Inside Veritas -
Article 1
- “Habitat House” taking shape after active framing weekend
Article 2
- Moratorium Still in Affect
Article 3 - Squeezing Small Builders
Article 4 - Taxation and Finance - An alternative health
care arrangement
Article 5 - When legal action’s the only alternative
Association News Update From Laura
Economic Update - Not much optimism
in recent reports
BS: Still about Nothing in
particular
Housing Industry Update
Would you like to see a previous Veritas Issues? Click Here
“Habitat
House” taking shape after active framing weekend
  
   As you’ll notice in the photo on page five, the Association’s venture
in building a home with “Habitat for Humanity” is taking shape. The home,
on Nichols Ave. in Grand Blanc Township, was framed last Friday and Saturday,
under BAMF President Steve Edwards’ direction. The deck went down in the morning
due to the efforts of the Blondin brothers, the reigning association Golf
Outing champs (with-out their captain), while walls and trusses went up that
afternoon with Michael Bolton and his crew doing the honors (with a little
guidance from Vice President Steve Lissner).
   Bolton and crew were back the next morning, with Edwards, and the trusses
were set and the house closed in by noon.
   And, working throughout the framing period was the home’s eventual owner,
Janine Case.
   The home was framed on the foundation poured by Horcha poured walls, in the
basement dug by Woodside Builders, on a lot surveyed by Gould Engineering.
Now, before we’re accused of spouting off the names of sponsors like a “Winston
Cup” driver, we want to note that we’ll be updating the construction of the
home over the next few weeks, and do a concluding article when the home’s
complete.


   Habitat Note: The home on Nichols is the 30th for the local “Habitat”
branch; in ‘01 some 200 homes were built in Michigan under the “Habitat” label;
and, 4,700 were built nationally, making “Habitat” # 15 on Builder Magazine’s
top 100 list.
Association Notes
   The October 23rd meeting will feature Steve Easley, television
building guru, sponsored by James Lumber. Full details will be coming in the
October 9th Veritas, but keep in mind we need you to RSVP by October 17th.
   Also, don’t forget the Fall Parade will open October 5th with 28 models, and run through the 20th. And, Housing Quarterly magazine should be in the mail at the end of this week.

   Hopes were high when the Genesee County Drain Commission went into court
on Monday. It was seeking a motion for Summary Disposition to throw out the
challenge to its Capital Improvement Fee on sewer and water taps. In other
words, an end to the case that was responsible for the moratorium that’s plagued
the county since the end of June.
   The county’s optimism stemmed from a number of factors, not the least of which
related to the fact that there was now general agreement between the parties
that the fee was, in fact, for projects to expand capacity (plaintiffs had
previously stated the fees were merely for maintenance of the current system).
However, plaintiffs now argue that all rate payers are receiving a benefit
from the expansion, which wasn’t taken into consideration when the fees were
set. And, unfortunately, Judge Neithercut felt that issue was enough to keep
the case alive, despite noting it would be difficult to prove. So, as of the
moment, the case is open and the moratorium continues.
   As Drain Commissioner Jeff Wright said at the BAMF meeting last week, he was
ready to take all plans that had gone through the approval process directly
to Lansing Monday afternoon, had the judge ruled in the county’s favor. Now,
we’ll have to wait.
   Our June 25th issue focused on rising costs of Health Care and
its impact on the economy. We noted, among other issues, how Americans subsidize
European prescription drugs by paying as much as 2.5 times more for the same
medicines; that spending on drugs rose 17% in 2001; premiums for the association
health plan rose 104% in the past 5 years, while the cost of living was up
just 11%; and while Europe spends roughly 8.6% of gross domestic product on
health care, the U.S. spends 12.9%. But, perhaps most critical was the point
that, as BAMF insurance costs rose 55% since 2000, major employers (those
that include full health benefits) had cut payrolls by roughly four million
jobs. And, despite an exceptionally strong 1st quarter showed no evidence
of reversing the employment trend.
   So, while employers were unable to raise prices in an era of relatively no
inflation, we concluded that the inability to meet the rising costs of health
care was “choking employment” growth throughout the U.S.
   Well, since that issue there have been a number of reports suggesting we were
on target. However, those reports also suggest that our rising premiums are
way beyond the national average:
   1) A national employer survey found the average cost of ”Health” premiums
rose 42% from the end of ‘98 to ‘02. During the same period the rate of inflation
was up just 8%. The average conventional family plan now costs $8,479 annually,
of which the average worker now contributes $1,630.
   2) GM spent $4.2 billion on Health Care last year, including $1.3 billion
on prescription drugs. A Flint Journal article noted the company spent $55
million on Prilosec, a drug American’s pay for at 280% the European rate.
   3) A Wall Street Journal article included a chart showing spending on prescription
drugs rising from about $70 billion in ‘97 to around $148 billion last year
(a previous study put it at $172 billion for ‘01). And, the two biggest sellers,
the highly advertised “Lipitor” and “Prilosec” ($9.83 billion combined) were
the two drugs featured in the 6/25 article, emphasizing the difference between
what Europeans and Americans pay.
   4) It’s going to get worse! The fastest growing market is children and teens,
a group that showed a 28% rise in 2001. According to Medco Health Solutions,
the rise is led by Allergy, Asthma and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity drugs.
   An alternative health care arrangement, on which the IRS has recently
released some favorable tax guidance, may now offer employers an alternative
to costly health maintenance organization (HMO) and preferred provider organization
(PPO) insurance plans.
   Health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) offer employers the possibility of
reining in health care costs. We expect you'll be hearing more about HRAs
in the near future, so we want to brief you on how they operate. An HRA is
an arrangement through which an individual health care reimbursement account
is set up with a fixed annual amount for each covered employee. These accounts
are similar to a health care flexible spending account (FSA) because employees
can submit their out of pocket medical expenses and get reimbursed from the
accounts. However, there's a significant difference. An FSA is funded solely
by the employee, whereas an HRA is funded by the employer. Contributions an
employer makes to the employees' HRA accounts are tax deductible and if some
relatively straightforward rules are satisfied, any reimbursements from the
accounts are nontaxable to the employees.
   Any unspent money in an HRA at year-end can be carried forward from year to
year until it is need (even if the employee retires or leaves the company
in the mean time.) With an FSA, if an employee misjudges how much to put in
the account and has some left over at year-end, the excess reverts back to
the employer.
   At this point you may be wondering, why would an employer who currently offers
a FSA (that's funded by employee contributions) want to switch to or add on
HRA accounts (that must be funded solely by the employer?) The key is what
comes with the HRA. Employers who are setting up HRA accounts are also switching
to high deductible major medical plans. For example, let's say the plan has
a $2,000 deductible for singles and a $4,000 combined deductible for a family.
An employer might put $1,000 annually into an HRA for someone who had employee-only
coverage and $2,000 annually for someone with family coverage. The idea is
that an employer's savings from switching to a high deductible plan will more
than offset the cost of setting up the HRA accounts. If this works, the employer
saves money.
   Employees can also come out ahead with the combination of an HRA and a high
deductible plan if their total expenses for the year are less than what their
employer puts into their HRA account. They are allowed to bank the excess
and carry it over to a future year. In fact, the result is touted as one of
the big benefits of HRAs. It is suppose to give employees a greater incentive
to make cost-effective decisions when they purchase health care services because
if they exceed their HRA account balance, the next layer of medical expenses
come straight out of their pocket. Thus, the bottom line is HRA accounts have
the potential to save employer's money and perhaps help rein in health care
inflation by making employees better health care consumers.
R, P & T
   To some it seems hypocritical. Throughout the summer the Builders
Association was featured in the media in its support of the Drain Commission’s
Capital Improvement Fees which were being challenged in a law suit. Now, the
same association is in the process of legally challenging Grand Blanc Township’s
decision to raise its fees by $1,000 for sewer/water taps.
   Despite similar basis, the difference between these two situations is the
proverbial “night and day.” Without going into lengthy analysis of court decisions,
we can see that the county’s fee is clearly designed to increase sewer and
water capacity to allow for new development. Therefore, the payer of the fee
is receiving a proportional benefit, with that being the opportunity to tap
into the system, something that would not be available without the expanded
infrastructure.
   The township, on the other hand, increased its fees based solely on the fees
of surrounding townships. With no consideration of proportion, purpose and
benefit, its action clearly violates at least 40 years of case law from “Merelli
to Bolt.”
   However, it was a “last resort” when I gave our attorney the O.K. to file
last week. It only came after eight months of trying to avoid legal action,
which brings me to the real point of this commentary.
   When I began working for this association (1977) the industry normally had,
at least, one ally in each municipality. That “ally” was the municipal attorney,
who would advise over zealous officials on the legality of their actions,
often (but not always) deterring them from violating the law or constitution.
Now, all to often, the attorney’s become a political or fiscal consultant,
who can let the law be damned in his recommendations.
   In the Grand Blanc situation we made numerous attempts to avoid litigation,
but each was ignored. In fact, its attorney even ignored a Freedom of Information
Act request.
   So, after no less than eight tries, the board of directors had nowhere to
go but to issue the order to go ahead and file.
Barry
Beyond Seinfeld: It’s still about "Nothing"
in particular
Farm Subsidies: “Blight on the Economy”
 An interesting commentary in September 9’s BusinessWeek had another
argument against farm subsidies. Noting most poor nations have agriculture
based economies, Paul Magnusson (BW international trade writer) suggests wealthy
nation farm subsidies are helping to keep the poor nations from improving
their economic climates and consequently, from emerging as a market for developed
nation’s goods.
   He points to the “Vicious Cycle” that subsidies start, that works to diminish
agricultural trade opportunities: “1) Subsidies to farmers in wealth nations
encourage overproduction and drive down prices; 2) Poor nations, unable to
match U.S. subsidies, levy high tariffs on imports, helping local farmers
but hurting consumers; So, 3) support for free trade is diminished since lowering
import duties would ruin the poor nations’ farm based economies.”
   What we have as a result is more than $311 billion annually in agricultural
subsidies by rich nations which is more than double the amount of total farm
exports from developing nations. These subsidies make up roughly 20% of U.S.
farmers total income, and 31% of the average European farmer’s .... and, they’ve
given poor nations the need to, on the average, put tariff's in the 17% range.
Lawyer & Insurance Co. both get “justice”
   The following must be true, since the e-mail said so: A Charlotte
(NC) lawyer purchased a box of rare cigars, then had them insured against
fire and other calamities. After smoking them, he filed a claim against the
insurance co., noting the cigars were lost in “a series of small fires.” The
Lawyer sued when the company refused to pay, and won on a technicality. Rather
than file an appeal, the insurance paid the $15,000.
   However, after the check was cashed, the company had him arrested on 24 counts
of Arson. With his claim and testimony used against him, the lawyer was convicted
of intentionally burning insured property, and was sentenced to 24 months
in jail and fined $24,000 .
  
|
|
   The Builders Association sponsored Habitat for Humanity
house is making progress finally after weeks of delays. |
|
Economic Update: Not much optimism
in recent reports
   Unless your a bond trader, or looking to buy or refinance a home,
there’s little positive to be taken from the economic reports over the past
couple of weeks. As you’ll note, on page four, mortgage rates hit another
new low of 6.05% on the average. Furthermore, the ten year bonds that usually
reflect on changes in mortgage rates closed with a yield of 3.7% yesterday
(Monday), suggesting that fixed rates could continue to slide.
However, as bond prices soared and yields plummeted, so did stock prices,
continuing to “hammer away” at Americans’ net worth. And that’s been since
last week’s report by the Federal Reserve that household net worth plummeted
$1.425 trillion, or 3.4%, during the 2nd quarter. The decline brought the
total worth of the nation’s households to $40.077 trillion, 5.5% below the
peak of $42.382 trillion in 1999.
So, while Americans gained roughly $2.3 trillion in home value over the past
2.5 years (see page 8), they still ended the period $2.3 trillion in the hole.
Drop in Industrial Output
The Fed also reported last week that August’s industrial production (a measure
of output from the nations’ mines, utilities and factories) fell 0.3% from
July, its first decline since December. And, though much of the decline came
from lower utility output, manufacturing output was down 1% reflecting a cut
in production of consumer products. This was, to some extent, in line with
the Institute of Supply Management index we reported on two weeks ago, which
suggested that the sector was nearing contraction for the first time since
the end of last year.
Furthermore, it was in line with the Fed’s early “beige book” report stating
that economic activity had slowed during recent weeks in most of its districts,
with “sluggish” manufacturing and “little or no employment gains.”
Retail Sales the Lone Good News
If there’s to be good news, let it be retail sales, because, after all, we
still have a 67% consumer driven economy. And, it looks like consumer is continuing
to do his part, as retail sales rose a greater than expected 0.8% last month,
on the heels of respective 1.4% and 1.1% gains in June and July.
The rise was led by auto sales for the second consecutive month, but strength
was evident in other sectors, particularly the home furnishing sector. Of
course, housing played a major role in the retail activity as the record setting
pace of mortgage refinancings appear to be providing the cash that consumers
continue to spend.
Regarding autos: Consumers jumped to take advantage of 0% financing as spending
in that sector was up 2.2%, following a revised 4.3% rise in July. However,
excluding cars and trucks, sales were up 0.4% which was better than the 0.2%
the previous month.
   Single family housing starts fell to their lowest level
in ten months during August, tumbling 4.4% from July’s revised figure of 1.31
million. August’s data represented the third consecutive month of decline
since they peaked at a record rate of 1.39 million in May.
However, news wasn’t all bad in the Commerce Department’s release last week,
as building permits for single family were up to 1.3 million units, the highest
level since February.
Overall, starts were down by a 2.2% rate to 1.61 million, the lowest since
April.
While the mortgage industry still entices business with low downpayments
and sweet refinancing deals, we learned last week that the foreclosure rate
set a new record in the second quarter. Also, delinquencies on loans are on
the rise.
The Mortgage Bankers Association of America reported that 1.23% of all home
loans are in foreclosure, far surpassing the previous record of 1.14% in the
1st quarter of ‘99. In the same report it noted that delinquent mortgages
rose to a 4.77% rate as a large number adjustable rate loans (5.25%) are now,
at least, 30 days overdue. The delinquency rate on fixed rate mortgages is
only 2.75%. Yet the delinquency remains well below its record level of 6.07%
set in 1985.
However, the high foreclosure rate’s inspired more talk about the “housing
bubble,” and the likelihood of a number of homes falling back on the market
as overextended buyers walk away from homes with large debts and relatively
little, if any, equity. Adding credence to that concern is the fact that FHA
foreclosures are up to nearly 2.8%, while conventional foreclosures are at
less than 1%. Add to that the obvious differential between fixed and ARM loans
regarding delinquencies, and there are a lot of “Chicken Littles” waiting
to say “I told you so.”
Note: there’s a closer look at the “housing bubble” in Housing Quarterly
which should be in your mail box by Monday, September 30.
Home values rose roughly 5% during the first eight months of 2002,
boosting Americans’ wealth by $620 billion, according to estimates of UBS
Warburg, an economic consulting firm. But the rise wasn’t nearly enough to
offset losses in the stock market during the same period. And, over the past
2 1/2 years, Warburg estimates that investors have gained $2.3 trillion in
home values, while losing $5.5 trillion in stocks.
Homeowners will take $138 billion in “cash outs” from refinancing in ‘02,
according to Mark Zandi of Economy.com, of which $83 billion will likely be
spent according to Fannie Mae estimates.