building at 55 East End Avenue

There's the original eviction-conversion offering plan from 1979. The several no-action plans were filed by the co-op itself, not by the sponsor. I think the co-op had to do that every time it issued more shares for hallway space. The dates correspond. "No action" just means shares aren't being offered to the public, so the plan or amendment is filed with the Attorney General only for form's sake.

I checked my own co-op, and it's the same story with "No action" offering plans. There's one filed by the co-op every time additional shares were issued.

Since my co-op's sponsor still owns ~15% of the shares and sells apartments as they're vacated by deceased renters, the sponsor files annual amendments to the original offering plan.

55 EEA is 100% sold, so the sponsor is no longer in the picture and there's no reason for the original offering plan to be amended.

Thank you for your insight! What about the Board there? I do not want challenges if I decide to look forward here in to regards to renos, interview etc? How can a building not have major assessments with all the capitol renovations that are coming down the pipe in the next few years. Whereas the building is directly off the entrance to the promenade, which is great, I would never think about buying into a building with a power hungry difficult board. Been there done that!

What about the flip tax? How can a coop corporation absorb all the anticipated capital improvements in the near future without doing ongoing assessments and an increase in monthly maintenances. I have lived in a building before that "ignored" upcoming improvements and had no plan on how to pay and had huge bills assessed for three years. The directive has to come from a Board and also have a strong management agent to foresee all challenges. I'm from a "been there, done that" ideology. I am concerned this building is reactive versus proactive and once your in, it's too late.

With regard to the tag NWT. I see you have over 6400 posts. How can I tell if a Board either at 55 EEA or any other building is doing their sworn and elected responsibilities. My quick observation here is that the board has been here forever, possibly consolidating power/control. Shouldn't pro active boards be looking at 5, 10 15 year needs. Lots of considerations. What you think DWT?

I haven't seen their financials, so have no clue.

Any co-op has to either build up reserves of cash, or borrow, or assess. Or all three. It all comes from the shareholders in the end.

55 EEA's underlying mortgage is $8,850,000, or about $50,000 per average apartment. That's toward the high end of average, but they should have no trouble either refinancing or paying it off in 2021. In the meantime they have a $500,000 line of credit, so no danger of not being able to pay for a boiler or elevator or something.

If your tendency is to assume base motives on the part of board members, just because they're on a board, you might be happier buying a house out in the suburbs. I would take longevity on the board to mean it runs smoothly (members not burning out) and the shareholders are happy with the board's decisions.

i prefer large assessments to higher maintenance because it allows for the optics of lower maint to help sale prices.

>With regard to the tag NWT. I see you have over 6400 posts.

Yeah, and the post counter says you are at 1 Post, yet there are 4 from you so far on this thread alone.

I welcome NWT posts most seem pretty good and with some wit always with lots info. I have done research on EEA properties and Yorkville. With the new subway line there seems to be some idea that prices of real estate will increase quite dramatically all along the corridor. While the new phase one of train is a net plus; it will not transport one to even 42nd St. Part of the charm is that it is quiet. Back to EEA and specifics. Why would a building not plan proactively not reactively. A flip tax is becoming the norm on sales and assists with these big capitol improvements. If a building and shares transfer and the shareholders do not want the "burden" the 1 or 1.5 percent should be built into the selling price as such as the brokers fee. not only is it a problem at 55 but it is avoidance of the age of many properties and the needs to make things safe and up to code and compete with new condo offerings that are selling higher per square foot. I still like the coop model and not a fan of "unknown" LLC buying/hiding money in condos all over the city.

Agree on the flip tax, fair compensation . Transition puts on a building. New owners new renovations etc.. what's nice about the flip tax is the building doesn't care where it comes from. Down markets seller pays, up market buyer pays. Just one more variable in the equation. If you should be so lucky as to find a property that matches your criteria and pocket book my advice to you is to be ready to act fast. The good stuff always flys off the shelf.

And while we're all sitting around watching accuweather, let's note that this building is not in any evacuation zone, although it is surrounded by buildings that are.

A difficult board is not a bad thing IMO if they like *you*, and I agree with NWT about how long-term board members are not necessarily a bad sign (although it can be, you just don't know).

Lots of smart people agree with Crescent that assessments are better than higher maintenance (aka rent). The downside in my experience is if you have people in the building who are at the limits of what they can afford, the assessment can push them into arrears amazingly fast. Some smart people also think reserves should be as low as lenders will accept to avoid opportunity costs on that money.

Like Crescent, and as Flutistic also noted, many people prefer that improvements be financed through assessments rather than by building up a reserve fund for any number of reasons (people like managing their own reserve funds and optics being two that have been noted already). Well-run buildings that operate on this philosophy factor this aspect into approval process and only approve like-minded shareholders who will understand and be able to pay the periodic potentially hefty assessments. If you see a lovely building with low maintenance and high down payment/high post-closing liquid reserve requirements, that is likely what is going on. I would view it as a positive.

Heres a perfect case in point here. 55 is going to redoing the halls, so it seems,for a huge amount amount of money. Poof, a huge assessment, Yes those buying into todays should be able to absorb that, but why , as a new shareholder be hit with an immediate assessment. The optic of a lower monthly fees/taxes is just that. Scratch the surface and bam, you have new halls, and a nice big bill in your monthly maintenance.

It sounds like there is transparency and that you are simply not comfortable with the management style. Probably not the right fit for you.

I am still in the market in the Yorkville and East End Carl Schultz Park area. in researching buildings I see many vendor linens etc or open violations that i have seen at nice buildings even
like 55 East End Ave as well as pending litigations. How can one be assured that one is not buying into problematic cooperatives when one as shareholder could be liable if the buildings insurance does not cover such suits. Im torn between impersonal condos and "LLC' neighbors from XYC corp hiding money and rogue coops where Im legally liable!! advise....

I still have not secured the coop am searching for--was just out bid on a turn key in Yorkville. I continue to see open liens and open violations on numerous properties including the above listed. Am i over obsessing or is this a real concern. "
Everything is nothing until it is"is my mantra---give me feedback street easy affresinados. I have thought about the Peter Merino on East End and just be done with the searching! I hear developer did great job.

Marino building has money. I doubt they would just leave open violations.

Many serious new violations and the board appears to have taken a random approach in payment of them. I find the lobby renovation unfortunate. Dorothy Draper did it originally and it's a good thing she's dead. The "roof garden" has a roof and a few Andirondeck chairs, but no garden, which is a red flag to me that the building has no money. Capital improvements listed on the financials equal or exceed the reserve which means assessment, assessment, assessment. No flip tax. Either bad management (AKAM) or a bad board or both. Looks like they are 10-20 years behind.

violation for failure to certify correction of class 1 violation exists on this property - dob civil penalties due