I have noticed news that HR 3648, the Mortgage Debt Forgiveness act was approved by the Senate with changes. I have heard, but have not been able to confirm, that the changes were the ones affecting cooperatives and 80 20 rules.
Since the 80-20 component of this bill is one coops with 80-20 issues should be concerned about, I was wondering if anyone in this forum has any information on what is going on with this legislation.
Any information here is helpful.
Thank you,
Gab
proper repair of leak goes neglected in an apt rented from a sponsor in a coop. extensive mold damage to personal property. who is responsible to reimburse for property damage? the coop? the sponsor who owns the apt? or the residents above who did some construction that may have caused the leak?
At times I am very confused on the following: some
shareholders say we should have an increase in our
maintance and or an assessment to build up our reserves.
a president of another building said you cannot over
charge just to build up reserves. that reserves are for
unforseen issues or emergencies. Yet some residents
say have an incrase in mainteance to build up reserves.
If we have residents pay to build up reserves for the
future are we not asking current residents living in
building now to subsidy future residents. It is my
thought that if you need a new elevator now you ask the
residents for the money now. Also, if we build up our
reserves and a more aggressive board comes along they could
spend all the money in the reserves on whatever and the
money is not going to be there for the future.
I guess my final thought is what are the requirements
for reserves? assessments? and can we increase mainteance
to put into reserves not earmarked for any project but for
future possible emergencies. Help if anyone can tell me
where to look or how to get this issue straight with my
thoughts. thank you
There is a shareholder in this building that has enough votes to get himself on the board and he also has been a chronic source of noise and smoke violations in the building. Recently another board member and shareholder who live on his floor have made complaints about unreasonable noise from his place cause mostly we think by his live in lover--bass music, banging the door at 3 AM etc. They have asked hin nicely to stop it and the Board member argues and denies making any noise, tells the shareholders to soundproof their hallways and then circulates defaming letters from his lover to the Board. Some members of the Board are uncomfortable with sending a formal lawyer's letter to this couple. The Board president thinks it's unfair to vote on taking this action without including the offending Board member in the discussion and vote. I thiknk this is ridiculous -- why don;t we just let the offending Board member write their own letter to themselves? This is very preferntial treatment -- how can we send a letter to any other shareholder about house rule violations and not a Board member who does much worse things. I feel like one member of the Board has something else behind his take no action agenda. How do other building deal with this? Would calling in a mediator help?
Hello everyone,
Article 2, Section 1 of our bylaws states: "The number of directors shall not be less than three (3) and not more than five (5). The first Board elected by the shareholders shall consist of five (5) members."
Section 7 states: " . . . the Board, from time to time, may fix the number of directors of the corporation, provided the number of directors shall not be less than three (3), nor more than seven (7) or such higher number as the shareholders shall have determined pursuant to Article 2, Section 1."
For as long as I have been in the building (since 2002), our board has consisted of four members who live in the building, and a phantom fifth member: the sponsor, who never attends any board meetings and has only attended one shareholders' meeting in the time that I've been here. Several times both when I was on the board and subsequently, action would be proposed and two members would be for it, two against it. Thus deadlocked, no action was taken and a certain inertia seemed to take over. To me it seems most pragmatic to have an odd number of directors and I would like to see an additional person (an actual warm body who would attend meetings and share responsibilities and vote on issues) added to the group. As we are more than 75% owner occupied at this point, must the sponsor even be a board member? The bylaws don't seem to address this.
It seems to me that a board majority could vote to remove the sponsor from the board and, at our next shareholders' meeting, a real flesh-and-blood person could be elected to fill this phantom role and, I hope, make moving forward on issues a little more straighforward.
I hope that I've managed to explain myself here and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks.
to AC and all.
I am concerned that in our building we are paying heating oil with a market floating system and without any cap/pre-buying that keeps us very exposed to any spike.
Could we compare a little the oil price per gallon that you paid/are paying in your buildingS and the kind of contract you carry?
Thank you.
Miriam
Can any of you fine people recommend/know of companies that supply package/mail scanners. We have a very busy package area and rather that log every item we would prefer to scan those items as it is very time consuming.
Santa.
We have a small 14 unit building and the worst house rule and quality of life issues seem to be caused by boyfriends and girlfriends moving in with shareholders of records. Problems range from noise, improper garbage disposal, smoke emigrating between apts and into halls, slamming doors. Does anyone require "live-ins" to be registered with the Board/Management and if so what sort of ID info is needed--socail security, place of employment? At what point is someone considered needed to be identified and made known to the Board. I understand there is a thin line between a right to privacy for shareholders and their personal lives but at what point does it become the right of the Co-op to know who has keys to the building and who they are. Some of these live-ins are receiving public assistance (food stamps and welfare, holding onto rent controlled apartments (all found out through super)while diminishing the quality of life and possibly jeopordizing our security. Any advice out there?
Although I am board president I still represent only one vote on the board.
Therefore, I am often harangued by shareholders who disagree with certain board decisions that I may not have voted in favor of.
However, I am reluctant to say how I voted as I fear it would harm the board dynamic.
Do you face similar situations?
Do you state how each member voted?
Any suggestions?
3 yr illegal sublet caught but board has been told they can not charge the fee and must let the person sublet for a final year given shareholder promises to then sell. (house rules state that one year is allowed and second year subletting only w special permission and this shareholder has already had 2 approved yrs prior to illegal 3 yr sublet. seems like terrible idea. no?
techically she owes about $6500 in fees plus $1000 fine for illegal sublet.
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.
PRESS RELEASE
CONGRESSMAN CHARLES RANGEL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 19, 2007
Contact:
Emile Milne 202-225-4365
Elbert Garcia 212-663-3900
RANGEL LEGISLATION PROVIDES RELIEF TO CO-OPS
Provision would allow housing cooperatives to determine commercial rents without sacrificing tax benefits to shareholders
WASHINGTON - Thanks to the efforts of Congressman Charles B. Rangel, hundreds of housing cooperatives boards in New York City will now have greater flexibility in the rent they charge commercial tenants.
Included in a recently passed Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 (HR 3648) is a measure that allows co-ops to determine commercial rents without the fear that the additional income would disqualify owners from deducting their proportionate share of the building's mortgage interest and taxes. Under current law, co-ops are limited to charging commercial tenants rents that do not total more than 20 percent of the building's total income from rents and cooperator maintenance payments.
Rangel was happy to see that Congress could come together to resolve such a longstanding issue.
"I am extremely pleased that the tax code will treat people who live in co-operative housing the same way as homeowners and condo owners are treated when it comes to their renting out part of their property," said Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. "I hope that this will provide relief from for some from the high housing costs in New York."
Co-ops would be allowed to pass through applicable tax benefits if they meet one of three requirements:
1) If 80 percent or more of the co-op's gross income is from the tenant stockholders
2) If 80 percent of the total square footage of the building is used or for residential purposes.
3) If 90% of the costs of operating the building are for the benefit of the tenant stockholders.
Rangel thanked a number of groups, including the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums, for their support and assistance in helping to tackle this issue.
"By working with advocates and industry groups, we were able to craft legislation that made sense to both sides of the political aisle," said Rangel. "Thanks to the hard work of many, the federal government will be able to provide some relief to families as they struggle with the rising living costs."
The co-op provision included in HR 3648 is part of a larger piece of legislation that was crafted as part of a response to the current subprime mortgage crisis. The legislation would provide relief by permanently excluding debt forgiven under these circumstances from tax liability. It would also help would-be homeowners secure their investments through an extension of the tax deduction for private mortgage insurance, and would ease restrictions for qualifying as housing cooperative corporations.
Amended by the Senate last week, The Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 is expected to be signed by President Bush later this week.
Thank you for rating!
You have already rated this page, you can only rate it once!
Your rating has been changed, thanks for rating!
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.