Home 2011 February (Page 2)
Sections Supplements
Low Bids Create Budget-friendly Opportunities, but for How Long?

Center of the Sciences and Pharmacy

WNEC saw its Center of the Sciences and Pharmacy go up at a budget-friendly time for those who want to build.


It’s been the bane of builders for a long time now: with demand for commercial construction down and competition fierce, they’ve been forced to bid very low to have any chance at winning jobs. That has trimmed profit margins to a bare minimum, eased only by material and labor costs that have remained suppressed as well.
All that has created a landscape of opportunity for businesses willing to take the plunge and build during a time of economic stagnancy.
“It’s still an exceptionally good time to build, and it probably has been for a year, year and a half,” said David Fontaine, president of Fontaine Brothers in Springfield. “And that trend is continuing.”
Higher education is one industry that has embraced the advantages of building when prices are low, said Fontaine, whose firm counts colleges and universities among its niches. He recently finished a new math and science building at the Berkshire School in Sheffield; “the price on that was 25% below the budget just a few years ago.
“The private colleges seem to have picked up on this,” he continued. “Last year we just finished the pharmacy school at WNEC, which benefited immensely from that market, and a dormitory at the College of the Holy Cross; they put that out to bid a year ago and benefited tremendously.”
Fontaine said some boards of trustees are looking anxiously at their own squeezed budgets, yet rationalizing that saving 25% or more on needed capital projects is a smart move in the long term. And that’s true across all regions of the state.
“We’ve competed for six or seven decent-sized schools in Eastern Mass. in the past year, and they have all come in 15%, maybe 20% below projections,” he said.
The state has been another beneficiary, seeing its federal stimulus dollars stretch further than officials had anticipated. Early last year, according to a Boston Globe report, the winning bids on 48 transportation projects had collectively come in $59 million below the $226 million that state originally estimated the work would cost. The average was 22% below contract estimates.
“It is a good time to build, no matter what sector you’re in,” said Peter Wood, director of sales and marketing at Associated Builders in South Hadley. Contractors only hope more companies realize it, creating a larger pool of projects and gradually raising bids, before a rising tide of material costs makes their outlook even more dire.

Steeling for Change
Indeed, many materials costs are beginning to rise — a good sign for the industry in the long term, but one that could pinch already-stressed builders right now, as bid prices remain flat for the time being (see related story, page 26).
Specifically, November saw significant jumps in prices for diesel fuel and copper — two key resources in construction — while weak demand for construction forced them to hold down bid prices despite the cost increases, according to the Associated General Contractors of America.
These price jumps “could be the last straw for some hard-pressed contractors,” said Ken Simonson, the association’s chief economist, in his monthly report. “With unemployment in construction running at 18.8% — double the all-industry average — any more business failures will only add to the industry’s misery.”
Then in December, prices for materials used in construction jumped 0.9% (and 5.4% for all of 2010), while price indexes for finished buildings remained flat over both time periods. Construction costs also outstripped the producer price index for finished goods, which rose 0.6% in December and 4% in 2010.
Simonson noted that prices soared at double-digit rates over the year for four key construction materials. Diesel fuel prices climbed 2.3% in December and 28% in 2010; steel-mill product prices rose 0.5% and 12.5%, respectively; copper and brass mill shape prices were up 1.3% and 12%; and prices for aluminum mill shapes rose 12% over the year, despite a 0.2% dip in December.
“Structural steel is a big-time barometer of what’s going on, and it has started to creep up in the last month,” Fontaine said. “It’s an indicator that manufacturers and suppliers can only provide a product for so long at costs that don’t make any sense. It’s changing direction, and it has to; we’ve had two years of people just giving things away. And when steel starts to climb, a lot of things follow it.”
For contractors, there is worse news to come, said Simonson, noting that, since the latest data was compiled, suppliers have announced further price increases for copper, steel, and diesel fuel. “With contractors unable to pass along the increases in the price of finished buildings, many firms could be pushed out of business,” he said.
Even as material prices rise, weak demand for construction, combined with intense competition for work, is forcing contractors to hold the line on bid prices, Simonson observed. The producer price index for new office construction actually dropped 0.8% for the year. The index for new industrial buildings was up 0.4% in 2010; for new warehouses, it rose 0.4%; and for new schools, it was up 1.3% for the year.
Other items that contributed to the December climb in material costs included lumber and plywood, architectural coatings, paint, brick and structural clay tile, and gypsum products. Prices have remained fairly stable nationally for asphalt paving mixtures and blocks, concrete products, and insulation materials, according to the association.
“Contractors have been unable to recoup these costs in what they charge,” Simonson added. “Indexes for new office, school, warehouse, and industrial buildings were virtually unchanged … over 12 months. Prices charged by concrete, roofing, electrical, and plumbing contractors showed very small movements in either direction.”
Contractors are likely to be squeezed by rising material costs and flat prices for completed projects for the foreseeable future, Simonson predicted. He forecasted that contractors would experience periods of simultaneous price spikes in multiple materials in 2011 as the U.S. and foreign economies pick up speed.
“Unfortunately,” Simonson said, “demand for construction will be erratic for months to come, worsening the price pinch that has already devastated too many firms and their workers.”

Doing What’s Necessary
In the meantime, builders and subcontractors alike continue to bear the squeeze in order to keep working, and low winning bids remain the order of the day, continuing a period of opportunities for businesses willing to invest in additions and renovations.
“The subcontractors seem to be extremely hungry, as far as doing what’s necessary to keep surviving in this market,” Wood said. “Many are more than willing to travel outside their comfort zone — from Eastern Mass., Connecticut, and the Albany area, they’re coming to the Valley.
“Contractors in the private sector have the ability to pick and choose their subcontractors, but you still want to pick the most reliable as well as the most cost-effective ones,” he continued. “We do our best to see the local subcontractors working instead of just taking the lowest bid — and the locals are giving us competitive bids, so they’re not getting shut out of the marketplace.”
Yet, with costs on the rise, the squeeze continues. The question is, when will more companies take advantage?

Joseph Bednar can be reached at [email protected]

Sections Supplements
Educational Tax Credits Help Defray the Costs of Higher Education

Sean Wandrei

Sean Wandrei

As most of us know, higher-education costs are climbing at a staggering pace. To provide some relief to taxpayers, there are two credits they can take advantage of on their 2010 tax returns.
This article will provide an overview of the higher-education credits available and how they may be used in tax planning and financing your student’s education.
The credit that most taxpayers take advantage of is the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC), which modified and replaced the Hope Credit through 2012. The AOTC was created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and was originally available for 2009 and 2010. The recent tax-relief package, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010, extended the AOTC for two years, through Dec. 31, 2012. The second credit, the Lifetime Learning Credit, has been around for many years but, as discussed below, is less advantageous than the AOTC.
Each credit is based on the amount of qualified tuition and related expenses paid for an eligible student at an eligible education institution, and is subject to income limits of the taxpayer. Qualified tuition and related expenses are defined as out-of-pocket cost for tuition and fees required for enrollment or attendance at an eligible educational institution. For the AOTC, expenses for qualified course materials may also be used to compute the credit. Cost for room and board, insurance, medical expenses, and transportation do not qualify for the credit.
There are some common elements of these education credits — a joint return must be filed by married taxpayers claiming either credit (no married-filing-separately returns), a taxpayer cannot claim a credit and also claim a deduction for those same higher-education expenses, there is no carry-forward of an unused credit, and each credit is claimed in the year the expenses are paid if the education commences during that year or during the first three months of the next year.
As stated before, the ATOC is a modification of the Hope Credit and basically replaces the Hope Credit through 2012. The credit amount is the sum of 100% of the first $2,000 of qualified tuition and related expenses plus 25% of the next $2,000 of qualified tuition and related expenses, for a total maximum credit of $2,500 per eligible student per year. The credit is available for the first four years of a student’s post-secondary education (college). Up to 40% of the credit amount (max of $1,000) is refundable should the taxpayers’ tax liability be insufficient to offset the non-refundable credit amount (max of $1,500). The credit starts to phase out ratably for taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of $80,000 through $90,000 ($160,000 through $180,000 for joint filers).
The Lifetime Learning Credit is equal to 20% of the amount of qualified tuition expenses paid on the first $10,000 of tuition. The maximum credit available to the taxpayer is $2,000 per return. The Lifetime Learning Credit maximum is calculated per taxpayer and does not vary based on the number of eligible students in the taxpayer’s family, unlike the AOTC, which is per student. A student is eligible for the Lifetime Learning Credit if enrolled in one or more courses at a qualified education institution.
The Lifetime Learning Credit is phased out ratably when the taxpayer’s modified AGI reaches $50,000 through $60,000 ($100,000 through $120,000 for joint filers). The credit can be used on courses that enable the taxpayer to acquire or improve job skills rather than obtain a degree.
Taxpayers with children in college going for their undergraduate degree will most likely use the AOTC, and taxpayers going to school for their graduate degree or to acquire or improve job skills will only be able to use the Lifetime Learning Credit.
If a student is a claimed dependent of another taxpayer (mostly likely the parent), only that taxpayer (the parent and not the student) can claim an education credit for that tax year for the student’s qualified tuition and related expenses. Any qualified tuition and related expenses paid by the student who is a claimed dependent of the taxpayer can be treated as paid by that taxpayer (the parent and not the student) for the tax year in which the expenses are paid. In some cases, the cost paid by the parent is treated as paid by the student.
If parents decide to not claim the student as a dependent, the student may claim the education credit for the student’s qualified tuition and related expenses. In this situation, the student cannot claim a dependency-exemption deduction for himself, but can claim an education credit on his return. The exemption is basically forfeited by the family.
There is some tax planning that can be done through the ability to shift the education credit. The greatest tax savings are going to be seen by taxpayers with income greater than the phaseout limits mentioned above. This allows parents who cannot benefit from the education credit because their AGI is too high to shift the credit to the student (child), regardless of whether the child or parents paid the education cost. The student does need taxable income to generate enough tax liability to be able to use the education credit.
With the new ‘kiddie-tax’ provisions from 2008, the number of students subject to parents’ tax rates will likely increase. The thing to remember is that the parents will lose the dependency exemption (which does not have a phaseout through 2012) if the child claims the credit. An analysis of total tax savings will have to be done to see which route is most beneficial. Also, there is a risk that, if the student is not claimed as a dependent of the parent, then the parents’ health insurance may drop coverage of the student. Taxpayers should review their health insurance policies to make sure that this does not happen.
As you can see, there are several opportunities for families to benefit from the educational credits that are available.

Sean Wandrei is manager of the Tax Department at Meyers Brothers Kalicka, P.C. His technical concentrations are in multi-state taxation as well as real-estate entities; (413) 536-8510.

Building Permits Departments

The following building permits were issued during the month of January 2011.

AGAWAM

H.P. Hoods
233 Main St.
$8,000 — Construct 10’-by-10’ office

CHICOPEE

Community Development
5 West Main St.
$175,000 — Removal of two oil tanks and demo of concrete vault

St. Anthony’s Church
56 Anthony St.
$80,000 – Construct 36’-x-24’ garage and porch

GREENFIELD

Jack D. Curtiss
173 Main St.
$9,500 — Insulate walls with brown cellulose

Jimbob Realty, LLC
1 Main St.
$8,600 — Roof repair

John J. Metelica
366 Deerfield St.
$4,500 — Sheetrock fire-damaged bathroom and construct second means of egress

Town of Greenfield
125 Federal St.
$28,000 — Replace two portions of membrane roof

HOLYOKE

South Street Plaza Associates, LLC
209-239 South St.
$119,000 — Interior fit-up for new laundromat

LUDLOW

All Day All Night Fitness
50 East St.
$37,000 — New roof

NORTHAMPTON

Northampton Lumber Company
256 Pleasant St.
$4,000 — Install metal roof

PALMER

Patch Corporation
3086 South Main St.
$3,000 — Construct storage shed

SOUTHWICK

William Gabel
63 Feeding Hills St.
$5,000 — New scoreboard at the school field

SPRINGFIELD

AIC
1020 State St.
$3,800 — Partition-off openings to create separate office spaces

City of Springfield
765 State St.
$116,500 — New roof

CMSA Holding
748 State St.
$6,000 — New mechanical closet

Mass Park Realty
185 Spring St.
$118,000 — Construct 489 square feet of office space in the warehouse area

Springfield Renewal
42-44 Chapel St.
$13,000 — Renovations

WESTFIELD

David Schenna
845 Airport Industrial Park Road
$15,000 — Renovations

Lansdowne Place Limited
38 Thomas St.
$6,000 — Renovate first-floor common area bathroom

WEST SPRINGFIELD

United Bank
95 Elm St.
$1,003,000 — Renovate three floors of bank facility