Top NYC Real Estate Lawyer Warns: Waiting on Local Law 97 Could Mean Major Assessments

Written by:

Rudi Davis

Date:

07 Oct 2025

Share

Share via Facebook

Share via Linkedin

Share via X

Copy to clipboard

Julie Schechter, Partner at Fox Rothschild, warns that many New York City building boards are dangerously underestimating the timeline needed to meet 2030 climate mobilization requirements, potentially setting themselves up for financial strain and compliance challenges.

The False Comfort of 2030

“Boards sitting on their hands saying ‘the next regulation deadline is 2030, we’ve got plenty of time’ – that’s the wrong attitude,” Schechter cautions. While 2030 might seem distant, she argues the reality of implementing major capital improvements requires immediate action.

According to Schechter, the timeline for significant building upgrades is far longer than most boards realize. “By the time you hire an engineer, an engineer comes up with plans, you bid it out to contractors, then the contractor needs 10 months to complete the project, it’s not uncommon that it would take a couple of years to implement something like this,” she explains.

The Financial Planning Reality

Schechter emphasizes that beyond the project timeline itself, boards need to consider the financial preparation required. She notes that prudent boards are already working with energy consultants to develop comprehensive strategies and exploring ways to gradually accumulate necessary funds.

“A prudent board would raise money slowly over the next couple of years in anticipation of doing a project,” Schechter says. “If you wait five years to start doing this, you’re going to either need to do major assessments or, at that point, it’s going to be difficult to come into compliance.”

The Role of Expert Guidance

Schechter observes that forward-thinking buildings are already engaging specialized help. “A lot of environmental consultants that buildings are hiring, are putting together a long-term strategy for the building, as far as like, what capital projects it could do to be a more energy efficient building,” she notes.

According to Miller, experienced compliance consultants are essential for helping co-op and condo boards navigate New York’s complex climate laws while managing costs effectively. Their approach blends short-term efficiency gains with long-term sustainability planning. This includes immediate fixes like installing sensor-activated lighting in common areas, mid-term projects such as elevator modernization, major capital improvements like solar panel installations, and policy changes that require energy-efficient appliances in future unit renovations.

Emerging Solutions

One approach Schechter sees gaining traction is sub-metering, installing individual utility meters for each unit. “When they get hit in the wallet directly for energy that they’re using, they are more cognizant of it,” she explains. “There’s data, the amount of energy that’s being used by a building decreases when they’re sub-metering.”

While sub-metering requires upfront investment, Schechter notes that various incentive programs have been available through NYSERDA and other organizations to help offset costs, though some have expired.

The Path Forward

Schechter’s firm is urging co-op and condo boards to adopt a comprehensive, proactive strategy for climate law compliance. This approach begins with engaging energy consultants early to develop long-term efficiency plans and continues with gradually accumulating funds through regular monthly charges to avoid large future assessments. Boards are also encouraged to explore available incentive programs and financing options while implementing policy changes that align building operations with long-term energy efficiency goals.

The message is clear, while 2030 might seem far away, boards that delay action risk facing much higher costs and more difficult compliance paths in the future. “It’s really not that far away,” Schechter concludes, “when it comes to planning for capital projects and raising money to do it.”