Forum
« Contractor in Park Slope Inspector Reccomendation »
July 2, 2008
Landlord Question: Heat / Hot Water Opinion
We are in the process of a gut renovation of a brownstone building. We are creating two or three apartments. We want to be responsible and efficient and are looking to install high efficiency boilers in each apartment. Therefor the tenant will be responsible for their own heat and hot water usage and bill.
Has anybody done this and felt it was really worth the investment to savings ratio? IE: We don't pay the heat and hot water but we have slightly more up front costs and better efficiency and control for our tenants.
Or do you suggest one centrally zoned unit and we continue to pay??
Thoughts?
Comments
split it up. 90% of complaints from tenants come about from heat/hot water. With the rising cost of energy these days the less of it you buy the better.
Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 4:10 PM
As the owner of a 2 family where the utilities are not separate, I recommend separating. It will make the tenants more responsible for their own use. We had tenants that would leave all of the lights on and go out no matter how many times we asked them not to.
Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 4:37 PM
its also worth doing if there is any chance you will one day want to convert to co-op/condo
Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 4:39 PM
Ditto 4:10's comment. A single zone for a large building will be very difficult to keep all areas at a temperature that pleases any of you, much less all of you.
We ran the numbers pretty seriously, and were almost convinced to RETROFIT 3 systems--which is much more expensive than doing it when you have the walls open. I have to believe your cost for separate boilers would pay for itself by the end of the first few years.
Good luck.
Posted by: curiositykilledthecat at July 2, 2008 4:41 PM
I recently decided to keep a single boiler and even a single (highly efficient) water tank. The up front extra cost for separating them were really high for us, not worth the future potential savings from the heating and hot water bills from the tenants apt.
In any case, the best is have your engineer design two different options, and your plumber fully price both. It may then be easier to decide.
Posted by: Ray at July 2, 2008 4:52 PM
I think it's something to really consider. However, I wonder what the tenant would say about taking on the extra expense? I know my tenants all have different comfort zones and want perfect heating conditions for them, but don't want to take on the expense.
Posted by: Rick at July 2, 2008 5:41 PM
If your goal is to promote efficiency all around, then the right thing to do is separate boilers and systems that are both somewhat high-end and as efficient as possible.
That way, the tenant has a reason to conserve, but isn't screwed with having to pay for a cheaper, less efficient choice.
When we cut up our house, we were on a really tight budget. We installed one boiler on an indirect water heater that is very efficient, installed very efficient toilet, etc, in apartment and pointed out the "eco" features of the apartment/garden and strongly suggested that it's good to conserve.
This is not an ideal situation... there's a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. I actually think that talking about the efficiency of the mechanicals might have backfired. The hot water use downstairs is just breathtaking.
Posted by: vanburenproud at July 2, 2008 6:13 PM
As a renter, I would rather have the right to control the heat, even if that meant having to pay for it. The fact that you're installing new equipment will be attractive to potential renters too. I currently live in NJ :( (am moving to BK shortly) in an old Victorian, we have constant problem with heat in the winter and water year round. Between the old equipment and upstairs complaining it's too hot when it's only 60 degrees in my apartment, I say let the tenant control the heat and worry about paying the bill.
As far as cost of renovations compared to future savings and whether you'll benefit, I don't know but I can tell you this, installing separate units will save you a lot of tenant phone calls.
Posted by: jsscdb at July 3, 2008 11:16 AM
When I was a tenant, I paid for my heat. I learned really quickly why we wore sweaters in the house in winter, when I was a child. My parents were right - heat is too expensive to have my home like a tropical paradise in December. Your tenants will learn, too.
I would go with Ray's suggestion: price both options out, and I also agree with vanburenproud in getting the best you can afford to get maximum efficiency for whatever you decide.
I would also plan on weatherizing the house as much as possible next fall, to cut down on drafts, etc, so that whoever is paying is not having precious heat and money escaping out of windows and doors.
Montrose Morris
Posted by: guest at July 3, 2008 12:47 PM
Perspective tenants are hesitant to take on apartments where heat/hot water is not included. Most would not have a clue on the expense they are signing up for, and can’t tell if the rent you are asking is a bargain or a rip-off.
Posted by: genya at July 3, 2008 12:54 PM
I have a 4 family BS and the tenants pay for their own heat... The good side is heating bills are so high... I try to keep my rent a little lower to accomodate the fact that the heating bill is high. However the heating bill is only high in the winter months. You don't have to worry about paying peoples heating bill. The down side is you have to make sure the system is put in correctly or you will be called constantly and the systems have to be flushed you will need a reliable plumber....My 2 family home I pay for my tenant and my basement and my apartment and it's a big toll on my pocket... Seriously thinking of converting to 2 seprate meters... So good luck...
Posted by: guest at July 3, 2008 10:32 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.