So basically, you're contemplating opening a service station for this one consumer...

I have some questions:

Why wouldn't the user pay for the installation? It's entirely for his/her convenience, yes?
And shouldn't the resident be billed for the work? He/she would be the only one using it, no? Future users could buy in, I suppose, but if you have only one person requesting it, and thus only one person using it...

Can you run the conduit from this resident's branch line so that his/her meter covers electrical use? That would solve the immediate problem... of course, if/when the resident sells out, the new owner might not want/need the electrical outlet...

Why is the electric company refusing to submeter?

There really are NO outlets in the garage at all?
Are there lights in the garage?
Seems likely there are; wouldn't running a line from them be less expensive? And wouldn't there be an easy way to figure additional electrical use from past bills? Couldn't you just charge the resident the difference?

Just thinkin' off the top of my head -- don't envy you the problem.

Hey "RLM", good points as always

Resident meters are at quite a distance and it is not convenient to run new branch circuits, e.g.: 22 stories.

Resident contacted utility directly and that is response he received as to sub-metering.

Two reasons, that I don't want to attach convenience outlets from lighting circuits: (1) don't want to overload branch circuits as this universe of electric cars grow, (2) our lights are on generator and I don't need to overload generator.

As for funding, I'm thinking that the first user puts up a bond for the installation and as others avail themselves, they pay into the "bond fund" and the users receive a distribution as the universe grows. But, I need to think this through.

Electric cars have been around for years, and they remain about as popular as botulism. Despite considerable research, the battery problems have never been solved, meaning that both speed and miles-between-charges are severely limited. On top of that, the battle against the entrenched corporate interests in oil will be a difficult one even if electric cars manage to overcome their present limitations.

In short, if someone wants equipment for electric car recharging, that shareholder should be prepared to pay every dime of the cost. As you suggest, you might want to set things up so that the person will be partially reimbursed as other shareholders sign up, but the shareholder needs to understand that the reimbursement may be zero.

"As popular as botulism"? The only thing toxic here is your comment.

Major changes in technology typically take time, and a lot of people, in fact, are anxious for electric cars. Already, manufacturers can't keep up with the demand for gas/electric hybrids.

Using politically charged, right-wing-radio-style insult terms as if that makes your argument for you is just appalling. Please make constructive suggestions without the snide asides.

"A lot of people, in fact, are anxious for electric cars." Of course they are, in the same sense they're anxious for a cure for cancer. The problem is that after decades of intensive research, we have neither a cure for cancer nor an electric car that's viable for mass-market use. This is not for lack of effort or lack of a market: both are laudable goals that would simultaneously improve people's lives and earn many millions of dollars.

Progress has been made in both areas, but believing that either problem is on the brink of a general solution is not realistic. For this reason, I suggested to the original poster -- and reiterate now -- that any investment in electric-car infrastructure be solely at the shareholder's expense.

This is a technological opinion, not a political one. (I'm certainly no fan of "right-wing radio"!) I'd *love* to see a mass-market electric car that was functionally equivalent to a gasoline-powered car. In the meantime, there will be a niche market for hybrids -- but again, I would recommend that the extra expenses be paid solely by the (relatively few) shareholders involved.

Do we wish to become an electric car service supply station?

1. Electric automobiles as the world goes “green”

As you are aware, a resident raised the specter that with the advent of battery operated automobiles there is a need for a power outlet (receptacle) to recharge the batteries of such vehicles. Thus the co-op may be asked to develop a program to supply outlets in our garages and perhaps outdoor parking areas for residents to “refill” their batteries. In one’s private home, this is not a challenge.

2. The co-op challenges

A quick summary of challenges includes:
• There is a need to create rules changes that govern the use of such power receptacles.
• A methodology needs to be implemented to sub-meter and charge-back for the power usage.
• Target areas in the garages must be identified for such installations with the forethought that residents may be displaced from one parking spot to another within the same parking level.
• A feeder conduit and cable of suitable power carrying size connecting the electrical switch room in the south wing (fire pump room) to the target areas in the upper and lower garages must be designed and constructed.
• A branch distribution system (circuit breakers, conduits and receptacles) must be installed above a section of parking spaces with the idea that there may be growth in the years ahead.
• The receptacles need to have locking covers or some other encumbrance such that one resident does not inadvertently use the receptacle assigned to another resident.
• A sub-metering system must be installed for each “activated” receptacle to properly chargeback the power usage to the resident. The utility has indicated to the resident raising the question that it does not wish to provide the sub-metering service.
• Suitable sub-metering capture software and billing facilities integration must occur.
• A pricing model needs to be constructed such that co-op recovers the costs of monthly billing, e.g.: 5% to 10% surcharge on any computed bill or statement.
• Co-op also needs to recover any annual or recurring “maintenance” charges, as yet undetermined.
• Start up costs must be assembled upon completion of design.
• A funding model needs to be constructed.
• A “hold harmless” agreement between co-op and the resident needs to be written.

3. Premise for co-op

Co-op needs to be pro active “green”, but given the small or unknown population that may avail themselves of the service, co-op need not underwrite the installation and operating costs, unless the board so decides.
However, co-op may need to support those that wish to acquire vehicles that are dependent upon electricity.
Certainly, co-op will not have all residents absorb the transportation costs, e.g.: electrical usage, of a few.

4. Start-up costs

As noted there is a modicum of design and construction work to be accomplished among other tasks. This narrative is a quick estimate of cost types associated with initiating the service.

• Feeder conduit and cable from electrical switch room to lower garage.
• Tie cable to upper garage from lower garage, including drilling through the deck
• Circuit breaker panels and branch distribution system with locking receptacles to each parking location (e.g.: twelve) per garage level and twelve car parking area
• Sub-metering software. The premise is that co-op will not absorb the usage costs on the co-op building account.
• Sub-metering device, one per receptacle
• Sub-metering data capture cabling and integration
• Legal fees, e.g.: contracts, rules changes, etc.
• Filing and construction fees
• Insurance
• Estimated start-up costs (one vehicle to twenty-four vehicles)
• Sub-metering device, each additional vehicle and installation of same

5. Funding model

As the usage cannot be forecast, a funding model needs to be constructed such that residents availing themselves of the charging facilities effective liquidate the start-up and any expansion costs as well as the ongoing maintenance costs.

6. Buy-in, operating and departure rules

There will be a need to update the co-op rules to accommodate a resident’s buy-in, operation and departure. For instance, if a resident departs before recovering all buy-in costs, the resident abandons the “buy-in”.

Likewise parking space reallocation needs to be included in the new rules.

Interesting conversation. We'd like to do an article on this, even though it may not be a practical problem right now. Frank, could you email publisher@habitatmag.com with your contact info and we'll give you a call?

They work together. Anyone?? Hello. You all buy as a cooperative and save 10-15% plus big $ on service plans.

We have never disclosed the reason for a rejection.

We never interviewed a rejected applicant again.

We have never accepted "paperwork" for a rejected applicant for a second go-around.

All interaction is with our attorney, so there is never a “slip of the tongue”.

Sorry.

We too have rejected applications and did not then proceed with an interview. If challenged, we also do not offer any reason; not required. Having said this, we will issue a 'non-acceptance' letter upon request that reads like this (in form and substance):

(On co-op letterhead/date/to...)
As requested, this is a non-
acceptance letter in connection
with the sale/resale of co-op shares
vs. Apt. X at above address.

Please be advised that the Board of
Directors of X has not approved the
purchase application referenced above.

Sincerely,
(Name of Co-op)
(Authorized signature, i.e. President)

Have your co-op lawyer write the letter. Not only does that insulate you a little more, it means your attorney is on-board from the beginning in case the applicant become litigious.

Your coop should, by now, have developed form letters to respond to situations such as these... "our board does not disclose reasons for rejection, and the law does not require us to do so," blah blah blah.

Having a co-op lawyer formulate individual letters can add up to expensive (and unnecessary) bills.

Our board has not set any particular asset requirements. However, in recently reviewing our purchase application, we did make a distinction between liquid assets and nonliquid assets. We included retirement accounts (as well as other things) in the nonliquid asset category.

Do you not audit your bill upon arrival?

Doesn't your management company audit each bill?

If not something is amiss.

what managing agent is that competent?

Explore Vantage Group. They helped us save $10,000. This website has frequently asked questions under "Water" answered on video by the Vantage Group expert in the field http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_content/ask_the_experts Good luck and good savings!

You are setting a precedent for common public areas of your building to be employed for personal use.

You are opening a door for others to claim the right to use the area for their religious beliefs.

You are opening the door for the common area to be employed by others for their personal use, regardless of religious connotation or not. Is this what you want? Who will administer. Who will vote yea or nay?

Sounds draconian, but never make an exception and you won't have a fight and possibly a lawsuit in the days, weeks, months and years ahead.

Please protect your common areas.

Kindly think long term.

that is a silly suggestion. You just make them sign a special waiver aan then relax and enjoy the event. we should all stop being so uptight. it shows no forsight or understanding of the full ability to enjoy life.

If a waiver is recommended, then one is out of pattern and should (must) employ an attorney.

Once begun, volunteer board members (the unpaid stalwarts) may be faced with the need for more out of pattern waivers.

But, as noted above, what if someone is declined a waiver? When and where does it end, and at what cost?

seriously - just let them hold the event. i have seen this on 91st and riverside drive and it looked very nice. very fancy condo. nobody cared and nobody tried anything else.

The fact that the recent posting asserts “nobody tried anything else” is of no value in a court of law. Precedents prevail.

Why open the door for more board work?

Abide by the rules and live in harmony.

What was that poem?

It was Robert Frost’s “Good fences make good neighbors”; well good rules make good neighbors as well.

If the board ever turns down a request, you could be thrown into a legal-wrangle, that will become an emotional issue with the SH, cause hard feelings, all of which could have been avoided.

It would be nice to lighten-up, but once this starts, the board will have to approve EVERY application, and believe me -- you dont want to go there.

VP

If large corporations merge and are sold, why can't a co-op be sold?

I'm sure that you will read your by-laws for dissolution of the corporation and the required minimum number of shares that will have to accept the sale of the property.

What is the reason? ...Repairs required for the property much larger than the value of the property?

Total destruction of the property?

Value of the property much larger than the market value of the individual units as a whole?

AdC

Typically, most bylaws require 80% of the shares outstanding, not the units, to agree to change the by-laws, thus changing the ownership or the dissolving the corporation in my view, falls in this category, e.g.: 80% of the shares.

If a co-op can convert to condo (e.g.: 80% of the shares voting affirmatively), which in effect dissolves the co-op corporation, one should be able to sell the property and distribute the proceeds.

In this case, as you are evicting those who did not vote affirmatively, one needs to check whether any NY State statues or laws inhibit the “eviction”.

Sorry for the late response -- I didn't spot this earlier.

The short answer is YES, the coop corporation can indeed be voluntarily dissolved and the building sold. It is very rare, but it might occur (for example) if a developer wants to buy your building, tear it down, and put up something else in its place.

For the dissolution procedure, you'll need to check your Proprietary Lease. In our lease -- which was based on the same template as many other NYC coops -- the relevant details are in Paragraph 31(g): Termination of Lease by Lessor / Termination of All Proprietary Leases:

"If at any time the Lessor shall determine, upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of its then Directors at a meeting of such Directors duly called for that purpose, and the affirmative vote of the record holders of at least 75% in amount of its then issued shares at a shareholders' meeting duly called for that purpose, to terminate all proprietary leases..."

Michael raises an interesting issue about the legality of "evicting those who did not vote affirmatively," and I don't know whether a court has ever ruled on this point. However, the courts have resoundingly upheld Section (f) of the same paragraph, which allows coops to terminate a Proprietary Lease against a shareholder's wishes in the case of "objectionable conduct" by the shareholder.

You might want to consult one of the disabled organizations - you'd get free input and raise good will at the same time.

Is the ramp really necessary?

Check Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)as your building may be exempt if the cost is prohibitive or requires major structural changes.

If you must proceed, there are also ADA guidelines for construction of ramps, e.g.; width, handrails, slope length per inch of rise, etc.