A Flip Tax also known as a Transfer Fee brings money into the building and is certainly better than an increase in maintenance. There is a % that a board can choose. An assessment is basically for a longer term project that generally expires in approximately 1 to 2 years to pay for a particular project. What I have experienced so far is my understanding.

We charge a flat $500 flip tax on sales to add a few dollars to the reserves each year. We have been doing an assessment annually, approximating the annual coop abatements/star/senior/vet credits granted by the city and state. It helps keep the maintenance down without taking extra money out of everyone's pockets.

Instead of a $500.00 flip tax there should be a % which would most likely bring in more revenue to the building. What is the reason for doing an assessment annually? That's a little much. I agree in keeping maintenance down, but doing annual assessments is almost the same thing as maintenance increases, as far as I can see. We have a 1% Transfer Fee on a sale, some buildings have a 2% which can be paid by the seller or broker or split between both. The % is the % of the sale price. If you sell an apartment for $400,000, the Fee coming to the building would be $4000.00. That's better than a flat fee of $500.00. What do you think?

Do most buildings exempt both or either sponsor owned units when the sponsor sells that unit and/or original shareholders (commonly called insiders) of the flip tax? If yes, can the 'rule' be changed to now charge them?

Generally, the prospectus allows the sponsor to transfer shares to a buyer without incurring any fees from the coop corporation. So, they are basically exempt from paying it. You could still charge the flip tax and collect it from the buyer. Nothing says the tax must be paid by the seller.

Thank you. Understand about the sponsor. What about original shareholders who brought during the 'red herring' period? Commonly called insiders, as they rented in the building prior to the conversion to coop status. Can they be required to pay the flip tax as well?

Maintenance: A co-op's mandated, continuous, and predictable source of income. Used to pay a buildings operating expenses.

General Assessment: A co-op's mandated but time-period-limited source of income. Usually established for a set period of months and used to pay for a co-op's one-time expenses like capital improvements and repairs.

R/E Tax Abatement Assessment: A procedure used by co-ops to offset the R/E tax abatement the Dept of Finance grants directly to shareholders. The abatement reduces the amount of annual R/E tax the co-op owes, but since the money saved by the abatement is supposed to be passed through by the co-op directly to shareholders, the co-op never sees any direct benefit from the abatement. The R/E Tax Abatement Assessment is usually enacted each year by co-ops and is calculated to be the same amount as the abatement. Thus the net effect of the abatement on the co-op's operating income is negligible.

Transfer "Flip" Tax: A fee imposed by a co-op on the transfer of its shares from seller to purchaser. It can be an absolute fixed amount, a fixed amount per share, a percentage of the purchase price, a percentage of the net sales income, or any other calculation based on the transaction. Transfer Tax should be used to "top off" capital reserve accounts. It should never be relied on when calculating a budget or predicting annual income, because it is completely unpredictable. If there are no sales during a year, there's no additional income.

Bottom line: Each source of income serves a different purpose and in most circumstances they are not interchangeable. In governing a co-op, income predictability is paramount and the different revenue streams should be relied on accordingly.

Hello BBCA;

Higher maintenance is a somewhat permanent condition, and is not a competitive re-sale feature.

A one month assessment can be less of a deterrent to buyers,especially if they missed the assessment. However, if the one month assessment is an annual event, and is a 100% increase or more over the base maintenance charge, this could also be a negative re-sale feature.

The expense of the flip tax on the other hand, can always be negotiated between the buyer and the seller to accommodate the dynamics of the deal.

In summary, my recommendation would be for the board to impose a one month assessment if it is less than 100% above the base maintenance fee and to revisit the matter each year for potential change in the policy based on need, or surplus. The second, less desirable choice would be the flip tax. Raising the maintenance fees should be avoided if at all possible.

Hello BBCA;

Higher maintenance is a somewhat permanent condition, and is not a competitive re-sale feature.

A one month assessment can be less of a deterrent to buyers,especially if they missed the assessment. However, if the one month assessment is an annual event, and is a 100% increase or more over the base maintenance charge, this could also be a negative re-sale feature.

The expense of the flip tax on the other hand, can always be negotiated between the buyer and the seller to accommodate the dynamics of the deal.

In summary, my recommendation would be for the board to impose a one month assessment if it is less than 100% above the base maintenance fee and to revisit the matter each year for potential change in the policy based on need, or surplus. The second, less desirable choice would be the flip tax. Raising the maintenance fees should be avoided if at all possible.

Hello BBCA;

Higher maintenance is a somewhat permanent condition, and is not a competitive re-sale feature.

A one month assessment can be less of a deterrent to buyers,especially if they missed the assessment. However, if the one month assessment is an annual event, and is a 100% increase or more over the base maintenance charge, this could also be a negative re-sale feature.

The expense of the flip tax on the other hand, can always be negotiated between the buyer and the seller to accommodate the dynamics of the deal.

In summary, my recommendation would be for the board to impose a one month assessment if it is less than 100% above the base maintenance fee and to revisit the matter each year for potential change in the policy based on need, or surplus. The second, less desirable choice would be the flip tax. Raising the maintenance fees should be avoided if at all possible.

Hello BBCA;

Higher maintenance is a somewhat permanent condition, and is not a competitive re-sale feature.

A one month assessment can be less of a deterrent to buyers,especially if they missed the assessment. However, if the one month assessment is an annual event, and is a 100% increase or more over the base maintenance charge, this could also be a negative re-sale feature.

The expense of the flip tax on the other hand, can always be negotiated between the buyer and the seller to accommodate the dynamics of the deal.

In summary, my recommendation would be for the board to impose a one month assessment if it is less than 100% above the base maintenance fee and to revisit the matter each year for potential change in the policy based on need, or surplus. The second, less desirable choice would be the flip tax. Raising the maintenance fees should be avoided if at all possible.

My coop imposed a 3 percent flip tax paid by the seller. The board did this to raise revenue and the results were unsatisfactory. No one wanted their maintenance to go up so the flip tax was the only way to raise revenue. It was irregular and inefficient, the buildings fell into disrepair. In order to rectify the situation 2 assessments were made permanent and a 14 percent maintenance increase on top of that. Needless to say I am not a fan of flip tax for needed revenue.

By saying that the terraces have exclusive use of the owners, that means that they are common property. While you could encourage co-owners to remove the snow (providing they can open doors to do so), as common property, I would say that you are responsible.

Thanks Ned and info@askthepropertymanager.com; sorry if I was unclear, info@askthepropertymanager.com interpreted it correctly. Will check the by-laws and discuss with the attorney. Thanks!

Hello CondoPrezDC;

If I am understanding your e-mail, the terraces can only be used by the individual home that each one is attached to. Most likely, the terraces are considered "common area restricted in use" to the residents of that home, but only the By-laws for your community can definitively advise if the resident or the condo is responsible for maintaining those terraces. The burden of who maintains "common areas restricted in use" varies from community to community and I have seen both ends as well as middle of the spectrum in different By-laws.

While I agree with Ned in Toronto about encouraging the residents to remove the snow, in view of the potential liability associated with a snow related terrace collapse, it might be a wise idea to have your community's attorney interpret your By-laws and guide your board accordingly.

Feel free to check our website askthepropertymanager,com for our Quick Tip of The Week regarding snow removal.

Most management companies will provide a contract. Here is a good article regarding contracts. http://cooperator.com/article/negotiating-management-contracts
If you are looking at preparing your own, there are many samples on line such as this one: http://www.uhab.org/sites/default/files/doc_library/Sample_Mgt_Agreement.pdf.

As far as salaries for a resident manager that you hire on your own (versus hiring a company), Indeed.com posts average salaries as well as job postings so that you can compare what other condo's are offering: http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Property-Manager-l-New-York,-NY.html.

I will assume that your board has to approve the purchasers and prepare what I will call a Buyers Package of some sort? That package should include whether or not the unit is in arrears and how much is owing. The buyer should have known this before purchasing and have made some arrangement with the seller; e.g. seller pays all; buyer pays all; they split it. If you do not have a process like this, then you will have to make an arrangement with the seller. You mention that the arrears is for several years; as a result and since you have not collected, you may have to write off a portion of those arrears as they are deemed noncollectable (in Toronto, Canada, we have a 2 year debt statue) - is there a limitation in New York? I would consult with a lawyer; which is what you probably should have a long time ago so that the arrears were not $25,000.

Thats a very odd situation. Is the bank that approving the short sale the same bank granting a loan to the new buyer? I recall having to provide numerous pieces of documents to the new buyer's bank (i.e., common charge letter, waiver of first refusal, etc.) Like others have said, play hard ball if you are on the board. If you do not provide assurance to the buyer's bank to make them comfortable, the loan won't get done and no sale will take place. Make sure those liens are filed.

Also, amend those bylaws, get 2/3s of the voting shares, that is typically all you need - make sure the bylaws clearly state the board can issue rules. Then as the board, issue rules to get this fixed and in order. You should get an attorney to help you out if you don't have one already.

This is a question you should ask your condo's attorney. IMHO your board should not agree to any reduction or forgiveness of arrears. The unit owner received full benefits during the time they didn't pay and also put an extra financial burden on the rest of the condo community.

This is an issue which needs to be worked out between seller and buyer. Your attorney will make sure the condo is fully reimbursed for all the months of arrears, and will know how to "convince" the two parties to the sale that they need to make the condo whole before the sale can be closed.

The person who owes several years of maint, was sued, then liens, then died, then estate took over and more liens all re-filed vs estate. On-going saga. We have a lawyer involved. They owe the bank if you add in all late payments and legal fees two or three times of condos current market value.

We stopped legal action a few months ago as we were told a short sale was pending and we would be paid back maint in full. Now we have back-peddling where the claim the bank wont pick up arrears, seller does not want to and buyer wants a deal.

Normally the condo should get paid I feel and bank should take less based on fact buyer has to pick up arrears.

So in general in condos in NY who pays arrears in a short sale?

Has the board already approved the sale?

If not, and the sale price is really below market price as you say, maybe it's worth looking at exercising the right of first refusal and buying at that price and reselling it later? Depending on the numbers involved, this might (or might not) be the best way to extract some value from the situation.

Our Condo building does not have the right of first refusal and we don't approve sales. The only reason we are involved is we have liens on property for back maint and seller/buyer want to transfer title via a short sale and dismiss the liens. He wants clean title.

In NY the banks dont have to pay any outstanding arrears. Many banks refuse to pay any back due maint. In this case it is one of the mortgage crisis era CMO/MBS bundled mortgage loans.

In a normal condo sale in the building condo is not really involved at all. Basically the management agent is just asked for proof maint is current and the latest financials and offering plan. The board itself often has no clue who is buying unit nor do we really care. Our condo was set up that way. Although now we think we should add the Right of First Refusal but we have to figure out what is involved.

Your board doesn't have first right of refusal *or* approve sales?

Could you let me know which building this is? I'd love to buy an apartment in your building, live maintenance free, and then sell the apartment a few years down the track.

We do not have right of first refusal and we don't approve sales and we dont approve renters. And have no rental restrictions.

We do sue folks, go for garnishments, file liens etc. Once we got a judgement to take the furniture and car of a unit owner. His wife quickly paid up.

If a buyer is paying cash and not getting title insurance it can be transferred with liens attached. We had folks do it.

On a side note is it unusual my condo in NY does not have a right of first refusal and we dont approve buyers or renters? We also do not have the ability to fine people. Not in our by-laws. We do go after non-payers full throttle and we only have 3 percent arrears and those 3 percent all have liens and judgements in place.

I've never heard of a condo without right of first refusal - would be interesting to know just how uncommon it is.

Obviously it's rarely exercised since the association rarely has much of a reason, nor the spare cash, to make a purchase, but it's a useful fallback in extreme cases. What would be your current course of action if a parolee murderer / pedophile took a liking to one of the apartments in the building?

We don't approve sales so I would never know who is buying into building. Usually we get a request from an owner or a realtor for outstanding maint a few days before closing. Our condo lawyer does not attend closing.

I had someone move in who was actually wanted by Police, we also have no rules on smoking, pets, etc. Two chain smokers, with two pit bulls out on Parole for Murder can buy in building. I have no clue who buyers are.

The building has been very nice for many years. But it seems the last three years we are getting a lot of smokers, folks with large dogs, folks buying to rent units, folks buying in LLCs you name it as we are one of last condo buildings around that operates as a true condo. Not a quasi coop.

One other concern we have is so far no one owns more than 10% of units. But with no approving buyers we could end up with a owner who owns more than 10% of units and lose fannie eligibility and put us at greater risk if that owner defaults.

My condo is from all the way back in the 1970s. When condos were almost unknown. Everything was coops. As such the offering plan was barebones.

Condo act had many changes in the 1980s-1990s and offering plans included such stuff.

Our condo had very little turnover for many many years. Up till 1999 we had most of original owners from 1979. When prices took off folks started cashing out in the 2003-2008 bubble, we had original owners start dying off, then in 2009-2013 real estate crash. We had folks who over leveraged themselves start losing units.

My condo unheard of today. Owners are responsible for own windows, exterior doors, balconys and Heat and Water. Lucky for us we are not a high rise. And guess what do a renovation of your unit. No approval needed. As long as you dont touch condo elements or attempt to poke a hole in the exterior walls.

Some new buyers are confused when they call managing agent and say they have no heat, AC does not work, water heater is leaking, paint on their exterior door and window is pealing or balcony needs work. And managing agent tells them they are not responsible and neither is condo association. Some folks skim offering plan. And it is fairly unusual.

Normally the bank would but not that is not always the case. Here is a interesting blog, from California. It appears that if you had a lien on the unit, then the bank would have to pay. If not, it seems that it is their discretion.
Don't close the sale - you don't have to approve the sale of the unit. Play hard ball and negotiate 50% of the outstanding amount and write the rest off.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/1865631/who-pays-late-hoa-fees-on-a-condo-short-sale-

One mistake in that article. My condo bylaws clearly state if you buy a condo with condo liens attached the new owner assumes the liens/debt. Unless of course wiped out in bankruptcy.
We have and do sue new owners. And re-file liens after purchase in new owners name. We still try to sue and do a judgement and garnishment on old owner at same time. Remember a condo is real property. You can transfer title to a new owner without condo involved at all.

if this was not the rule in this case buyer would just buy the condo cash with no title insurance with the liens on property and flip me the bird.

"Occasionally an HOA, usually out of ignorance, may attempt to collect the unpaid dues from the new owner. If this occurs, the new owner may have to fight with the HOA to straighten out the record. If the HOA puts up a fight, the new owner may even have to hire a lawyer to clear up the matter."

If the seller and the buyer are being completely unreasonable about paying off the unpaid arrears, the board or it's agent can submit a bill in full at the time of closing a/k/a the required "closing letter" or "account ledger". This is required for all title transfers. All parties involved in the closing(buyer, ,seller. banks) will most likely revisit the matter rather quickly and come up with a much better offer to settle the arrears at the risk of the deal falling apart at the last minute. Hopefully of course, this would require the board's attorney or a board member to be prepared to get a call with a new offer to settle a greater portion of the arrears, so please be sure to have an idea of what your board will accept if this is the route you are forced to take.

If the seller and the buyer are being completely unreasonable about paying off the unpaid arrears, the board or it's agent can submit a bill in full at the time of closing a/k/a the required "closing letter" or "account ledger". This is required for all title transfers. All parties involved in the closing(buyer, ,seller. banks) will most likely revisit the matter rather quickly and come up with a much better offer to settle the arrears at the risk of the deal falling apart at the last minute. Hopefully of course, this would require the board's attorney or a board member to be prepared to get a call with a new offer to settle a greater portion of the arrears, so please be sure to have an idea of what your board will accept if this is the route you are forced to take.

The By-laws of your community/building may very well contain the language that pertains to common/maintenance charges that are in arrears and how much can be collected in the event of title transfer(sale). The board understandably wants to collect as much as possible on behalf of the community/building, but may very well have to depend on strong negotiating by holding firm with it's own attorney in how much money it is looking to recoup. Very important; in a condo, though board approval for re-sales is not required, the buyer's bank (even in a short sale) will still require a "closing letter" which the condo or management company submits at the closing which shows the arrears balance, so if the board is in a position where the buyer and seller are being completely unreasonable about paying off the arrears, the board can ultimately play the card of submitting a closing letter showing a bill in full for all arrears owed at the closing, and there may be some rapid negotiating at the closing table to settle up a good chunk of those arrears so that all parties in the room do not lose the deal. Good luck.

I assume you are in New York? Here is a great link that will answer your question http://www.nycrgb.org/ or simply dial New York 311 and speak to someone.

If you are in a co-op or condo, and there are no special clauses about subtenant rent increases in your proprietary lease or other governing documents, and you did not purchase your apartment with any NYC rent stabilization or rent control entitlements, there should not be any limits on how much you can increase the rent. Your sublet is market rate and can be as much as the market in your area can bear. You might ask a realtor who specializes in market rate rentals in your area what the going rate is for an apartment with the same characteristics as your's.

I think the "average" can range all over the map, depending on what in the building's common areas can be damaged and how much it will cost to repair. In our building, the average alteration fee is $750 to $1,000. This covers damage to the hall walls and flooring, damage to the elevator, and damage in the front entrance and lobby. At the end of the renovation, if there is no damage, the fee is returned.

A part of the fee can be retained by the building if any of the building staff performs work on your behalf that takes time away from their normal responsibilities, like common area cleanup, door security, service shutdown/restart, etc.

Understand that the amount of retainer you are asked for does not in any way limit your liability. Before your renovation started your contractor should have provided your managing agent with a Certificate of Insurance of at least $1,000,000 which names your co-op corporation, your managing agent, and you as apartment owner as co-insured. If your building and/or managing agent allowed the renovation to begin without such a certificate, you have serious liability and risk exposure and should halt all work until the contractor CoI is provided.

As for management doing a daily inspection, do you know what they are looking for? Is it simply to make sure there are no unsafe conditions like an open gas line, exposed wiring, dripping water, etc? Are they checking for things like code compliance and/or adherence to the specs of the renovation?

The landlord (your co-op corporation and its agent, the management company) have the right to enter an apartment to check for unsafe conditions. Unless they are using the inspections to harass you or your contractor, I would not object to them.

I hope this helps.

Steven is right on with everything he says. We require an alteration agreement to be completed along with sketches, DOB permits and contractor contract showing the proposed work before work commences, if board approves. A $1000 deposit or 10% of the contracted price is required as well. We have the super stop in periodically to give the work a once over. He looks to see that plumbing is replaced all the way to new shut offs on the water risers, bx cable used for wiring (no romex). Building manager doesn't have the time to stop by a couple times a week.

Thank you JG & Steven for replying. I was just looking to see what other buildings do. I'm on our FC committee & formerly on our Board, although these items were never discussed. The workers in the unit above drilled thru my bathroom ceiling, filling my tub with cement & never reported the damage to the building, which I came home to find at 8pm. I should've received a call explaining what had happened & it should have been cleaned up before I got home. I felt the property manager should be doing a quick walkthrough before he leaves end of day. Then there was the issue of water that ran along their floor and came down into my apartment. Had I not been home, I would have found this damage at 8pm, hours later. I thought I should see how other more professionally managed buildings handle this. My unit was eventually fixed. I know the building took a retainer of $5000 on the expected $100,000 renovation job, but we are now thinking that was too little. I appreciate any advice that I think is worth trying to institute. Some of the other comments are helpful as well.

Hi PK - From the way I read your description of the damage that was done to your apartment, it sounds as if your upstairs neighbor has the responsibility for making you whole. Your board and managing agent will have very little involvement.

The alteration fees that boards collect at the start of a renovation are to provide immediate reimbursement for damage to any co-op common areas and structures as a result of the renovation. It cannot be used for individual shareholder reimbursement. From what you wrote, it sounds like all the damage to your apartment originated in your neighbor's apartment. Neither are co-op common areas so the co-op is most likely not involved.

Your board is responsible to all shareholders and cannot take sides in something like this. It will be up to you to get reimbursement for repairs settled with your upstairs neighbor one way or another.

Yes Steven, the owner upstairs, or actually the foreman on the job has taken responsibility for the damage to my unit. My question was initially about how buildings handle renovations, retainer amounts and fees. So you have answered all my questions. Thank you for the input. This forum is very helpful.

There are a number of issues here so I will address the ones concerned with policy. First off i agree with the stipulations that have been contributed mostly by Steven, but i would like to fill in some areas:
First things first.
1). The Coop needs to have a standing rule that all Shareholders must carry Homeowners Insurance with a Workers Comp rider that meets whatever minimum standards of liability the Coop feels is necessary. It's not about their apt. per se, it's about all the apartments and basement below them that gets damaged as well.
2). The Coop must have a renovation Agreement document that covers all aspects of standards, do's & don'ts, lien settlements etc. If you don't have one the NY Bar Association had one of their sub-committees devise one a few years back. As a boilerplate starting point it is very good. This must be co-signed by the Contractor and notarized so he and his subs are bound by the doc's rules.
3). There has to be a realistic and negotiated calendared work schedule for the project that has to be adhered to. you must post notices of it, and advance notices of any riser shutdowns as well, work hours-start/finish, no weekend work except maybe quiet work such as painting or extra coats of urethane on an already sanded floor etc.
4). Clean up: We had to institute a $100 per week charge payable in advance, for every week of the project that involved demolition, deliveries, plastering etc. where any debris or trash, including packing materials are generated. you will find that regardless of the Contractor's claim that his guys do clean-up, and they had better do it, your Super will be doing a lot of additional work cleaning, mopping, and trash for that shareholder's personal project, which is not what he is paid for. We take a portion of it to replace consumables used to clean up, and a portion goes to the Super as extra pay for extra work that is not part of his standard job.
5). We take 10% of the signed agreement contract which we must see and approve for it to be accepted as an attachment to the Renovation Agreement. The purpose of that is two-fold - to make sure the punch list has been satisfactorily completed, including any building damages; and the contractor, and his subs must sign off on a notarized Lien Release form we created so that in the event of a dispute on payments etc, they cannot place a Mechanic's Lien on the Coop for settlement. We also have a clause in the Alteration Agreement stating that all Mechanic's Liens must be settled by the Shareholder within a max of 10 days or the Shareholder will be in default of the Prop Lease/Bylaws etc.
6).There needs to be a clause in the Alt. Agreement that all work done on the premises must be done by licensed vendors, with liability insurance, a copy of which etc.
(Insurance: All contractors and their subs must provide evidence of carrying a Commercial Liability policy with the Coop, the Management company and the Shareholder who is engaging them named as 'Additional Insured', and the shareholder should also be listed as a 'Certificate Holder' as well. All Plumbers and Electricians must include a photocopy of their up to date licenses, and so does the contractor.)
7). In the Alt. Agreement should be a clause that in the event that the work involves attaching to or modifying the building systems in any way they must be pre-approved, and the area where these connections are made, those walls cannot be closed up without first being inspected by the Coop's representative. If you do not have a Super who in his past life was a licensed Engineer, then you should have an Architect arrangement on a fee basis for this. chargeable to the Shareholder.
8). depending on your building: we require all demo and construction waste be kept in the apt. until disposal, which is a once in the week before 4:00 PM occurrence, and must be hauled away. we do not allow a dumpster to be parked in front of the building. nothing is allowed to be brought in thru the lobby entrance. you cannot use a hoist to lift sheet rock pallets from the curbside truck thru a front apartment's windows etc. (if you check the insurance you will discover, as I did that the delivery truck's liability stops at the tailgate, and the Contractor's insurance begins with the walls of the apt. thereby leaving the Shareholder and Coop liable for that part over the sidewalk where it can fall and clobber a pedestrian!).
the details can go on and on covering soundproofing, wet over dry, venting of hoods, meters, flood alerts on DW or W/D if allowed, cement beds under W/D etc., etc., etc.,

Great info, dsi1, I'll be discussing these points with our Board and management. There is always room for improvement and I appreciate everyone's time in answering.

Yes Steven, the owner upstairs, or actually the foreman on the job has taken responsibility for the damage to my unit. My question was initially about how buildings handle renovations, retainer amounts and fees. So you have answered all my questions. Thank you for the input. This forum is very helpful.

Yes Steven, the owner upstairs, or actually the foreman on the job has taken responsibility for the damage to my unit. My question was initially about how buildings handle renovations, retainer amounts and fees. So you have answered all my questions. Thank you for the input. This forum is very helpful.

Yes Steven, the owner upstairs, or actually the foreman on the job has taken responsibility for the damage to my unit. My question was initially about how buildings handle renovations, retainer amounts and fees. So you have answered all my questions. Thank you for the input. This forum is very helpful.

I think you should ask them what it is; they may not have the expertise to manage regulatory or tax monitoring compliance so they pay a firm to do so. It's up to the property management company whether or not these services are "value add" in their pricing or an add on.
I would find out the list of services that their $100 per month covers and compare to you acquiring the services yourself.

Try googling "NYC Real Estate Compliance" and you'll get back information about a handful of companies who specialize in that service. From the very brief reading that I did, it sounds like they make sure your building is in compliance with NYC building regulations such as flood insusrance, tax compliance, etc.

I'm assuming that the $100/month is for your entire building and not per apartment. Property management companies, especially the smaller and less expensive variety, tend to offer services like this on an as-needed basis with incremental fee increases.

I'm sure a conversation with your property manager will get most of your questions answered and you'll have a better understanding about what you're being asked to pay for.

basically the management company says they're too busy to effectively monitor this stuff. we did the math - for the last 6 years they've asked us to subscribe and we would have spent a total of $7,200. during the same time period, one issue arose that monitoring would have mitigated - total cost of $700. we are having a hard time justifying...

I agree with Steven424; it's insurance so that if there are any compliance issues, you become aware of them. I would try to negotiate with your PM vendor for them to include this as a value add in providing services; it protects them as much as it protects you so why aren't they simply providing this as part of their service - keeping current on compliance items versus charging you, so that they are aware, as a property management company of regulatory or agency orders etc.?

It looks like this is a question of risk vs. benefit. So far you've only had one issue that compliance monitoring helped resolve. Now think in terms of what could be the worst possible result of missing something that subscribing to the compliance company would have caught? Is it hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars? It sounds like your management company is asking you to purchase a form of insurance.

If you can in fact prove, with photo's, the "multiple units" both inside and outside of the unit, having the same configuration that you put in place, then I would write the board explaining that "since X many units, as detailed in the attached photo's have the same configuration in place, I simply assumed that it was a acceptable and common practice that did not require further board approval. Please advise regarding the following units" and then list those units that have it in place. Having proof that other units do in fact have the same configuration as you installed is strong rationale for letting you keep the configuration as is.
When asking those units if you can take photo's, I would also ask them, when, to their knowledge, was the vent put in place. It could be that the other units were configured that way some time ago and for example, prior to the policy coming into effect. If that's the case, that these other units are "grandfathered", then you will have to remove the configuration as you are in violation in accordance with your policy. If on the other hand the other units installed the configuration with the policy in place, then precedence has been set; they can't ask you to remove the venting configuration without asking the other units that have the same to also remove.

Hi Ned, thanks for the advice. The management company is quoting NYC building code rather than specific co-op policy so I don't think any of these units are grandfathered in.

Do you think I can claim the vent is in de facto compliance as multiple vents have existed for some time?

It's entirely likely that the NYC building code itself has changed over time in this regard, and when that happens, the usual approach is to grandfather in existing structures, rather than requiring everyone to build new buildings.

I'd suggest that you find out what the actual code is (sounds like your management can help you with that), instead of trying to infer the current code based on structures/modifications of unknown age. Having done that, you'll then be in a position to assess your compliance or non-compliance (I think you'll find that de facto compliance isn't really a thing).

Based on NYC building code, I believe you are in compliance:
NYC building code states the following: (the 10 feet they refer to is in regards to lot lines and the exhaust from a bathroom or kitchen in a residential dwelling shall not be considered to be a hazardous or noxious contaminant so if I am reading the code correctly, the feet requirement is N/A - it just can't be a nuisance:

401.4 Opening location. Outdoor air exhaust and intake openings shall be located a minimum of 10 feet (3048 mm) from lot lines or buildings on the same lot. Where openings front on a street or public way, the distance shall be measured to the centerline of the street or public way.

Ventilation is allowed through windows:

402.1 Natural ventilation. Natural ventilation of an occupied space shall be through windows, doors, louvers or other openings to the outdoors. The operating mechanism for such openings shall be provided with ready access so that the openings are readily controllable by the building occupants.

Suggest you call them to confirm: General Information: (518) 474-4073 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday

Yes, I do. Especially if you confirm with the Building Dept. (as per my response below) that it is allowed. Armed with this informantion plus pictures of other units that have the same or similar configuration, I think you would have a good case for them to "reconsider" their request for you to remove it.

hi brenttoyou - as a board president, i understand their situation, but don't approve of what they are doing. you should have gotten approval. and that's what they are hanging their hats on. however, given that the same situation exists and is in accordance with NY DOB policy, you shouldn't have a problem. i suggest you get your contractor to put something in writing to you stating that what they did is ok with the DOB. have them give you the proper section of the code. send that to your board first

i feel your pain. it took us 3 tries to update our proprietary lease to allow for Fedex or UPS to be acceptable shipping method (rather than certified mail).

issue is not always the people who are against it - issue may be those who don't bother to vote. any updates require a supermajority of the total number of shares (check your lease to see if you are 66 or 75%). so if you have 100,000 shares total and 55,000 vote for, 10,000 vote against and 40,000 don't vote, you lose.

in our case, the first time around we had 55% yes votes, 1% no votes and 44% who didn't vote. so frustrating.

my suggestion would be to have a live meeting to discuss the issues at hand and from there determine if it's worthwhile to move forward.