manhattan Maintenance" to download a survey.

It looks at maintenance fees per square foot, and compares them by neighborhood. If you download the info, you'll see all the individual apartments listed that were part of the data. You may even see yours.

I agree that maintenance per square foot is a better measurement than per share however even then, is it very subjective. If you take a look at it from the perspective of financial sustainability, "Building A" might have low maintenance, interest only mortgage and plan to assess for capital repairs and replacements while "Building B" may have higher maintenance, a self amortizing mortgage and not plans to assess. Both get to the same point in the end but their approach is different (one could argue that the approach that "Building B" is using is could be less expensive in the end).

If you want, I could take a look at your financial statements to see if I could give you some perspective - free of course. I am a corporate accounting professional at a major NYC based insurer dealing with very large plans.

If the election is uncontested and the proxies are needed only for a quorum, so be it?

If the election is contested then an independent “proxy counter” should be employed. In our case, we use our outside legal counsel and a representative of our outside accounting firm, regardless, uncontested or contested.

This is far less expensive then hiring a proxy counting company.

We are self managed.

Our bylaws indicate that the corporate Secretary is to receive the proxies. But, if the Secretary is running for a position on the board, then it is inappropriate for the Secretary to “receive” the proxies. In this case, we allow our property manager to receive, hold and safeguard the ballots for the outside ballot counters.

Note that shareholders have the option of sending their proxy directly to outside counsel, if they feel more comfortable.

Thank you Ethel, I appreciate your input. You're right, the inspectors are needed only if the election is contested. I wonder, though, if the word "assign" in the bylaws can be meant to "hire" an Inspector. In the case of your coop, it seems the Inspectors are far enough out of the day-to-day business to be impartial. Our property manager is in the thick of it and has personal reactions to several shareholders -- probably not the appropriate person to be counting the votes/proxies. To hire the PM's assistant seems to be inconsistent with the impartiality that is required. But the board president decides and doesn't see the irony of it. It's a conundrum!

If the bylaws are calling for inspectors of election, it really should be by two non-involved Shareholders at the Annual meeting who can tally the votes and determine the outcome. Although it may not be illegal for the Management company to count the votes, allowing an independent group of Shareholders to count the votes will lead to no conflicts of interest.

The PM can always review the work once it is finished and before the results are offered to ensure the consistency of the voting and to make sure that all votes are counted, non-signed proxies are eliminated and that the actual outcome is correct.

It's always easier and more transparent if it is done the correct way.

I agree with you 100 percent, and thank you very much for your sound suggestions.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_content/habitat_s_purchasing_primer_news_for_new_buyers/kitties_n_canines

My building set up a fund for dog owners, where dog owners pay a fee of $250.00 per dog and that money is set aside for any damages or accidents that might happen. It seems to be working. They also have to use the service elevator to transport the dog to/from the apartment.

Upper Eastside Cooperative building.

James: We have a no-dogs policy in my coop but Anonymous's policy to have dog owners pay $250 to be used for damage/accidents caused by dogs sounds good. Anonymous also requires dogs to be transported via the service elevator but if you have no service elevator dogs are a problem for residents who are afraid of them or worry about being bitten in the confines of an elevator.

Dogs also make noise. I also have a condo apt. The people next door have two dogs that bark and howl every time the owners go out and don't stop until they return. The people above have bare floors and a dog that runs constantly. The people below have a dog that they lock in the kitchen when they go to work or out anywhere. It barks a lot when left alone and the noise travels through the vent.

James, dogs are great pets but you might want to stick to your no-dogs rule, especially if you have a small building or your residents are used to not having the issues dogs can bring. Just my opinion.

The benefits of allowing dogs are many. Let alone the benefits to the dog owner, many people like seeing dogs and petting them even if they don't own one. They also like the security of a dog -- neighbors have told me that since my dog doen't bark unless a "stranger" is in the corridor, she's like a watchdog for all of us. We have only one elevator but if a person is frightened of the dog in the elevator with them, the dog owner should have the courtesy to wait for the next elevator, or if the dog is small enough, to pick up & carry the dog. Dogs should "sit" in the elevator and always be on a leash in the common areas of the building, and not be walked to do their business on the building's property, or if the pet has an accident it's the owner's duty to clean it up immediately.
I recommend a lmit on the number of dogs a resident may have at one time, and if you have two entrances to the building, that people use the back or side entrance with their dogs as that might mollify the naysayers. Go for it, and enjoy those dogs!

As a dweller in a small co-op, where we only have one door in and out, I have another perspective on opening up the building to dogs: think in terms of pets in general and set a limit. Really--two dogs in one unit can be very different than one in terms of potential barking problems. Set a size and--this is going to be controversial--prohibit breeds that are deemed dangerous. A good way to find that out is see which breeds home insurance policies will not cover. Also require insurance policies that will cover dangerous breeds if you are going to allow them. Make sure you write very specific house rules and prop rule changes to cover pets. Don't assume all pet owners are conscientious, respectful and have the same standards for cleanliness that you might have with regard to your dog and the building. You may also consider prohibiting "pet clothing" and bedding in laundry machines. We have had to deal with pet hairs all over machines, dogs "blankies" need to be washed! For people with allergies this is really rude. Really try to imagine the worst case scenarios! Good luck!

Hi, ab,
Cutting to the chase, you're probably going to have to remove your window a/c. If the board decides to prohibit them, they may do so, and a judge will most likely side with the board because it has the right under New York State corporate law to run the business as it sees fit (as long as they're acting fairly).

But you think they may be singling you out, which wouldn't be fair. However, you also mention that the e-mail(s) you have received refers to pedestrians on sidewalks being hurt. That is probably because it was a standard e-mail that went to everyone. So it sounds to me as though everyone is being treated equally. If you still think you're being singled out, you can submit the apartment numbers of your neighbors who have window a/c units or simply point out that you're not the only one violating the rules.

You also suggest that the safety of your a/c is irrelevant because your windows don't face a sidewalk. But even windows that face an alley (or other service area) present a danger. After all, the laws of physics apply no matter which way a window faces: an a/c can fall even if it's over a rarely used space. Your super could be killed if an a/c falls on him, no matter what you call the spot he's standing on.

The city requires window a/c units to be properly installed with metal brackets. In my building we require a licensed professional to install them (yes, the city licenses a/c installers). You can be fined if the fire department or building inspector decides your a/c is improperly installed. This is rare, but most people have never heard of it.

As for the lack of a "posting indicating that window AC's need to be removed," posts don't matter -- although they're a nice courtesy. What matters are either the house rules (which may point out specific rules about things in windows) or your proprietary lease, which gives the corporation the authority to decide what can and cannot go in a window.

So even if window a/c's were once permitted, the board may have changed the rules.

If you're still hot under the collar, save yourself some money and check both the house rules and proprietary lease before contacting an attorney.

The bigger question to me is this: how are your wall units blocked? From the inside or the outside? If they're blocked from the outside, the co-op is responsible for clearing the obstruction; I would negotiate to keep your window units (assuming they are properly & legally installed) until the wall units are unblocked.

If they're blocked from the inside, you will have to undertake the work to clear them.

The bottom line to remember: the co-op owns the windows, and has the right to decide what goes in them. It's one of the choices you relinquished when you signed the proprietary lease.

Change the management company with another one.Way too much turn over in the property managers position. Is it the company or is your building too hard for the agent to handle?

Either way the building is suffering!

Sharheolders have urged the current board to replace our managing agent JAL for months now to no avail. The building is not that difficult to manage but our board is all over the place. The current board does not communicate with one another, and as a result there is a complete lack of communication to shareholders. Hopefully at our next election things will change.

Get a petition together requesting a emergency meeting of the shareholders. Then see about getting the Board of Directors out of office, they seem to not be getting things done!

If you should go this route, have a slate of candidates ready to run for the Board.

Good Luck!

thanks for the information. We have an election for a new board coming up in month so hopefully this will lead to a new board and new managing agent.

Thanks for the info. Shareholders in our coop have taken your advice and organzied a petition. once we send the letter to the management and cc: the board what should we expect to happen.

I am an Account Manager for LRC. We provide affordable cleaning and maintenance services for residential properties. We are managing over 30 condominium and co-op properties in the NYC metro area. We can customize a cleaning and maintenance program to suit your individual needs.

I'd like to send you additional information about our services. Please contact me at hans@lrcny.com or at 347-867-4812.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Read your Bylaws... More than likely your ByLaws outlines how the SH can call a meeting. In our building its with a petition signed by ?? number of SH.

Also, EmailPower. Transparancy Rules. Get everyone in the Email loop, Make sure that your Emails are not personal, stick to the subject and the business at hand.

AliceT

Our financial statement is also overdue, and our board also tends to ignore requests for information. Just two days ago our board president accused me of "wasting [her] time" when I wrote to advise about two problems that came to my attention. She said that since I came up with the answers myself later on I should not have written her. Her email was filled with bold print and underlining to make her points. Nevertheless, I'll ask why the financial statement is overdue and keep you posted.

Follow up to North Riverdale financial statement entry:
The board president replied: she turned it over to the property manager to answer, and the property manager passed the ball to the accountant, saying that since our annual shareholders meeting was delayed until June, our financial statement was likewise delayed so that he could prepare the statements of the coops with ASMs earlier than ours. The reason the ASM was delayed was the accountant couldn't be available until June - 3 weeks late.

This is a circular argument. Our ASM was supposed to take place the 2nd Tuesday of May; the financial statement was due in April.

The property manager now says the By-law calling for the financial report in April is "only a guideline" -- essentially, who cares about the shareholders!

Has anyone got any suggestions please?

Well, you can always write a formal letter to the Board, copying the property manager, the accountant, the NY/NJ (whichever state you're in) State Attorney General and the NY/NJ Secretary of State. Be sure to be brief, rational, objective, and factual. Use bullet points, such as the fact that your by-laws state your annual meeting is to be held the second Tuesday of May, and the financial statement was due in April. Summarize your communications with every party to date without name-calling, hyperbolizing, or editorializing. End by asking for a definite date when a) the ASM will be held; b) the financial statement will be mailed.

Make sure the cc: at the bottom lists the Secretary of State by name and title.

Try it; you have little to lose.

To Suggestion: Thank you for your excellent suggestion regarding late financial reports. Some boards seem to think they can abide by only those sections of the bylaws that are comfortable.

We typically complete and publish our annual report in May of each year for the preceding year. It just makes it easier for our outside auditors to complete and submit all our annual tax documents and then prepare the annual report.

But, a word of caution is in order. Our co-op is in superb financial condition, with virtually no hidden agenda or surprises.

So our shareholders are aware of the “program” and we have no adverse comments given the many years we have employed this schedule for publication of the annual report.

Of note is that shareholders have the option of communicating to the corporation’s attorney if one opines that something is untoward or amiss.

Without being strident in emails or letters, a paper trail is always the best vehicle.

Dear AB,

I am a corporate accountant by trade. My co-op kept on receiving late audited financial statements until we switched to Zeidman, Lackowitz, Prisand & Co., LLP (whom I met at an event). We are very happy with their work, access for questions and timing. Our annual meeting is in late June and our financial statements have already been delivered to the shareholders.

I was impressed by your knowledge of finances as evident in your note. From my experience, there are many innocent things that can hold up a Financial Statement. I would be VERY concerned if they are not available by the annual meeting. I would also be very suspicious if they are not available in advance. Handing them out at the annual meeting (if that is the first time you are seeing them) does not give the shareholder time to consider the results.

That being said, I am all in favor of having a healthy sense of skepticism however having a sense of skepticism that exceeds "healthy" can be damaging to the corporation in that it breeds distrust and makes serving on the Board very undesirable. If you have tried working with the Board to address your concerns to no result, then by all means be more proactive however if the Board has a bunker mentality for no valid reason, that is not good.

Steve,

thanks for your input. Shareholders have pressed the board and mngt and we recieved our statement last week. Shareholders have also requested a special meeting to remover several current board members due to their lack of action and lack of communication. Hopefully a new board will lead to a new managing agent at the next annual meeting coming up.