Search News:

Entries Tagged as Members

Sponsorship opportunities to fit any budget in 2012

CRBRA has developed an updated menu of sponsorship opportunities for the new year, and encourages all members to consider supporting a 2012 association-hosted event! Benefit from generous exposure among your industry peers--and to your key consumer audiences--at CRBRA outings, member mixers, continuing education functions, and public events. With a range of opportunities to fit almost any budget, you're sure to find at least one to suit your advertising and marketing objectives!

View/download the 2012 Sponsorship Opportunities

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: December 20, 2011 | In: Members | No Comments

2012 Parade of Homes planned for June

The Capital District Builders & Remodelers Association is pleased to announce that plans for the new spring Parade of Homes are well underway!

Long an autumn staple, the CRBRA Parade of Homes will be reborn in 2012 as an exciting new spring event, to be held June 2, 3, 9, and 10, 2012. This is an ideal season to showcase homes at their "blooming best", and will be a unique event for the public to enjoy at a time when events of this sort are lacking. Builders can take advantage of this timing, when prospective buyers have shaken the winter blahs, finished their spring cleaning, and are ready to move on to the promise of a fresh new home!

Builders who have already committed to participate include:

...with more to be announced in early 2012.

Calling all area builders! Please consider being a part of the 2012 Parade of Homes.

Click here to view details & download registration form

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: November 16, 2011 | In: Events · Members | No Comments

CRBRA contingent meets with Congressman Tonko

Congressman Tonko visit On October 18th, a diverse group of CRBRA members--representing association leadership, and local home building, construction, and mortgage interests--met with Congressman Paul D. Tonko (D-NY21) at his Albany office, to discuss their views on H.R. 1755, The Home Construction Lending Regulatory Improvement Act--which focuses on restrictions to acquisition, development, and construction (AD&C) loans to builders--and on H. Res. 25, about the continuation of the mortgage interest deduction.

Mike Curtis, a CRBRA director and Vice President of Sales at SEFCU Mortgage Services, compiled this summary explanation of the key issues of concern, especially as pertains to housing industry banking:

Risk Retention (Dodd-Frank)

Risk retention is intended to align the interests of borrowers, lenders, and investors in the long-term performance of loans. This "skin-in-the-game" requirement, however, is not a cost-free policy option. This requirement will increase the cost of loans funded through securitization, without doubt. Congress recognized this fact and asked that regulators define a "Qualified Residential Mortgage" (QRM), with loans fitting this description exempt from risk retention. FHA loans are exempt, as is any loan being sold to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac while they're in conservertorship. All other loans will require a 20% downpayment (for purchases) or a minimum of 25% equity in the property (refinances). In addition to this, qualifying ratios cannot exceed 28/36 and there can have been zero delinquencies in the past two years. This appears to fly in the face of everything the administration is trying to accomplish to shrink Fannie & Freddie's role, and to stabalize the housing market. I might suggest the definition sound something like "fully documented and fully amortizing". This would remove the riskiest products from the mortgage market and at the same time allow for a robust private-label securitization market to return, thus shrinking Fannie & Freddie's very important role.

Mortgage Interest Deduction

I can't think of a larger tax increase on working families, many of whom relied on this savings when determining if they could afford the mortgage in the first place.

Loan Officer Licensing (SAFE Act)

State regulated lenders are required to have licensed Loan Officers. Federally regulated lenders are only required to have registered Loan Officers. Licensing requires 20 hours of education (plus 11 hours continuing education every year), fingerprints, background checks, personal credit checks, and passing a national exam as well as a state-specific exam. If a Loan Officer fails any of these requirements, including acceptable personal credit, their license will be denied and they must cease originating immediately. However, that same Loan Officer can go back to work for Bank of America the next day! Further, federal charters can recruit from us and have their Loan Officers begin immediately. We have to have someone complete everything mentioned above, submit to the NYS Banking Dept for approval, for which we've been told to expect 120-day turnaround before that Loan Officer begins with us.

Learn more:

Housing Finance Reform
Housing Production Credit Crisis
Tax Reform
The Mortgage Interest Deduction: Background & Statistics
H.R. 1755, the Home Construction Lending Regulatory Improvement Act
H.R. 1755 legislative alert

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: October 24, 2011 | In: Government Affairs · Politics · Members | No Comments

Senate moves to reinstate higher conforming loan limits

In an important victory for NAHB, the Senate on Oct. 20 approved an amendment to an appropriations bill offered by Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) to reinstate for another two years the higher loan limits for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration that expired on September 30th.

The vote was 60 to 38, just meeting the necessary 60-vote threshold required for passage under Senate rules.

The appropriations bill includes spending for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies.

NAHB has been aggressively lobbying for the Menendez-Isakson amendment directly on Capitol Hill and through its grassroots membership.

A “key vote” letter was sent to members of the Senate on October 19th, urging them to support the amendment to spending bill H.R. 2112 to temporarily restore the higher conforming loan limits.

The letter noted that the current lower loan limits will “further restrict overall mortgage liquidity in the marketplace and place further downward pressure on home prices. Restoring the higher loan limits will provide home owners and home buyers with safe and affordable financing while providing a much-needed boost to housing markets all around the country.”

To build support for the amendment, NAHB also sent out a BuilderLink Alert notifying association members that the Senate might consider a measure to reinstate the higher conforming loan limits. Members were urged to contact their senators and call on them to support the Menendez-Isakson amendment.

Effective on October 1st, the loan limits reverted to the lower levels for high-cost areas established under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The national ceiling for mortgages securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or insured by the FHA dropped from $729,750 to $625,500 and the formula for establishing area loan limits became more restrictive, producing decreases for areas in addition to those currently bound by the national ceiling.

A recent NAHB study found that allowing the limits to revert to 2008 levels would make millions of home purchases ineligible for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA funding and require them to be financed with higher mortgages interest rates, fees, and downpayments, and more stringent credit standards.

After passage of the Menendez-Isakson amendment, NAHB Chairman Bob Nielsen issued a statement commending the Senate action and noting that “the 60-to-38 vote demonstrates bipartisan support for pro-housing policies that will help our industry to create jobs and spur economic growth.”

He also called on Congress to move soon to ensure that this measure is enacted into law.

“Otherwise,” said Nielsen, “the current drop in mortgage loan limits will reduce housing demand and place downward pressure on home prices in major markets. This will exacerbate the current housing downturn, trigger more foreclosures, impede job growth and endanger the fragile economic recovery.”

As the appropriations process moves forward, NAHB will turn its focus to preserving the loan limits extension, among other priorities, in the HUD appropriations bill.

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: October 24, 2011 | In: Government Affairs · Politics · Members | No Comments

EPA stepping up Lead Rule inspections; focusing on certification, paperwork

lead-safety The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stepped up its enforcement of the Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting rule with inspections that focus on company certification and other records required under the rule governing the renovation of older homes, according to remodelers and contractors who have been subject to the inspections.

Under the EPA’s lead paint regulation, remodelers and other contractors working in homes built before 1978 must take precautions to contain lead dust — including using lead-safe work practices, establishing dust containment areas and containing dust during the renovation, cleaning up after the project and maintaining detailed records.

The regulation also requires that they obtain training and certification, and that they distribute the EPA’s "Renovate Right" lead-safe guide to their home owner clients.

“Although the EPA requires dust containment, lead-safe work practices and cleaning verification on job sites, they’re rarely inspecting renovation activities,” said Matt Watkins, environmental policy analyst at NAHB.

“We’re hearing from the field that inspectors are reviewing records, and the most frequent lapses reported are a failure to obtain firm certification and a failure to get signatures from home owners when handing out the ‘Renovate Right’ pamphlet.”

Remodelers reported that they have been given a week’s notice about an impending inspection--either through a letter or a phone call from their EPA regional office--requesting a meeting typically to review their business records for the last three years.

They also reported that inspectors have asked to see documents confirming their status as a certified renovator and certified firm under the lead rule. In addition, inspectors have asked to see the signatures of home owners verifying that they have received the "Renovate Right" pamphlet, as well as lead testing results and all documentation for following the lead rule’s work practices.

Be Prepared for Lead Rule Inspections

Prior to an inspection, remodelers should develop a system for keeping records on jobs applicable to the lead rule.

For example, they should note in their job record if the home they renovated was built before 1978 and keep copies of the following documents in their company records:

Copy of their certified renovator certificate
Copy of their certified firm certificate
Signed verification receipts of the "Renovate Right" pamphlet--by home owners or residents
Results of any lead testing, including EPA-recognized test kits
Work practice checklist for the job
Operation and maintenance records for HEPA vacuums
Some EPA inspectors have also requested verification of worker training for individuals working under the supervision of a certified renovator.

However, the agency does not have guidance on what this documentation would entail, so some remodelers have considered creating a verification form to be signed by workers stating that they have received training on lead-safe work practices required under the rule from a certified renovator.

NAHB advises remodelers to review the compliance resources and samples for record keeping available at www.nahb.org/leadcompliance. The members-only tool includes compliance and record-keeping checklists, the EPA’s "Renovate Right" pamphlet, sample home owner and tenant notification forms and more.

To prepare for the inspections, remodelers are encouraged to collect and have all pertinent records ready for the meeting with the EPA inspector. During the meeting, remodelers should allow the inspector to review all the records requested.

Remodelers should also consider contacting an attorney with experience in regulatory inspections to ensure that they have someone on hand for guidance during the process.

“Whatever you do, do not falsify records,” said Watkins. “This can lead to bigger fines and criminal prosecution. It’s best to share what you have and work with the EPA to rectify any gaps.”

Once the records have been reviewed, the EPA inspector will create a report, with possible enforcement action recommendations. The inspector’s report is then submitted for review, and remodelers and contractors may have 90 days or longer before they receive notice of any fines or other enforcement actions being taken.

EPA penalties range from as little as $130 to as much as $37,500 per violation, per day. The agency calculates fines according to its Consolidated Enforcement Response and Penalty Policy for RRP.

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: September 26, 2011 | In: Government Affairs · Education · Members | No Comments

Builders call on Congress to extend loan limits

With the October 1st deadline rapidly approaching when the conforming loan limits for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will be lowered, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) called on Congress on September 19th to move swiftly to extend the current loan limits to prevent further damage to the already fragile housing market and lackluster economy.

“Congress must act now to prevent the loan limits from reverting to lower levels,” said NAHB Chairman Bob Nielsen, a home builder from Reno, Nev. “A drop in mortgage loan limits would reduce housing demand, and place downward pressure on home prices in major markets. This would exacerbate the current housing downturn, trigger more foreclosures, impede job growth and endanger the fragile economic recovery.”

As a result, NAHB is engaged in a major grassroots push and association members are being urged to contact their members of Congress and seek their support for immediate efforts to extend the current loan limits.

If Congress fails to act, the loan limits will revert to the lower levels for high-cost areas established under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The national ceiling for mortgages securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or insured by the FHA, would drop from $729,750 to $625,500 and the formula for establishing area loan limits would become more restrictive, producing decreases for areas in addition to those currently bound by the national ceiling.

Loan limits are based on a percentage of median area home prices. A recent NAHB study found that if the limits are allowed to revert to 2008 levels, millions of homes would no longer be eligible for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA funding and would have to be financed with mortgages requiring higher interest rates, fees and downpayments and more stringent credit standards.

While the changes would affect only a minority of counties in the nation, those areas represent large concentrations of homes and population. The counties affected by the changes in the FHA limits contain nearly 60 percent of all owner-occupied homes; the counties affected by the Fannie-Freddie changes contain nearly 30 percent of all owner-occupied homes.

Bipartisan legislation to extend the current federal home loan guarantees is pending in both chambers of Congress, but with the Oct. 1 deadline looming, time is running short.

“Credit conditions for home builders and home buyers are already extremely tight,” said Nielsen. “Reducing the loan limits would further restrict overall mortgage liquidity and make it even more difficult for potential buyers to purchase a home. Congress must not allow this to happen.”

Act today! Contact your member of Congress to voice support for the extension of loan limits. Call (866) 924-NAHB, or write your member online via http://www.capitolconnect.com/builderlink/register.aspx.

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: September 26, 2011 | In: Government Affairs · Politics · Members | No Comments

Top 10 NAHB actions to benefit our members in the past month

NAHB As a member of CRBRA, you are also a member of the National Association of Home Builders. Read on to learn about the actions and activities NAHB has undertaken in recent weeks in support of the home building industry.

1. NAHB has initiated a broad-based messaging strategy that is aimed at amplifying the importance of homeownership to voting Americans and the importance of residential construction to the national economy.

Homeownership is under attack. As policymakers debate scaling back or eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, imposing stricter lending standards and dismantling the GSEs, it is crucial to remind the American people how much they value homeownership and enlist their support in the battles ahead. The stakes could hardly be higher, yet the public is largely unaware of the emerging threats to homeownership. Moreover, while numerous surveys have shown that Americans greatly value homeownership and agree with our priorities in the tax, legislative and regulatory arenas in surveys, our “base” of die-hard supporters among likely voters is somewhat less than 50%. In other words, we have work to do. The good news is that we can win the battle to maintain homeownership as a national priority if we tell a compelling story about its true value--a story that emphasizes such positives as job creation, economic growth, pride of ownership, peace of mind, and financial security--and engage the public in defending it.

We have a new way to speak to America more persuasively than ever. Developed by a renowned expert in the art of consumer insight and strategic communications, NAHB's new “messaging architecture” is designed to engage people’s emotional connection to homeownership, drive home the importance of home building as an engine of job growth, and spur positive action to defeat these threats. By following a simple outline to tell our story using a central theme, a description of what is at stake, and proof points with power phrases and images that resonate, we can dramatically improve our effectiveness in communicating our priorities to home buyers, likely voters, civic groups, Congress, regulators, the media and other key audiences.

Start using words that work today. Visit www.nahb.org/messaging to learn why the messaging architecture works and how to use it, with resources ranging from a 40-minute training video and written guide to practical tools you can put to use immediately, including a speech outline, talking points, a publication, print ads, op-eds and letters to the editor.

Our industry is in the fight of its life. If we are to succeed, all of us must speak with one voice. We are asking every NAHB member to be part of the critical effort to tell our story, and win the battles that lie ahead.

2. Following NAHB efforts to convince EPA that it did not have enough data to support a numeric limit for stormwater discharges, the agency has finally admitted this by announcing that it will withdraw its revised ELG rule from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and begin collecting data from the public prior to developing and proposing a new rule.

If adopted, a numeric limit would require construction site operators to install costly treatment systems, sample their stormwater discharges, and self report their sampling data to EPA or their state permitting authority, collectively adding thousands of dollars to the cost of the average single-family home. NAHB helped convince the agency that it could not rely on its advanced treatment system (ATS) data because that data was flawed; at the same time, its passive treatment system (PTS) data was suspect, leaving the agency with little real data on which to base a rule.

NAHB was successful in this effort because of our integrated approach to challenging the rule (on both the legal and administrative fronts), and our commitment and continued monitoring and participation with the Small Business Administration, OMB, and EPA as they worked on reviewing and revising the draft rule.

The latest development effectively pushes EPA back to square one in developing the rule, and will likely mean that the Construction General Permit will be finalized in February without any numeric requirement. It also bolsters NAHB’s argument that because terrain, geography and rainfall vary significantly in most regions of the country, a nationally applicable numeric limit is neither defensible nor practicable. Going forward, NAHB is redoubling our efforts to collect turbidity data from members' construction sites to help ensure that the eventual ruling makes good scientific sense.

3. Bringing builder concerns about the appraisal process for new homes directly to those who need to hear them, NAHB Chairman Bob Nielsen gave a keynote address at a meeting of the Appraisal Institute on Aug. 17.

Telling institute members that "it is absolutely critical for our organizations to work together to reform some aspects of the appraisal system that are crushing the residential construction industry and dampening prospects for an economic recovery," he emphasized builder concerns about the use of distressed properties as comparables for new homes and spelled out the very real differences between the two. "By definition, distressed properties are not comparable to a new home," said Bob. "New homes are built to current codes, they are often significantly more energy efficient and 'green' than older homes, and they include a range of modern amenities and design elements that buyers value and for which they are willing to pay a premium." Beyond this, new homes are in excellent condition and are move-in ready, he noted. In contrast, distressed properties have often experienced significant damage from theft and vandalism. "Almost always, they have deteriorated as a result of neglect and deferred maintenance. And, all of them suffer from a perception that these conditions may have diminished their value," Bob said. He explained to his audience that "If we keep comparing new homes to homes that are in foreclosure, then there is no floor to the market," and urged the institute's support for key measures within legislation that has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 1755) to address the critical lack of funding for housing construction and the related problem of inaccurate appraisals. "If you have different solutions, we are very open to learning more about them," said Bob. "But home builders feel strongly that a system that allows distressed properties to be used as comps for new homes needs to be changed." In all, Bob's appearance before this audience and his keynote address marked an important milestone for our efforts to draw attention to one of the most critical issues affecting newhome sales today, and was a good indication of appraisers' willingness to hear the solutions we have proposed.

4. NAHB’s Construction, Codes and Standards staff has recently completed the “2012 I-Codes Adoption Kit,” a collection of resources that provides members with a list of the suggested amendments and other items needed to successfully advocate for cost-effective and affordable codes at the state and local level.

At the conclusion of every code development cycle, NAHB's staff reviews all of the approved changes and develops a list of recommended amendments for use when the codes come up for adoption at the state and local level. Each recommended amendment includes the text to be amended, a reason statement to justify the amendment, and the contact information of the staff member who can provide additional information. The NAHB proposed amendments for the latest codes cover a wide range of requirements, from reinstating equipment trade-off provisions in the energy chapters of the International Residential Code, to removing the mandate for residential sprinklers. Additional items recommended to be amended in the 2012 I-Codes pertain to: expansion of Type-B units in existing buildings; window and door flashing; kitchen exhaust make-up air; carbon monoxide detectors; and more. The 2012 I-Codes Adoption Kit is available to members on www.nahb.org.

5. On Aug. 1, NAHB submitted our official comments on the Credit Risk Retention rule that was issued earlier this year, in which we requested a withdrawal of proposed requirements for the Qualified Residential Mortgage (QRM).

Passed in July of last year, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that loan originators and securitizers hold at least 5% of the credit risk between them, with noted exemptions – one of which is for qualified residential mortgages (QRMs). As of now, the federal agencies have proposed that QRMs include a 20% downpayment and very conservative debt-toincome and credit history requirements. Because loans meeting the QRM standard will not require risk retention, these loans will have more favorable interest rates and payment terms than loans that do not meet the QRM standard. NAHB strongly believes that the unduly narrow definition of a QRM would seriously disrupt the housing market by making mortgages unavailable or unnecessarily expensive for many creditworthy borrowers. In our newly submitted comments, we therefore requested that the proposed rule be withdrawn and re-proposed and asked the agencies to seek additional information from the public to assist them in framing these regulations.

NAHB has also joined with a diverse coalition of more than 40 consumer organizations, civil rights groups, lenders, real estate professionals, insurers and local governments in developing a white paper that includes a thorough analysis of the impact of the proposed definition of a qualified residential mortgage on the fragile housing market. The Coalition submitted this paper as a comment letter and urged the regulators to redesign a QRM that encourages sound lending behaviors, attracts private capital and reduces future defaults without punishing responsible borrowers and lenders.

The proposed rule would also have a detrimental impact on financing multifamily and commercial properties. The rule provides an exemption from risk retention for Qualified Commercial Real Estate (QCRE) loans, but the proposed requirements would be virtually impossible to meet, therefore pushing up financing costs for multifamily and CRE developments. NAHB told the agencies that the QCRE underwriting standards should be realistic and achievable.

The proposed rules will go into effect one year after they are finalized, which is not expected anytime soon. Going forward, NAHB will continue to press the agencies to develop a final regulation that will not unnecessarily hamper the flow of capital to the residential mortgage sector.

6. When recent developments such as S&P’s downgrade, weaker economic reports, stock market volatility and the debt/deficit debate in Washington spurred questions among our members about the implications of these events for housing, NAHB offered a free webinar to provide some answers.

NAHB CEO Jerry Howard focused on the political side of the equation and where the policy debate is headed in the coming months, while Chief Economist David Crowe presented his revised forecast and insights on the latest economic indicators. NAHB alerted our members in advance of this event, and with more than 230 people listening in from 166 locations, this proved to be one of NAHB’s largest webcast events thus far. We are now providing a full replay of the event for a limited time on our web site. Simply visit nahb.org and type “housing market implications” in the searchbox at the top right of the page.

7. A free webinar from NAHB provides NAHB members and home builders associations with important information on dealing with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s recent stepped-up enforcement actions and increased penalties.

While in past years OSHA primarily targeted commercial contractors for its inspections, today residential builders are also routinely being visited. NAHB's webinar, “How to Prepare for an OSHA Inspection”, was offered live on Sept. 13 and viewed by nearly 400 NAHB members. The webinar touched on a number of topics, including the rights of employers during an OSHA inspection, what to do during the actual inspection, when to contest citations, how to obtain penalty reductions, and what legally recognized defenses exist to defend against citations, specifically as they relate to recent changes in fall protection requirements. The presenter was Bradford T. Hammock, a partner in the Washington, D.C., regional office of Jackson Lewis LLP, whose practice is exclusively in the safety and health area. NAHB members can access a full replay of this helpful webinar by visiting www.nahb.org/safety.

8. NAHB offered a special panel session called “Builder Focus: Proven Strategies for Success” during the Fall Board of Directors week in Wisconsin. A full replay will soon after be available for our members’ viewing on www.nahb.org.

The panel discussion took place on Sept. 8 and was slated as a follow-up to the successful Spring Board panel of the same name. This time, four new panelists shared what strategies they are using to successfully sell homes, secure AD&C financing, and gain the advantages they need to thrive in a down market, as well as how they are positioning their companies for success as the industry emerges from the recession. NAHB Chairman of the Board Bob Nielsen again acted as moderator. Panelists included Mike Dishberger, CEO of Sandcastle Homes and 2011 president of the Greater Houston HBA, as well as Keith Grant, co-owner of Keith and David Grant Homes LLC in Collierville, Tenn.; David Main, owner of Creative Home Partners and 2010 president of the MBA of King and Snohomish Counties in Washington State; and Sandra Steele, president and co-owner of Enfinger Steele Development in Huntsville, Ala.

9. A new study by NAHB sheds light on the number and geographic diversity of second homes, providing relevant facts in the fight to preserve the mortgage interest deduction for these residences.

Pundits and policymakers who want to trim the mortgage interest deduction (MID) often point to second homes as a primary target, stereotyping these residences as expensive beach houses owned by the very wealthy. But home builders know this characterization is way off the mark. Not only are many vacation homes used as rental properties and therefore NOT eligible for the MID, but many second homes that DO meet the requirements for a deduction are those from which a family has recently moved or homes that are under construction where the eventual owner holds the construction loan. To help set the record straight about where second homes that qualify for the MID are located, NAHB economists analyzed data from the 2009 American Community Survey (the most recent available) to produce a map of the share of each county's housing stock that consists of second homes. The results should surprise some people. Overall, 6.9 million housing units qualify as second homes, or more than 5% of all housing units nationwide. And 28% of the nation's counties have a local housing stock in which at least 10% of the units are second homes. In fact, all but one state (Connecticut) and Washington, D.C., have at least one county in which 10% or more of the housing stock qualifies as second homes eligible for the MID. Such findings suggest that much caution needs to be exercised regarding proposals that would affect second home ownership, because reasons for owning a second home are much more diverse than critics usually provide, and because there are many locations across the country where second homes constitute a significant portion of the total housing stock. Read NAHB's analysis on our Eye on Housing blog at http://eyeonhousing.wordpress.com/.

10. A new study by NAHB Economics expands on an earlier report on state and metropolitan tax rates by providing further breakdowns of property tax rates in smaller geographic areas such as counties, places (political jurisdictions like towns and cities) and county tracts.

The report, "Property Tax Rates by County and City," presents tables of effective property tax rates in more than 3,100 counties and also discusses factors that help explain differences in those rates. It finds that effective property tax rates often appear to be related to household income, the value of homes in the area, and how recently those homes have been sold. The data reveal wide differences across counties, with median real estate taxes ranging from around $110 per home in several Louisiana parishes to more than $8,000 per home in Hunterdon County, N.J., and in Nassau and Westchester Counties in New York. Similarly, real estate tax rates display a wide range of values, from less than a dollar per $1,000 of value in two Alaska Census areas to around $30 per $1,000 of value in several New York counties. Drilling the data down to the smaller geographic confines of Census "tracts" -- small subdivisions of a county with populations between 2,500 and 8,000 -- the data show that even within counties, effective property tax rates can vary significantly. As expected, a large portion of inter-tract differences can be explained by their regional location, with tracts located in the Midwest, Northeast and Texas paying considerably higher property tax rates per $1,000 of value, compared to tracts in the South and West regions. As the report notes, this is just a reflection of a well-known and long established tradition in which southern states tend to rely less on real estate taxes as a source of
government revenue. Much more analysis is included in the report, which is available for free download from www.HousingEconomics.com.

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: September 26, 2011 | In: Members | No Comments

Updated OSHA fall protection resources for CRBRA members

OSHA On September 14th, CRBRA hosted a special presentation at its offices for members interested in understanding and complying with OSHA's updated fall protection rules for residential construction. Feedback from this presentation--given by Robert Francis, a NYS Department of Labor safety and health consultant--has been very positive, with attendees even indicating that more lengthy, in-depth discussion of the topic would be beneficial. CRBRA plans for more educational sessions on this topic in the near future, but in the interim provides some tools for members' use and reference.

For a summary of the key changes to the fall protection rules, CRBRA provides the below Q&A. This Q&A is designed to provide information about standards relating to fall protection in residential construction. The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to comply with safety and health standards promulgated by OSHA or by a state with an OSHA-approved state plan. Additional resources:

Which OSHA standards address fall hazards in construction work?

29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart M, which became effective on February 6, 1995, contains general fall protection requirements for construction work. Additional fall protection requirements can be found throughout Part 1926.

What are the Subpart M requirements for residential construction?

safety-net-systems Under 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13), workers engaged in residential construction six (6) feet or more above lower levels must be protected by conventional fall protection (i.e., guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems) or alternative fall protection measures allowed under 1926.501(b) for particular types of work. A personal fall arrest system may consist of a full body harness, a deceleration device, a lanyard, and an anchor point. (See the definition of "personal fall arrest system" in 29 CFR 1926.500). If an employer can demonstrate that fall protection required under 1926.501(b)(13) is infeasible or presents a greater hazard it must implement a written, site-specific fall protection plan meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.502(k). The fall protection plan must specify alternative measures that will be used to eliminate or reduce the possibility of employee falls.

There is a "Sample Fall Protection Plan" in Appendix E of Subpart M. Why did OSHA prepare this appendix?

OSHA included Appendix E in Subpart M to show employers and employees what a compliant fall protection plan might look like.

Why did OSHA issue Instruction STD 3.1 "Interim Fall Protection Compliance Guidelines for Residential Construction" in 1995?

full-body-harness Once the final rule for Subpart M was published, representatives from the residential construction industry, including the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), expressed ongoing concerns about complying with 1926.501(b)(13). For example, industry representatives were concerned about the feasibility of establishing proper anchor points on wood-framed structures. In response to their concerns and to give OSHA time to revisit some feasibility issues, the Agency issued Directive STD 3.1. The directive allowed employers doing specified residential construction activities to comply with the requirements of Subpart M by implementing the alternative fall protection and work procedures prescribed in the directive. The alternative procedures could be used without a prior showing of infeasibility or greater hazard and without a written fall protection plan. The Agency did not intend STD 3.1 to be a permanent policy.

Why did OSHA reissue STD 3.1 as STD 3-0.1A in 1998?

OSHA issued STD 3-0.1A (later redesignated as STD 03-00-001) as a plain language replacement for STD 3.1. In STD 03-00-001, the Agency made some changes to the original interim guidance to clarify the scope of the directive and the Agency's enforcement policy with respect to fall protection requirements for the specific construction activities covered by the directive. In STD 03-00-001, OSHA indicated that it intended to reevaluate the interim policy after soliciting additional public comment.

Why did OSHA issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for Subpart M in 1999?

OSHA issued an ANPR for Subpart M in 1999 in part to obtain information from the public that it could use to evaluate the effectiveness of and need for STD 03-00-001. In the ANPR, the Agency noted that there had been progress in the types and capability of commercially available fall protection equipment since 1926.501(b)(13) was promulgated in 1994. OSHA also stated in the ANPR that it intended to rescind STD 03-00-001 unless persuasive evidence was submitted showing that it is infeasible or presents significant safety hazards for most residential construction employers to comply with 1926.501(b)(13).

Did OSHA rely on sources of information in addition to the comments received in response to the ANPR in evaluating whether to continue the interim enforcement policy contained in STD 03-00-001?

Yes. A Residential Fall Protection Work Group within OSHA's Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) has reported to ACCSH on a number of presentations they have seen from home builders and fall protection equipment manufacturers describing new ways of providing safe and effective fall protection in residential construction. ACCSH has recommended rescission of STD 03-00-001 on two separate occasions – first in 2000 and again in 2008. Also in 2008, both the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association (OSHSPA) and the NAHB submitted letters to OSHA advocating for withdrawal of STD 03-00-001. The NRCA has continued to oppose rescission of STD 03-00-001 with respect to roofing work, but a representative of that organization conceded at an ACCSH meeting in December 2009 that nowadays it is "very tough" to establish that conventional fall protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard.

Now that OSHA has rescinded STD 03-00-001, what do residential construction employers have to do to protect employees from fall hazards?

personal-fall-arrest-systems Employees working six (6) feet or more above lower levels must be protected by conventional fall protection methods listed in 1926.501(b)(13) (i.e., guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems) or alternative fall protection measures allowed by other provisions of 29 CFR 1926.501(b) for particular types of work.

An example of an alternative fall protection measure allowed under 1926.501(b) is the use of warning lines and safety monitoring systems during the performance of roofing work on low-sloped roofs. (4 in 12 pitch or less). (See 1926.501(b)(10)).

OSHA allows the use of an effective fall restraint system in lieu of a personal fall arrest system. To be effective, a fall restraint system must be rigged to prevent a worker from reaching a fall hazard and falling over the edge. A fall restraint system may consist of a full body harness or body belt that is connected to an anchor point at the center of a roof by a lanyard of a length that will not allow a worker to physically reach the edge of the roof.

When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use required fall protection systems, a qualified person must develop a written site-specific fall protection plan in accordance with 1926.502(k) that, among other things, specifies the alternative fall protection methods that will be used to protect workers from falls.

When will residential construction employers that were covered by STD 03-00-001 have to start complying with 1926.501(b)(13)?

The effective date of STD 03-11-002 is June 16, 2011.

Why was compliance directive STD 03-00-001 rescinded?

Falls continue to be the leading cause of death among construction workers. Statistics show that fatalities from falls are consistently high for residential construction activities. OSHA considered the comments received in response to the 1999 ANPR and was not persuaded that compliance with 1926.501(b)(13) is infeasible or presents significant safety hazards for most residential construction employers. The recommendations from ACCSH, OSHSPA, and the NAHB, as well as the mounting evidence that has been presented to the ACCSH Residential Fall Protection Work Group showing that conventional fall protection is available and can be used safely for almost all residential construction operations, provide a separate and independent grounds for OSHA's decision to withdraw STD 03-00-001.

What are the training requirements for the use of fall protection systems?

In accordance with 29 CFR 1926.503, the employer must ensure that each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards has been trained by a competent person to recognize the hazards of falling and in the procedures to be followed in order to minimize those hazards. In addition, the employer must verify the training of each employee by preparing a written certification record that contains the name/identity of the employee trained, the date(s) of training, and the signature of the employer or the person who conducted the training.

Is OSHA prohibiting the use of slideguards as employee protection during the performance of roofing activities in residential construction?

Slideguards cannot simply be used in lieu of conventional fall protection methods under 1926.501(b)(13). However, slideguards may be used as part of a written, site-specific fall protection plan that meets the requirements of 1926.502(k) if the employer can demonstrate that the use of conventional fall protection (i.e., guardrail, safety net, or personal fall arrest systems) would be infeasible or create greater hazards.

Can monitors still be used?

Under 1926.501(b)(10), safety monitoring systems can be used in conjunction with a warning line system to protect employees during the performance of roofing work on roofs of 4 in 12 pitch or less. When such a roof is 50 feet (15.25 m) or less in width, a safety monitoring system can be used alone, i.e., without a warning line system. Under 1926.501(b)(13), if the employer can demonstrate that the use of conventional fall protection would be infeasible or create a greater hazard, monitors may be used as part of an employer's written fall protection plan under 1926.502(k).

Are there requirements for safety monitoring systems?

Yes. Safety monitoring systems must meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.502(h) including, but not limited to, requirements that the monitor:

be competent to recognize fall hazards;
be on the same walking working surface and within visual sighting distance of the employee being monitored;
be close enough to communicate orally with the employee; and
not have other responsibilities which could take the monitor's attention from the monitoring function.

Can a standardized fall protection plan be developed and implemented for the construction of dwellings that are of the same basic structural design?

Before using a fall protection plan at a particular worksite, the employer must first be able to demonstrate that it is infeasible or presents a greater hazard to use conventional fall protection methods at that site. Fall protection plans must be site-specific to comply with §1926.502(k). A written fall protection plan developed for repetitive use, e.g., for a particular style or model of home, will be considered site-specific with respect to a particular site only if it fully addresses all issues related to fall protection at that site. Therefore, a standardized plan will have to be reviewed, and revised as necessary, on a site by site basis.

What are some of the benefits of rescinding STD 03-00-001?

Falls continue to be the leading cause of fatalities in residential construction. OSHA has concluded that fall hazards pose a significant risk of death or serious injury for construction workers and that compliance with the requirements of Subpart M is reasonably necessary to protect workers from those hazards.
STD 03-00-001 addressed only certain, specified types of residential construction work. Withdrawing that directive will result in consistent enforcement policy with respect to all residential construction activities.
Several state plan OSHA programs did not adopt, or have already rescinded, the enforcement policy described in STD 03-00-001. Therefore, rescinding the compliance directive will promote consistency among all states regarding the enforcement of fall protection requirements for residential construction.
OSHA expects that further advances in the design technologies of fall protection equipment will be triggered by the demands of employers who may encounter compliance difficulties on particular work sites.

What is "residential construction"?

The Agency's interpretation of "residential construction" for purposes of 1926.501(b)(13) combines two elements – both of which must be satisfied for a project to fall under that provision:

The end-use of the structure being built must be as a home, i.e., a dwelling; and
The structure being built must be constructed using traditional wood frame construction materials and methods.

The limited use of structural steel in a predominantly wood-framed home, such as a steel I-beam to help support wood framing, does not disqualify a structure from being considered residential construction. Traditional wood frame construction materials and methods will be characterized by:

Framing materials: Wood (or equivalent cold-formed sheet metal stud) framing, not steel or concrete; wooden floor joists and roof structures.
Exterior wall structure: Wood (or equivalent cold-formed sheet metal stud) framing or masonry brick or block.
Methods: Traditional wood frame construction techniques.

Why are only "dwellings" considered "residential construction"?

Limiting the scope of 1926.501(b)(13) to the construction of homes/dwellings comports with the plain meaning of the term "residential" in the text of that paragraph and is consistent with OSHA's intent in promulgating that provision.

Download additional fall protection resources:

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: September 19, 2011 | In: Government Affairs · Education · Members | No Comments

Member spotlight: Annemarie Mitchell

CRBRA (re)introduces members to Annemarie Mitchell, CEO & President of Legacy Timber Frames. Annemarie is an active member of CRBRA, currently serving on the Board of Directors and as the chairperson and a founding member of the Professional Women in Building of Northeastern New York, a council of CRBRA, which will be celebrating its one-year anniversary in September 2011.

Q: Tell us a little about your own business.

Legacy Timber Frames has been in business since 1988, and was founded by me and my business partner, Dan Roseberger. Legacy designs, manufactures, and installs custom timber frame structures, and also installs structural insulated panels (SIPs) to enclose the frames or as structural panel structures. Timber frames are heavy timber structures, where the members are connected with joinery and wooden pegs (no metal or nails), just like the old buildings in Europe and the old barns built by the founders of this country that are still standing. Timber framing is different from log homes. With log homes, the logs are stacked to create the exterior wall. With timber framing, the timbers stand upright and require an enclosure system on the outside of the structure, most typically SIPs. The timber frames can be used for the entire structure of a house, or parts of a home. We do a lot of timber trusses for local builders to incorporate into their conventionally framed homes, or as porches, pergolas or accents.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself...What is your role in the business, your background, and how did you come to be in the business?

My role in the business has changed through the years. I got into the construction field from the design end. I attended college for interior design, and eventually got a design job with a timber frame company where I would sometimes work in the field. When Legacy first started, I was involved in every aspect of the business: sales, design, frame-cutting, and in the field doing everything from pouring concrete, crane-rigging, shingles, framing, etc. As Legacy has grown, my role has increasingly been in sales, management, design, and supervising the shop. I still occasionally work in the shop, which I love and refuse to give up!

Q: What can you tell us about PWB NENY, such as its main mission or goal?

The Professional Women in Building Council of Northeastern New York is a council of the national PWB, as well as CRBRA and BRANNY. The PWBNENY is dedicated to promoting, enhancing, and supporting home building and women in the home building industry. The group currently consists of women, and one man, that are builders, suppliers, and associates. All are involved in some way with the construction industry, and are members of either CRBRA or BRANNY. It’s a dynamic and highly motivated group committed to making a difference for women in the trades, women in the community, and to being actively involved in the political process, especially as it deals with bills directly affecting residential construction. We meet once a month, and in one short year we have accomplished a lot. We had a great showcase event where members had the opportunity to have tabletop displays, and we invited all of CRBRA and BRANNY to attend. We hosted a family picnic in July where we awarded two scholarships to female students at HVCC. We had a joint mixer with the local chapter of NAWIC. We presented two how-to classes for the public in partnership with the local Rebuilding Together group. We sent two representatives to NAHB lobby day in Washington, D.C., and we had a PWB lobby day in Albany which eight attended. Six of us attended the International Builders Show in Florida, and two of us are attending the NAHB fall board of directors meeting in September. All in our first year! Our first anniversary is in September, and we will be celebrating with a champagne brunch and cruise on Lake George!

Q: What is the greatest benefit or value of this council?

There are quite a lot of women involved in the home building industry, and we really don’t know each other. This has been a wonderful way to get to know who else is out there and network, while also making a difference to the industry. As a result of the group, there are a lot more women getting involved with CRBRA and NAHB. It is empowering.

Q: Why did you join CRBRA, and how has your membership in the association and your leadership of the PWB NENY benefited you?

I joined CRBRA for the networking opportunities but also because I wanted to be involved in an association that is working for the construction industry. CRBRA, NYSBA, and NAHB work hard to educate its members on the constantly changing world of construction, and lobby to enact or stop legislation that will have a huge impact on the industry as a whole, and also my own business. It is getting harder and harder to have a small business in NY, and to have a construction company is even harder. I feel that if more of us join together, the louder our voices will be, and can be heard. I have learned so much in the past year as the chair of PWBNENY and also as a member of the board. I have gotten back so much more than I have given. It is empowering to know that each person absolutely makes a difference…and all you have to do is show up and participate! I have met and made friends with so many wonderful, dynamic people who are involved. I am really excited to see where we go next!

Q: What is your forecast for the future of building/remodeling, especially as pertains to women’s involvement in the industry? What do you see as the greatest challenges, and also the greatest opportunities for you and your peers?

I believe we are in a great area geographically, and we already see signs of things turning around. I expect that this will be increasing for the next few years, locally. Nationally, things have to change radically before the construction industry has a complete recovery. I think there were more women in the industry when I started Legacy in 1988. I’m not sure why that is, but I think it has more to do with less people in general getting into the building trades than fewer women specifically. It is much harder to run a small construction company now than it was 20 years ago, and most companies start small. I see the biggest challenge posed by regulations. You almost have to have an accountant, lawyer, and architect on your staff to keep up with all the paperwork and requirements. I think it is so important for the builders, suppliers, and associates involved in the construction industry to join together and fight back. The special interest groups have a huge voice, and much of what they are proposing has unintended consequences that will impact the construction industry, and not even achieve the goals they had in mind. If we don’t speak up, and speak loudly, the government will continue to act on legislation that doesn’t make sense, just because there wasn’t enough of an opposing perspective.

Q: Anything else about yourself you'd like to share? Your interests and hobbies outside of work?

hats-off-winner I have three wonderful grown sons that I am extremely proud of. Now that I have an empty nest, I have the time to do more networking, being involved in the builders association and local chamber. I am presently serving on the board at CRBRA, as well as chair and one of the founders of PWB of NENY. I really enjoy attending the NAHB national conferences and board meetings. For fun I enjoy going out with friends, doing craft projects (like creating hats for the Saratoga Track "hats off" contest…which we won!), gardening and reading.

Legacy Timber Frames
691 CR 70
Stillwater, NY 12170

Phone: 5182799108 Fax: 5185819219

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: August 29, 2011 | In: Members | No Comments

Congressman Tonko to discuss energy efficiency and jobs

On Tuesday, October 18th, Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY21) will address CRBRA members at a luncheon meeting at HVCC's state-of-the-art TEC-SMART campus in Malta. Congressman Tonko's focus will be on energy efficiency in the building industry and its impact on local and regional jobs. It is also anticipated that he will touch on PACE legislation and the Solar Jobs Act of 2011. The meeting will be held from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., and lunch will be served. Attendees are encouraged to prepare and present questions to Congressman Tonko as part of this discussion. Registration details to be forthcoming from CRBRA.

Author: CRBRA Admin | On: August 22, 2011 | In: Government Affairs · Politics · Members | No Comments

Please visit our sponsors

CRBRA - 1202 Troy-Schenectady Road, Latham, NY 12110
Phone: 518.690.0766 | Fax: 518.690.0767

Connect with CRBRA

Member Info

Councils & Committies

Resources

Parade of Homes