If the board did not already write her letters abut the illegal dogs then you have a problem. There is time frame....

Yes, we did, without going into detail, there has been notice served, However, we were just wondering, the non-Board approval withstanding, whether there were any past cases of shareholders with dogs defecating on outdoor private premises we could learn of. Who would ever have thought to put in a prop lease that animals were not allowed to defecate on terraces, rear yards. I know people paper train dogs to go inside their own apts. but that is different-it remains within their unit. The question is, is the terrace the same as in their own unit?

BN: Could the dogs be puppies, or dogs that previously lived in a house with access to the outdoors, and not paper-trained? Maybe your SH is training them on the terrace so he won't have to do it in his apt. It's a chore, and can be a smelly one, especially in an apt if space is very limired, to paper-train 1 dog, let alone 3.

Per law, people who get dogs in a no-dogs building or don't have permission for them if it's required must be notified within 90 days of when you first know about them that they can't stay and go to another home.

I assume you won't give the SH permission to keep the dogs. If he won't relocate them, ask your coop attorney what to do. If you don't have one or he don't know the answer, call the ASPCA at 212-876-7700 and ask them what to do. If whoever you talk to doesn't know, he can probably refer you to someone who does. Their Humane Law Enforcement Dept. only deals with pets that are abused or neglected. I don't know if they can help with your situation, but it's worth a call.

If you let the SH keep the dogs, tell him to put a tarp or non-transparent shield around the terrace so neighbors can't see the dogs. Hopefully, this terrace issue is temporary if the SH is paper-training them. If odors of cleaners are offensive, tell the SHs he's interfering with the right of other SHs to enjoy their apts. If this doesn't work, the only other thought I have is to consult your MA and/or coop attorney.

I hope my comments here are of some help.

Thanks for your response. The dogs are puppies but this does not appear to be a temporary training situation--the shareholder fully intends to use the rear patio as a dog run and has no intentions of walking the dogs for purposes of them relieving themselves. The situation is offensive to other shareholders who have to view wee wee pads on patio 24/7 outside their windows and have to listen to the training sessions as they occur. They will not be given Board Approval and we have exercised our rights within the time frame as regards making sure we do not waive rights. Just wondering what other Boards have done or would do in this case. We are dog-friendly but this situation has never come up before. All other pet owners are shreholders in good standing and take dogs out to releive themselves or keep paper WITHIN their units.

BN: If your SH uses his patio as a permanent dog run and won't walk the dogs outside, and if the sight and odor of training pads and cleaners + listening to the SH training the dogs is disturbing neighbors, I suggest you ask your coop lawyer what to do. These acts are, from what you say, obviously preventing the SH's neighbors from being able to enjoy their apts which would be a breach of the Proprietary Lease.

Also, although none of your other current SHs let dogs use their patios in this way, maybe your board should enact a policy or add terms to the House Rules that clearly outline what is and isn't permitted re: the maintenance of dogs (or other pets) within the building so this type of issue can be avoided in future with other SHs.

Joe - I'm not clear on whether the charges your MA placed on your monthly bill were for all SHs or for one specific SH.

The MA can, for example, bill a specific SH for apt work the SH is responsible for that the coop's plumber, electrician, etc. did, or if the work included items like faucets or lighting that the SH wanted replaced or had to be replaced. A SH may also be billed for damage s/he caused to the building. The MA can bill a SH for such charges. If the SH thinks the charges are incorrect, he should talk to the MA about it.

If charges were billed to all SHs for things that all SHs have to pay, the board should be aware of it and know if the charges are correct or not. If there's a question and the MA cannot, or will not, explain it to the board's satisfaction, the board should discuss it with the mgmt firm's billing dept and/or one of the MA's superiors. The MA is usually the liason between them and the coop board, but if mgmt thinks an error has been made and can provide proof of it, the board should make sure that it is corrected.

Folks,

As always it depends on the corporation’s by-laws. Yes, most allow the collection of assessments for capital improvements and for capital reserves. Some by-laws mandate that a capital reserve fund be maintained. It is also good fiduciary practice to have a capital reserve fund as well as a regular reserve fund. Does the co-op have any “reserve” funds or does the corporation live hand to mouth?

Our 500 unit co-op typically has a capital reserve fund hovering near $1,000,000 (which fluctuates dramatically during the year as we have an AICPA mandated twenty-year capital asset evaluation program and plan of funding capital improvements each and every year, e.g.; elevators, generator, windows, roof, driveways, boilers, parking garage decks, recreation deck, swimming pool, tennis courts, fire detection system, computers, roof fans, etc.) and a working capital reserve fund near $500,000.

Yes, we assess each and every year, and even the assessment does not fluctuate. It increases slightly each year. It is collected during ten of twelve months each year to meet IRS regulations regarding separation of ordinary income and capital assessment income.

So my vote is that corporation gets to hold the funds if the by-laws mandate the collection and maintenance of the reserve fund.

According to a discussion on tenant.net, the lessor (the co-op corporation in your case) is NOT required to install security bars on windows, only child safety guards.

I have no idea if this is accurate, but the poster seemed pretty sure about it.

In this instance, I'd say the Board should check with your co-op's legal counsel for an opinion on the liability issues involved. My gut says it's the responsibility of a Shareholder for the windows in their apartment, and the responsibility of the co-op for bars on windows in the common areas.

How is this any different from gates on windows off fire escapes, which are up to individual Shareholders?

Regardless who is responsible the coop should make sure the bars/gates are of the approved kind. You do not want anyone trapped inside in case of fire.

Check with your co-op counsel; if you wish not to spend money check the NYC Builidng Code as to what is required.

Finally, if it is not required, your Board may wish to keep it standard. So, you may wish to have the Board specify the type of bars (ornamental, plain, with A/C space accommodation, etc. so that the first floor is standard.

AdC

In my view, it depends. If the building is in an area which experiences higher crime rates than neighboring areas or where street level break-ins are prevalent, then it may behoove the co-op to install “security bars” as opposed to child safety guards.

But, it is not cut and dry.

In this case (crime deterrence vs. child protection), an owner subject to a break-in may be able to sue the co-op for not protecting the owner’s quiet enjoyment of the domicile.

The counter argument is that the shareholder can install a suitable burglar alarm system to deter break-ins.

Since the safety of all residents, not just those on the ground level, is important to all residents and the quality of life in the building, it can thus be opined that the co-op should upon prudent reflection fund and install aesthetically pleasing security bars.

Do you want the bars? If you want the bars and the building is telling you to pay for them then they are correct. If they want the bars and you don't then I seem to recall a recent case where the building wanted to put the bars and the shareholder didn't want them. The shareholder won. If they want the bars and want you to pay, they should pay you for the decrease in value for your apartment. What about an alarm system?

Always better when you have resident owners. Sublets tend not to have a real interest in the building: how it looks, what's going on, etc. Having a higher percentage of resident owners is better for mortgage-seekers, too, I believe.

Investors (holders of unsold shares) also do not need board approval to sell to other investors, or to sublet. If your co-op has sublet fees, they are also not subject to them.

Especially now that we are going back into a time of very tight credit -- banks want to see a high percentage of owner-occupants, which investors will never be.

PROS: If the investor is "designated by the Sponsor" (in the language
of the Offering Plan), this usually means that a guarantor is backing
up the deal in case of default. We actually had four such apartments
in our building -- all rent-controlled -- that were sold by the
sponsor to various investors under such an arrangement. In the dark
co-op days of the early 1990s, *all* of the investors defaulted.
Luckily, the guarantor (Fannie Mae) continued to pay maintenance
until the apartments were sold to new investors in the late 1990s.

This was especially important to our co-op because the sponsor
defaulted as well! The rent on the rent-controlled apartments
didn't even come close to covering their share of operating expenses,
so the shortfall would have come out of the pockets of our
shareholders if it weren't for Fannie Mae.

CONS: A true "Holder of Unsold Shares" requires no Board approval
to sell, sublet, or renovate the unit. The subletting issue is
usually the worst problem, since an investor can essentially
turn the apartment into a rental unit and there's nothing you
can do about it.

A sticky question remains unresolved: what happens if the shares
are sold to an investor *not* designated by the sponsor? Is that
follow-up investor *also* a Holder of Unsold Shares with the
right to bypass the Board on sale/sublet/renovations? For years,
guidelines from the Attorney General's office said that such a
person had no special rights, but this was overturned in 2005
in Kralik v. 239 E 79. Under Kralik, until a shareholder lives
in the apartment (for even a day), *any* investor is a Holder
of Unsold Shares.

Kralik was decided by New York's highest court (the Court of Appeals)
and remains the official standard. In 2007, however, the judge in
Sassi-Lehner v. Charlton Tenants Corp. ruled that the Offering Plan
was the "crucial cooperative document." This meant that only an
investor specifically designated by the sponsor -- typically with
a guarantor in place -- was a Holder of Unsold Shares. This makes
sense, as the co-op receives the benefit of a guarantor in exchange
for giving up its Board approval rights.

This is a messy issue and it may not have a definitive answer
any time soon. For the moment, it's probably best to assume
that any investor whatsoever will have special rights that are
not beneficial to the co-op.

be careful to go with a company that has been around a long time. Many "roofing co's" change their name every few years so they dont have to honor warranties. Also, do NOT go to co's recommended by your managing agent - do your own research. Seriously, this is true.

I am Resident Manager, and at my previous when i was a working superintendent we had to have our flat roof redone. The cheapest way is not always the best way. I like (Synthetic Membranes). The use of synthetic membranes has just about eliminated the need for gravel on roofs. Why? Because many of these new roof membranes are glued down to the roof sheathing. Not only that, the new membranes contain materials that resist UV degradation. If you can install a new flat roof without gravel, do it!

We had a new roof installed about 4 years ago now - cold-rolled (synthetic membrane). Lots of protruding pipes. Process was smooth sailing and we have at least a 20-year warranty.

Be happy to give you more info if you're interested.

If you are employing an engineering company for the replacement, these are the individuals whose brains should be picked. Ask why they favor one type of roof over another, etc. Also, what you discuss initially with the engineer will probably drive to a great extent the selection of the roof. If someone is looking for a green roof, then the engineer will recommend the green roof or will tell you why he/she does not favor it for your specific structure. If you say, you do not have much money to spend on your roof, your deck may be overlooked to a great extent and he/she may try to get a second layer if possible at a lesser cost.

Again, engineers will do the recommendation based on the prelliminary study and based on your initial conversation to ensure that the work that they will finally sign off pleases the customer and the budget. No sense in designing a rolls royce if you can only pay for a chevy.

AdC

In my opinion, management companies, these days, appear to engage in many related businesses that enable them to increase revenue.

The Bible says something like you cannot serve two masters at the same time... Well, being a leasing broker and a building manager may not be compatible in a co-op. This may be okay for a rental, in which the leasing office may be under the property manager's scope. Again, a manager's role must be specified by the contract. Management companies may have their own real estate, commercial leasing brokers, etc, but you have to make sure that your manager provides the support to the property that you expect. Let other members of the same organization to run the leasing aspect if these departments are divided and you sign the contract to represent you.

AdC

how about the statement below? (from an article) and what would the current interest rate be?

Care must be given, however, to ensure that the proprietary lease authorizes those particular charges, otherwise the co-op opens itself up to counter-claims by the shareholder and for his or her legal fees, if the shareholder is successful.

The most common abuse by co-ops is the inclusion of cumulative late charges, such as $25 the first month, $50 the second month, $75 the third month and so on.

This type of late charge structure violates not only most proprietary leases (which provide that late fees can only be charged equal to the maximum legal rate of interest), but also violates usury laws. Since the purpose of the rent demand, or "Notice to Cure," is to afford the shareholder the opportunity to determine the claim’s accuracy, only those charges which are legal and permissible should be included in the notice.

Do you have staff that may be ready for promotion?

With a little help from your management company, a good porter/handy man that may have worked side by side with your previous super and had learned a lot about your particular building may be a good fit and would warrant a look.

Then you just need to replace the porter.

Thank you but no, we dont have anyone on staff that can fill this position.

This is a great job, its hard to believe that its so difficult to find qualified applicants.

HG

Here's a resource to explore http://www.nysupersclub.org/ for job postings at http://www.nysupersclub.org/jobssupers.htm.

Good luck!

I may be to help you out with some Superintendents. If you would like to call me at 212-319-8375 I can set you up with some resumes. I am presently the President of the Manhattan Resident Managers Club, Inc. and I always have members that are looking another position.

Mike MacGowan

I was featured in a habitat article last january The Super Man!

joeshkreli@yahoo.com is my e-mail address I have a great network of honest and Very handy people.I am a Resident Manager with great leads that can make you very happy. My last position when i left i made sure the board knew that they were not just hiring a new employee, but they were bringing a stranger into their home to live with them.So please contact me with any questions or concerns. I enjoy helping people.

Joe, Thank you for your response. We did hire a Super (refered by our prev Super) but I will keep your Emial address... The number of unqualified applicants was surprising. And our Mang Agent was of very little help..

Thank you HG