Coop Village challenges $380,000 penalty for unauthorized use of gas

A $380,000 penalty from Con Ed earlier this year is being challenged by Coop Village management with the NYS Public Service Commission, the agency tasked with regulating public utilities. The penalty was the result of a boiler room incident on January 8, 2015 that led the coop to use natural gas for heat and hot water during two days when it was required by Con Ed to burn oil instead. General manager Harold Jacob argues that the penalty was unnecessarily punitive and excessive.

How did we end up with such a huge fine? A little history: Our boiler room used to burn No. 6 oil, an expensive, dirty fuel. The conversion completed in 2013 switched to a dual-fuel system — the boiler room runs primarily on natural gas delivered by Con Ed, but can also switch to burning No. 2 oil stored on site.

east-river-boiler-5As a “dual-fuel interruptible gas customer,” the coop receives a discount on natural gas with the agreement that, when Con Ed calls for a “gas interruptible event” we are required to switch to No. 2 oil within hours. This happens when Con Ed is concerned about its gas supply during a cold spell. If we don’t comply, huge penalties are imposed — nine times the market cost of the gas we consume — and if we are in violation of the agreement twice, Con Ed can automatically revoke our natural gas discount for the rest of the winter plus one additional year. (Con Ed has an online primer for dual-fuel interruptible gas customers here, in case you’re interested in all the contractual nitty-gritty.)

So, back to January, when Con Ed called a gas interruptible event for Wednesday, January 7 at 10:00 a.m. The boiler room switched over as required. The next morning, before dawn, with temperatures in the single digits for the second day in a row, the entire boiler room shut down without warning.

Board president Gary Altman’s memo distributed later that day presented the heroic details: shutdown triggered at 4:15 a.m.; defective emergency shut-off switch replaced by 6:00 a.m.; the slow, careful restart process while frantic calls came in from cold cooperators; heat reached all four East River buildings by 8:50 a.m.; hot water restored shortly thereafter.

But since the system was restarted and kept on gas, and Con Ed’s gas interruptible event was still ongoing, the boiler room used gas for two days that was not permitted under our contract, hence the massive penalty.

Mr. Jacob says he made the decision to stick with gas because the shutdown occurred while the system was running on oil and the precise cause of the shutdown was still not known. He wanted to ensure that the heat would stay on during such extreme cold weather, so keeping the system on gas eliminated a variable that may have been related to the shutdown.

He told me that even if he knew at the time that the penalty would be such a high cost he would have made the same decision, because there was no sense risking another shutdown with the temperature so low. But he’s making an argument with the Public Service Commission that no penalty should be imposed on the coop based on its adherence to all other gas interruptible events in the past three years.

After winter was over, the emergency shut-off switches around the whole boiler room (there is one at each exit, as required by law) were upgraded with better insulation to keep any moisture from accumulating and freezing, as apparently happened back in January. The heating season has just begun again.

UPDATE: East River’s petition and complaint to the Public Service Commission is available online here.

Wild letter from coop lawyer hides true cost of dog lawsuits

First, read this. It’s a letter from cooperator Tommy Loeb to board president Gary Altman asking (not for the first time) for a full accounting of the costs of our litigation against dog owners and the U.S. Attorney’s suit against East River which was settled this spring.

ER lawyer Bradley Silverbush with his Lamborghini.
ER lawyer Bradley Silverbush with his Lamborghini.
Legal fees had increased 462% in the three years before our last published financial statement in June 2014. This excessive cost of litigation was cited by participants in our open meeting and dog poll this summer as a big reason for supporting a more permissive pet policy.

Now read the response Tommy got yesterday — not from Gary Altman, but from Bradley Silverbush, the lawyer who litigated the cases against shareholders and defended the coop against the U.S. Attorney. It’s typical (unfortunately) of the board’s approach to sharing information with shareholders.

Dear Mr Loeb:

I am in receipt of the copy of the letter you sent to me, referencing Gary Altman. As you know, I am one of the attorneys for your coop, and was the lead attorney on the USA v. East River case, as well as the underlying related litigation before the administrative agencies, the housing court, and State court. There is no one in a better position to address any related issue, or any aspect of that litigation, than I. I read your letter in disbelief, because I am astounded that anyone (let alone anyone who knows the truth) would engage in the sort of false allegation and innuendo that your letter wreaks of.

At the outset, when one goes off by sending insulting emails to a board member (especially one who, in my professional opinion, is beyond reproach), and copies it to others, I have to ask myself, “what kind of person would do such a thing?” Here, I believe that the answer is rather apparent; a person who has his own agenda, and is attempting to needlessly and improperly smear the reputation of a person who dedicates a great deal of time to the betterment of the coop. That time consuming and thankless work given by dedicated people like Mr. Altman, where there is nothing in that selfless dedication, except to have rude and crude people like you criticize, second guess, insult, and incite others to engage in similarly reprehensible and unfair innuendo. Mr. Altman does what he does out of a selfless desire for the betterment of the entire cooperative corporation. For people like yourself, on the other hand, you seek to besmirch his reputation for reasons I cannot fathom, except for what can only be some personal perverse please. Your conduct in doing so offends my sensibilities, and again, has me asking “what kind of man are you?”

Mr. Altman is one of 11 members of the elected board, and he has been honored to serve as president for the past year after the resignation of the former president for family reasons. He stepped up, and does what needs to be done to effectively undertake and accomplish the tasks with which he has been charged. Mr. Altman has previously proven himself to be adept at undertaking his duties and performing the difficult tasks with which he has been entrusted; the difficult and time consuming work that is associated with running a coop as complex as East River. In fact, in the over 30 years I have been involved with legal representation of East River, all of the people I have come to know and respect have consistently, and without exception, hailed him as the paradigm of the selfless, bright, compassionate, considerate, smart, and thoughtful individual who exemplifies dedication to the principles that work for the betterment of the coop. What is that you have done, Mr. Loeb, other than second-guess and insult Mr. Altman, for some personal reason? Have you done anything to improve the coop?

Surely you must be aware that the entire board, and not Mr. Altman (nor any one member), publishes the board newsletter. As such, the referenced March 2014 letter, which hinted that after approximately 3-4 years of zero increases that a carrying charge increase may be necessary, was reflective of the board’s position (and not Mr. Altman’s opinion alone). As you must also be aware, to date (more than a year and a half later), no increase has yet been given (as the board has taken other actions to bring in additional revenue up to this point). All of the foregoing has been communicated to the cooperators.

Based upon the information I have, it seems that you have some very close friends on the board, board members who are not shy about releasing board information. Such acts may be, in my opinion, a breach of the board members’ fiduciary obligations. So, why do you play games, and act coy? Why are you attempting to denigrate a person whose exercise of judgment has always been with the coop’s best interest as his paramount concern? Quite frankly, I suspect (indeed….I am fairly confident) that any information you seek has already been obtained by you long ago. As such, it is gamesmanship on your part, and inappropriate, for you to be referring to all board communications as if they came from Mr. Altman (I note your constant use of the word “You” in your correspondence).

When and if I prepare any information regarding the settlement of the dog cases (which was a priority of Mr. Altman’s when he assumed the presidency, along with most of the board members, in their attempt to prevent cooperators from having to face additional mounting legal fees), I am certain that it will be sent to all cooperators at the same time. I seriously doubt that Mr. Altman ever told you that you would receive an exclusive copy of any communication from the coop’s attorneys. We don’t do that, Mr. Loeb; only people like your friends do that. So your statement suggests to me what can only be a fabrication, because you are not special, and you are not entitled to anything other than what is properly distributed to all shareholders. Again, I ask myself, what are you doing with this nonsense of yours, and why would anyone do what you are doing here?

Surely you know that Mr. Altman has spent virtually his entire life in public service, selflessly trying to help others to the best of his ability; so, your implied or actual threats are not only rude and inappropriate, but are meaningless. To a man like Mr. Altman, who has committed no improprieties, threats are of no concern. Why and how people like yourself can get joy from attacking others (and I am not referring solely to Mr. Altman here) in unsigned distributions replete with lies and half-truths, is something I will never be able to fully understand. I have the benefit of knowing what you do not, that while you are an angry and calculating individual with your own personal agenda, Mr. Altman, and others like him, are able to sleep every night cloaked in the love of their family and the knowledge that what they have done is for the betterment of the coop, and the hope that what they have accomplished has helped at least one more person in need that day.

Perhaps your misguided group should for once try to learn how to truly help others, rather than find negativity in everything done in beautiful East River. Maybe if they were to do so, then perhaps others would find more satisfaction in their lives. I am unaware of any other development in our city, and probably in our State, where one can proudly live in such beautiful surroundings for the very low monthly carrying charges all of you pay (and still look out for your very large senior population on fixed incomes).

Finally, please note that any non-confidential (and sadly, if not improperly, confidential) information that you believe you have not yet exclusively received (or perhaps don’t recall receiving) can, I am sure, be obtained from your friends on the board. We both know who your sources on the board are, so do us both a favor, and at least stop with the pretenses. Life is too precious to waste on false, needless, and harmful negativity. But if you want to continue in that vein, then so be it. As always, East River’s annual report (including all financial data certified by independent auditors) will be distributed to all cooperators prior to your upcoming annual meeting, as it has been in the past. You may think that you have some special entitlement, but you don’t. Personally, I don’t give a damn about what you may think you are entitled to. What have you ever done to improve any aspect of East River? Anything? Ever?

Bradley Scott Silverbush

ROSENBERG & ESTIS,P.C.
733 Third Avenue | New York, New York 10017
(212) 551-8409 (Direct Phone) | (212) 551-8484 (Fax)
bsilverbush@rosenbergestis.com | www.rosenbergestis.com

LES is #1

Did you see this? Time Out New York ranked the best NYC neighborhoods for families, and ours truly came out on top.

Packed with accessible, high-achieving schools, the Lower East Side is home to a tight-knit community of active parents. Many take advantage of housing cooperatives, like Seward Park, Amalgamated and Hillman, for affordable, family-friendly apartments in the area, outfitted with private parks and playgrounds for outdoor fun.

Even nice to see a shout out to Grand Street Coops … but did they forget about us?

Here’s the full article. Scroll down to read other nice things about our neighborhood.

Cooperators kept in the dark about true cost of dogsuits

Board president Gary Altman still has not delivered on a promise to give a full accounting of the coop’s legal expenses for dog litigation and the federal discrimination suit settled earlier this year.

Legal fees have skyrocketed for the past four years due to legal action initiated by the coop. Last year, Altman admitted that $575,000 had been spent in the 2013-14 fiscal year on legal expenses related to dog litigation. He said he “expected that our insurance company will reimburse the Corporation for a substantial portion of this amount,” but in February’s board newsletter, that insurance claim was revealed to be only $195,000. Furthermore, these announced expenses predate most of the work relating to the federal lawsuit, which occurred in the 2014-15 fiscal year, and do not include expenses from previous years, when the coop started to incur unusually high legal fees.

Cooperator Tommy Loeb, who raised the question at last year’s annual meeting and has pressed Altman in the months since for an answer, sent another letter yesterday requesting a full accounting of these expenses.

From 2011 through June 30, 2014, “legal and audit” expenses have increased 462%, costing the coop an additional $1.2 million. Legal costs in the 15 months since have not been revealed at all. Furthermore, despite substantial interest from cooperators in a more reasonable pet policy, the board has made no move alter its policy or legal strategy, meaning these legal costs could continue to climb.

Here is the letter sent to Mr. Altman:

Dear Mr. Altman,

I am contacting you regarding my August 10, 2015 letter requesting a full accounting of expenses on the pet litigation. I have enclosed a copy of the letter. When we met at the Coastal Resiliency Planning meeting on September 10 you told me a letter was being prepared by a lawyer to respond to my inquiry and I would receive it shortly.

I have also enclosed a copy of “The Board Room” newsletter of July 2015 where you did not provide accurate financial information based on your previous replies to this question. Is it true that the coop only spent $85,000 on dog litigation as you represented in the letter? I also enclosed a copy of your March 2014 memo where you indicate that the pet litigation will seriously effect coop finances and may result in a maintenance increase.

I would like to remind you that you have an obligation to accurately report and inform the more than 1600 East River Cooperators of the finances of East River Housing.

It has now been 30 days since you said I would get a reply. If I do not receive a reply by November 1 you will leave me no alternative but to contact the New York State Attorney General which I held off doing given your commitment to a reply.

The Attorney General has jurisdiction to guarantee the Cooperative Boards uphold their fiduciary responsibility and honestly report the financial position of the coop. I will ask him to intervene to get us the information we deserve if you continue to withhold this information.

Sincerely,
Tommy Loeb

More public feedback this week for East River bridge redesigns

presenting to cooperatorsProject planners behind the East River Coastal Resiliency Project held another community forum this week to discuss the upcoming redesign of East River Park for storm surge protection and the possible upgrade of pedestrian crossings at 10th, 6th, Houston, and Delancey Streets.

The presentation was more extensive than given previously, and new details emerged about those bridge designs. You can view the entire presentation below.

Of course the part of this we all care about is the pedestrian bridge at Delancey Street. You can see in these drawings the three options presented at earlier meetings:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

And then here you can see the designers’ current thinking based on feedback from previous workshops:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

You can see the progression from strict flood protection, to park enhancement, to neighborhood enhancement reflected in these drawings. Project planners want to connect our neighborhood to the park in a meaningful, interactive way, and pushing pedestrians only up Delancey Street does not meet their overall goals. That’s why they are still pushing for an option that creates easier access to and from Grand Street, where three city bus lines terminate.

They are also working within several constraints that are not easily shown on these drawings. First is that the park area directly under the Williamsburg Bridge is a Homeland Security zone that cannot be interfered with. A flood wall will be built under the bridge, but the berm needs to rise a certain distance from the concrete wall that’s recently been erected.

The second, more imposing obstacle is that the East River board is unwilling to move the entrance to our parking lot on Delancey Street, so any ramp from the pedestrian bridge needs to end right before that driveway, exactly where it does now. The current ramp, however, is too steep for safe wheelchair access and needs to be lengthened to create an acceptable grade — the only way to lengthen that ramp while making it terminate at the same spot is to loop the ramp around to a pedestrian bridge farther away. That’s why the designers have set the pedestrian bridge a little farther south.

Once you do that, adding a short staircase toward Grand Street naturally lands just in front of building 4. Board president Gary Altman has already pushed through a board resolution opposing that staircase, and board member Ellen Gentilviso was again at this week’s community meeting pushing the project planners to scale back their design to include access only from Delancey.

Residents in building 4 naturally have concerns about how this design will impact them, but project planners’ attempts to meet with cooperators have been blocked by Altman and Gentilviso, who want only board members to be involved in stakeholder conversations. (Board member Lee Berman was also at this week’s meeting, encouraging project planners to seek input from more than just the board.)

What’s unfortunate is that the current board, led by Altman and Gentilviso, are blocking a more creative approach to this design problem. For one thing, refusing to move our parking lot entrance forces the pedestrian bridge south and makes any staircase on the FDR access road intrude more on to coop property.

But there’s another opportunity here that a board open to positive change might embrace: that Delancey Street parking area is inefficiently lotted for cars and has room to spare. Re-configuring the parking spaces could create new spaces for new revenue, and make room for a less imposing pedestrian bridge. If we worked with the ESCRP designers as true community partners, all sorts of interesting possibilities could arise.

Here’s the full presentation:

Board amends sublease rules, fees, and penalties

Without a comment period for cooperators or a comprehensive analysis by management, the East River board of directors has approved changes to the coop’s sublease rules, fees, and penalties.

The new bylaws take effect immediately and are meant to “bring in many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year,” according to a memo from the board distributed last week.

Board member Lee Berman.
Board member Lee Berman.
Yet, according to board member Lee Berman, no real financial analysis was presented to the board before the vote to change the bylaws. “No one could say whether the higher fees would push more shareholders to sublet under the table,” Lee told me. “No one could say whether letting shareholders sublet apartments forever would reduce our flip tax revenue. We may get more money in fees next month, which we need, but what about next year and the year after?”

SUBLEASE LIMITS
Old:
Sublease can be for no less than one year.
Sublease must be approved one year a time.
May sublease for only 5 years in a 6-year period.
New:
Sublease can be for no less than one year.
Sublease must be approved one year a time.
May sublease for an unlimited number of years.
SUBLEASE FEES
Old:
Years 1–3: 50% maintenance
Years 4–5: 100% maintenance
New:
Years 1–2: 100% maintenance
Years 3–4: 112.5% maintenance
Years 5+ : 125% maintenance
SUBLEASE PENALTIES
Old:
Sublet fee x 2
New:
Sublet fee x 2.25
plus $250 per day if less than 30 days

Lee continued, “These changes were rushed through without any real analysis. It was all back-of-the-envelope math.”

That math looks something like this: with 57 official sublets at East River with an average monthly maintenance of $750, 1st- and 2nd-year sublet fees would increase $256,500 each year. In the third year, the extra revenue goes up to $320,625. In year 4, the increase is only $64,125; in year 5, $128,250. The sixth year — when a sublet would not be allowed under the old bylaws — the coop could take in an additional $641,250 on those 57 apartments.

Over ten years, the coop would average just under $300,000 in additional revenue each year, or about 1.33% of our 2014 annual budget.

To put that in perspective, the coop would need a 2% increase in maintenance fees (average $15 per apartment per month) to raise the same amount.

So, more revenue each year: so far so good. But the analysis Lee says he would have liked to see is how these fee increases might influence shareholders’ decisions about subletting.

These higher fees make it almost impossible for someone carrying a mortgage to break even on a sublet. A shareholder in that situation might decide to forego the approval process to avoid the fees altogether, letting more unvetted people into the coop.

On the other hand, those who can afford to sublet might now decide to do so indefinitely instead of selling their apartment when their 5-year sublet limit is up. That could decrease flip tax revenue, which our board heavily relies on to cover operating expenses.

Without any analysis of these scenarios, the board’s decision is based on numbers that add up today but might not tomorrow.

Travel back 400 years and check out the neighborhood

Grand Street 1609
Mashup of 1609 and 2015.

A cool new interactive map online lets you see a bird’s eye view of Manhattan in 1609, the year Henry Hudson sailed into town.

Around the coops, you can see how Corlears’ Hook jutted out even more into the East River.

You can also see clearly why flood protection for the lower east side is so important — much of the land above present-day Delancey Street was low-lying floodplain, and where the ConEd facility is on 14th Street was actually offshore 400 years ago.