Cherrytree Group LLC Blog

... By Warren Kirshenbaum

In order to jump-start the economy and defuse some of the economic hardship caused by the recession, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Act”) attempted to infuse financial benefits and incentives into the economy. One of the sections of the Act benefits supporters and investors of renewable energy. The US is determined to be in the fore front of the renewable energy industry, and the government hopes that the industry continues to prosper despite the volatile economic times. Specifically, Section 1603 of the Act (the “grant” or “grants”) provides grants from the federal government to eligible “persons” (a legal construct including entities) who develop renewable energy systems during the recessionary period. The Federal government already provides tax credits that benefit the renewable energy industry that is credit that reduces dollar for dollar an eligible tax payer’s tax liability, if the taxpayer engaged in a qualifying renewable energy program. However, fearing that investors in renewable energy will not be able to successfully monetize tax credits, Section 1603 provides grants in lieu of the tax credits to interested investors. The purpose of Section 1603 is to temporarily fill the gap that was created by a lack of demand for tax credits from investors and simultaneously decrease American’s dependency on non-renewable energy sources while creating or retaining jobs.

The grant is for qualifying persons who install specified energy system on property during 2009 or 2010. The Treasury will provide grants up to 10% or 30% (depending on the energy system) of qualifying expenses. Persons eligible for the grant include government agencies, 501(c) organizations (non-profits), entities as qualified under IRC sec 54(j) paragraph 4, and partnerships or other pass-thru entities, or any direct or indirect partner of such entities.

Specified energy systems include large wind, closed-loop and open-loop biomass facilities, geothermal, landfill gas facility, trash facility, qualified hydropower facility, marine & hydrokinetic, solar, fuel cells, microturbines, combined heat & power, small wind, and geothermal heat pumps. Qualifying persons will continue to be eligible for the grant even when the renewable energy project is completed after 2010, for so long as the qualifying project began in 2009 or 2010. Beginning a qualifying project is defined as conducting physical work of significant nature either on or off site, costing at least 5% of the total cost of the project. Furthermore, the original use of the energy system must begin with an applicant. Accordingly, a person will not be eligible for the grant by simply purchasing an already installed renewable energy system. The applicant, however, may use pre-owned parts in the facility, but their costs may not exceed 20% of the total cost of the facility.

If less than 5% of the total cost is incurred during the 2009 or 2010 period or only preliminary work was completed during that time, the persons seeking the grant will be disqualified. Preliminary work includes planning or designing, securing financing, exploring, researching, clearing a site, test drilling, or excavation to change the contour of the land. On the other hand, excavation for the foundation or the pouring of the concrete pads of the foundation will be considered as the start of construction. The start of construction also includes the start of manufacturing components, even though the manufacturing is completed off-site.

The Act includes a powerful tool for businesses and individuals who support and are involved in the development of the renewable energy industry. The grant, although currently offered for a temporary period of time, offers an incentive to continue to build renewable energy systems in one’s community. For those who began constructing a renewable energy facility in 2009-2010 period, applying for the Section 1603 grant should be a priority. Although the application for the grant is complicated and often confusing, obtaining up to 30% of the eligible expenses offers a significant resource to assist in making your project a success. Cherrytree Group LLC and Kirshenbaum Law Offices can provide to you the expertise needed to decipher whether you qualify for the renewable energy grant and assist you in applying for and obtaining the grant as well as assist you in monetizing your tax credits.

By Warren Kirshenbaum

In the recent election, Question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot asked whether voters should “repeal the law allowing developers of projects that include low- or moderate-income housing to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board” The law in question is M.G.L. Chapter 40B, which is an expedited permitting statute. Chapter 40B creates an expedited permitting procedure for those developers that include an affordable component to their development. Specifically, in order to receive a permit under 40B, 25% of the housing units to be built must be considered affordable housing. The towns in the Commonwealth that are subject to 40B are those towns whose affordable housing stock does not exceed 10% of their total housing inventory. 40B subjects the Zoning Board to a streamlined procedure greatly reducing the time and cost of the permitting procedure, and limiting the ability of the town to deny the permit.

On Tuesday, November 2nd, Massachusetts voters, in a decisive victory of 58% to 42% voted not to repeal 40B.

This trend in the voting patterns comports with conversations that I had with people, in which it seemed that there was a lot of non-information, and even misinformation on this issue, and as this movement to repeal 40B could resurface again, I am hoping to shed some light on the issue in this post.

The main underlying issue that I sensed is the NIMBY one. Not in My Back Yard is understandable, and is a concern about falling property values and the denigration of a neighborhood when some of the housing is affordable. Declining property values is indeed a fallout of affordable housing, as the financing options discussed below are very favorable to developers or affordable buyers and, therefore, their properties. These affordability factors lower the market value of a single family home, or a multifamily property, and, therefore, affect the comps of other sellers in the area. This effect is a micro-economic effect, and a relatively minor one at that, as lower comps would affect a financing appraisal in small part, and the market value of a sale with even less consequence. In any event, 40B historically has mostly been used for multi-family construction, and 95% of the projects permitted under 40B are multi-family apartment complexes or condos.

Practically speaking, if a condo development were built near your home, whether it was affordable or market-rate your property value and property enjoyment would decline, so this is not an affordable housing, or 40B issue, as much as it is a land-use or urban planning issue.

Secondly, people I spoke to understood 40B to be a financing statute, and assumed that it gave developers funding to pursue their affordable housing projects. 40B is an expedited permitting statute that allows an override of municipal zoning authority to promote affordable housing. It is not a financing statute. There are forms of financing that are available to developers of affordable housing, such as the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit, HUD insured mortgages, tax-exempt bonds, Community Block Grants, and other state and federal sources of funding, and developers use these sources of funding once they are permitted, whether pursuant to 40B or otherwise. 40B is not a preamble to these sources of financing.

While realizing that concern over retaining a leafy suburban lifestyle, or holding on to a paper appraisal of a home value may be important to some in the micro-economic sense, it is not a positive economic trend in the big picture that justifies the repeal of a statute such as 40B. Consider this: a community is more than just our home values; it is a collection of individuals, families, homes, stores, houses of worship, and so forth. While we are happy when we see a fire truck scooting off to tame a brush fire near our neighbor’s yard, we would be foolish to attempt to exclude the possibility that the first responders on the fire-truck also be given the opportunity to live among us in our community by creating affordable options here, and not force them to be relegated to living in a far-off town for affordability reasons.

It should also be pointed out since its enactment, 40B has been credited with spurring upwards of 80% of the new development in Massachusetts, and there are several new developments, as well as many ongoing ones that would not have been built, or will not now be completed were 40B to be repealed, or if it didn’t exist in the first place. This construction has created jobs, spending, and economic activity that we rely on for our stability, and, particularly in our economic malaise, we can little afford to repeal a statute that has created such substantial growth and employment.

The Citizens Housing and Planning Association (“CHAPA”), a prominent Massachusetts non-profit that plays a decisive role in encouraging the production and preservation of affordable housing claimed that this vote evidenced the largest victory margin of any ballot campaign. CHAPA claimed that, “over 1.2 million voters and 80% of cities and towns affirmed their support for protecting the affordable housing law for seniors and working families in urban, suburban, and rural communities all across the state.” While this is true, an analysis of the voting results shows that the larger urban centers voted strongly in favor of not repealing 40B, constituting the largest slice of the 16% victory margin, while the voting in many towns was closer than this 16% victory margin suggests. Many towns actually voted in favor of repeal. Cities and towns such as Worcester, Somerville, Quincy, Arlington, Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, New Bedford and Cambridge opposed repealing 40B in large numbers, and they were joined by the suburban bastions of Newton, Needham, Lexington, Brookline, and Milton, which all together carried the NO vote on this question. Significantly, however, there were also several towns that voted to repeal 40B, such as Abington, Amesbury, Billerica, Bridgewater, Sudbury, Stoughton, Wilmington, Westford, Chelmsford, Tewksbury, Walpole, and Canton.