Asbestos Removal Required During Removal of Old Roof

LVT Number: #30162

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord in part, but disallowed any increase for certain items of work and for architect's fees. Landlord appealed and won, in part. DHCR Policy Statement 2017-1 sets forth the DHCR's long-standing policy against granting any MCI increase for permit filing fees. The cost of the contractor's administrative tasks, such as obtaining insurance and preparing work, also were properly disallowed as a matter of policy.

Landlord applied for MCI rent hikes based on the installation of a new roof. The DRA ruled for landlord in part, but disallowed any increase for certain items of work and for architect's fees. Landlord appealed and won, in part. DHCR Policy Statement 2017-1 sets forth the DHCR's long-standing policy against granting any MCI increase for permit filing fees. The cost of the contractor's administrative tasks, such as obtaining insurance and preparing work, also were properly disallowed as a matter of policy. Architect fees also were properly disallowed since the roof installation didn't involve any complexity beyond the normal scope of a commonplace installation. However, mobilization costs should have been included in the approved MCI costs as well as change order costs that called for additional months of providing for a sidewalk bridge. The cost of asbestos removal/disposal also should have been approved since DEP forms indicated that "non-friable" asbestos was present in the old roofing material, and therefore the MCI included removal and proper disposal of asbestos. The MCI rent hike was increased from $17.78 to $21.80 per room.

Three Way Limited Partnership: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. BQ430051RO (4/11/19) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

BQ430051RO.pdf350.04 KB