Home Builder Developer - Interior Renovation and Design

A string of taxpayer victories in Conservation Easement cases has many taxpayers who have sponsored or invested in these transactions re-thinking whether settling pending tax court litigation is a good idea, after all.The Eleventh Circuits decision in Pine Mountain Preserve, LLLP v. Commissioner, coupled with recent Tax Court decisions in Kissling v. Commissioner and Rajagopalan v. Commissioner have the conservation easement community feeling confident about litigation prospects.But taxpayers who want to litigate these cases should not look at their prospects through rose colored glasses.The IRS could not be more clear: it intends to litigate and fight against these transactions with every resource available.

The IRS is aggresively pursuing taxpayers who participate in conservation easements. (Photo By Bill ... [+] Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

I have and do advise anyone who is considering entering into a syndicated conservation easement transaction today: do not even think about it.The litigation costs let alone the time and energy of a battle with the IRS simply cannot be understated.As a tax controversy and tax litigation attorney, I represent clients who have involvement with conservation easements.Because of that, while Ive had no involvement with any of the cases discussed in this article, my assessment cant possibly be completely impartial.It is because of that representation, however, that no matter how much I think a particular conservation easement case has a very good chance of being decided in favor of the taxpayer, I know that such a victory may be Pyrrhic at best.Anyone considering whether to settle or fight in a conservation easement case should carefully consider the financial and emotional cost of litigation when evaluating a possible settlement.As Ive said before, fighting the IRS can take an emotional and physical toll on a person.

A Public-Private Partnership to Conserve Land

As I explained in an earlier article, a conservation easement is a collaborative effort between the federal government and landowners to protect land from development and conserve it for future generations. The landowner enters into a voluntary and binding legal agreement encumbering property that she owns, restricting its use exclusively for specified conservation purposes. The agreement must run with the property and in favor of a qualified donee organizationa governmental unit or a publicly supported non-profit organization with a commitment to protect the donations conservation purposes. These purposes can include preserving land for outdoor recreation, preserving the natural habitat of wildlife and plants, preserving open space for scenic enjoyment, and preserving the faade of historic structures. In return, the federal government, through the tax code, grants the landowner a tax deduction in the amount of the diminution in her propertys value resulting from the restriction placed on it. The National Conservation Easement Database has documented about 32.7 million acres nationwide preserved to date by almost 200,000 distinct conservation easements. According to one study, the Treasury lost about $600 million a year between 2003 and 2008 on account of these donation deductions claimed by individuals.

Congress first enacted a tax deduction for charitable contributions of conservation easements as a temporary provision in 1976, and then made that deduction permanent in 1980. When enacting the permanent deduction provision, Congress specified two separate perpetuity requirements, the so-called perpetual-grant and perpetual-protection requirements. Specifically, Congress provided that the restriction constituting the easement should be granted in perpetuity, and the conservation purpose sought to be achieved by that grant should be protected in perpetuity. As I explain below, after years of inactivity, the IRS abruptly and without explanation began wielding both these perpetuity requirements as cudgels in an effort to deprive taxpayers of any tax benefits from their charitable contributions of conservation easements.

During the intervening time, there was apparent consensus on what the perpetuity requirements entailed. In particular, the Senate Finance Committee report accompanying the 1980 legislation explained the perpetual-protection requirement thus: By requiring that the conservation purpose be protected in perpetuity, the committee intends that the perpetual restrictions must be enforceable by the donee organization (and successors in interest) against all other parties in interest (including successors in interest).

An implementing Treasury regulation finalized in 1986 states that any interest in the property retained by the donor . . . must be subject to legally enforceable restrictions. . . that will prevent uses of the retained interest inconsistent with the conservation purposes of the donation. Harmonizing that regulation with the 1980 Senate Finance Committee Report, it is clear that it is the donee organization that is envisaged as preventing inconsistent uses. Therefore, the regulation quoted above would more faithfully track congressional intent if it were read as follows: that any interest retained by the donor must be subject to legally enforceable restrictions that will enable the donee organization to prevent uses of the retained interest inconsistent with the conservation purposes of the donation. And that is exactly how that regulation implementing the perpetual-protection requirement has been understood by taxpayers and those advising them, at least initially with apparent tacit consent of the IRS.

The IRS Strained Reading of the Perpetuity Requirements

But after almost two decades, during which both the statutory and regulatory schemes remained largely unchanged, the IRS seemed to precipitately indicate a ramp-up in audit and litigation activity, issuing Notice 2004-41. Issued without an opportunity for public participation through notice-and-comment procedures that generally precede promulgation of regulations, this notice cautioned taxpayers engaging in conservation easement transactions of the Services intention to disallow improper deductions and impose penalties in appropriate cases. The notice focused on valuation of conservation easements, reminding taxpayers that availability of a deduction required that the easement be substantiated in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, and highlighting the constraint that the amount of the deduction may not exceed the fair market value of the ...contributed easement...reduced by the fair market value of any consideration received by the taxpayer. Other than a passing reference to the perpetual-grant requirement, the notice was silent on the two perpetuity requirements.

The other shoe dropped with Notice 2017-10, again issued without notice-and-comment procedures, in which the Service identified conservation easements granted through partnerships or other pass-thru entities, so-called syndicated easement transactions, as listed transactions and notified taxpayers that the IRS intends to challenge the purported tax benefits from this transaction based on overvaluation of the conservation easement. Like Notice 2004-41, Notice 2017-10 only briefly mentioned the perpetual-grant requirement and made no reference to the perpetual-protection requirement.Unlike Notice 2004-41, however, Notice 2017-10 imposes draconian and burdensome reporting requirements, as well as strict and heavy penalties for the failure to comply with those requirements.

Belying its proclaimed intention in both notices to train its enforcement guns on the valuation of conservation easements, however, the IRS has been engaged ever since in an exercise in revisionist history, rearticulating the two perpetuity requirements in a manner that would trip up almost any grant of a conservation easement. Instead of challenging the taxpayers claimed valuation of a conservation easement, the Service has typically been hunting through the grant instrument, looking for provisions that it argues run afoul of its strained reading of one or both perpetuity requirements. The upshot? The IRS disallows the entire charitable contribution deduction on the grounds that the taxpayer failed to comply with the threshold prerequisites for a valid conservation easement.

For example, the IRS points to the amendment clause typically found in most easement deeds, contending that such a clause opens the door to the parties amending the easement in ways violative of the perpetual-protection requirement, notwithstanding language in the clause precluding amendments inconsistent with the conservation purpose of the grant. In effect, then, the Service seems to be arguing that the donee organization is not to be trusted in the exercise of its contractual consent power.

That argument flies in the face of congressional intent to charge the donee organization, as holder of the easement, with enforcement of the perpetual-protection requirement. It has also been consistently rejected by the Tax Court and every Court of Appeals to have considered it. In rejecting it, the reviewing courts have refrained from delving into the legislative history of the perpetual-protection requirement. They have, however, found a donee organizations tax-exempt status adequate reason for respecting that organizations discretion.

Observing that [a]ny donee might fail to enforce a conservation easement, the D.C. Circuit has pointed out that a tax-exempt organization would do so at its peril. Simmons v. Commissioner, 646 F.3d 6, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2011), aff'g T.C. Memo. 2009-20. The Sixth Circuit, too, rebuffed a similar IRS challenge, focusing on the absence of any evidence suggesting that the donee organization is unwilling or unable to monitor and enforce compliance so as to maintain the stated conservation purpose in perpetuity.

The IRS Tumbles Down Pine Mountain

Undeterred, the IRS has pressed ahead, seeking to strike down the grant of a conservation easement for allegedly violating not just the perpetual-protection but also the perpetual-grant requirement. It tasted partial success with the latter argument in the Tax Court in Pine Mountain Preserve LLLP v. Commissioner, 151 T.C. 247 (2018), a case involving three separate easements granted in 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively, over some 6,224 acres of land in Shelby County, Alabama, about 20 miles south-east of Birmingham.

The Tax Court allowed a deduction for the 2007 easement covering a specific, identifiable piece of real property, rejecting the Services contention that a general amendment clause in the easement deed could enable the parties to amend the easement in ways that might violate the perpetual-grant requirement, e.g., by reducing the size of the . . . [c]onservation [a]rea or by permitting residential construction within it. Drawing inspiration from the rationale expressed by the D.C. Circuit in Simmons v. Commissioner, in denying an IRS challenge to the perpetual-protection requirement, the Tax Court extended that rationale to the perpetual-grant requirement. Finding it hard to imagine how the donee organization could conscientiously find such amendments to be consistent with the conservation purposes set forth in the easement, the Tax Court noted that the IRS argument would apparently prevent the donor of any easement from qualifying for a charitable contribution deduction, as long as the easement permitted amendments, a result it deemed untenable. Consequently, the Tax Court concluded that the amendment clause in the 2007 easement deed did not violate either the perpetual-grant or the perpetual-protection requirement.

Nevertheless, with only a single dissenting vote, the Tax Court in that case sustained disallowing deductions for the remaining two easements at issue, those granted in 2005 and 2006, because the property owner retained certain development rights over the conservation area.

Invoking a Swiss-cheese metaphor, the Tax Court majority imagine[d] the entire easement-related area as a large slice of Emmenthaler cheese. The majority worried about the property owner making new holes in this cheese. The holes represent the zones reserved for commercial or residential development. The majority reasoned that the property owner could put new holes in the cheese and make up for it by adding an equal amount of previously unprotected land to the conservation area. Alternatively, argued the majority, he could put new holes in the cheese and make up for it by plugging the same number of holes elsewhere in the conservation area. Claiming that the statute thus bars the developer from putting any new holes in the cheese, the Tax Court majority concluded that the 2005 and 2006 easements did not restrict a specific, identifiable piece of real property, and therefore, violated the perpetual-grant requirement.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the Tax Courts holdings with respect to the 2005 and 2006 easements, eschewing the Swiss-cheese metaphor and declaring that the better cheese analogy is to Pepper Jack. The Court of Appeals explained that the reserved rights don't introduce holes into the conservation-easement slice, because the entire slice remains subject to a restrictioni.e., the conservation easement. Therefore, concluded the court, the reserved rights are embedded pepper flakes, and, so long as they don't alter the actual boundaries of the easement, the perpetual-grant requirement is satisfied.

Making clear that its opinion wasnt giving the Pine Mountains of the world a free pass, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out that even after passing through the granted-in-perpetuity gateway, a conservation easement must still satisfy ... [the] protected-in-perpetuity requirement. To make that determination for the 2005 and 2006 easements, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case back to the Tax Court. Even as it did so, the Court of Appeals remarked that the donee organization, the North American Land Trust (NALT), has extensive advance-approval rights under these easement contracts. NALT is a sophisticated land-conservation organization, and we have little doubt that when it comes to negotiating conservation easements, it is well positioned and equipped to look after conservation interests.

In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit appeared to be echoing the sentiments of an amicus brief filed by Land Trust Alliance, Inc. in the case, arguing that when deciding whether an easement has been granted in perpetuity, a court should presume as a matter of law that easement holders will faithfully comply with their obligations under the conservation easement and under Code 501(c)(3), which provision governs nonprofit organizations in general.

By entrusting the donee organizing to police the dual perpetuity requirements, the Eleventh Circuits Pine Mountain opinion thus forces the IRS not only to read those requirements consistent with legislative intent but also to live up to its own word in the two notices the agency has issued in this area, Notice 2004-41 and Notice 2017-10, and litigate the merits of the value of a conservation easement claimed by a taxpayer instead of trying to ensnare him with novel theories that would seek to deny the obvious fact of his having granted a valid conservation easement in the first instance.

The Battle of Experts

A couple of Tax Court cases that followed right after the Eleventh Circuit decided Pine Mountain signaled why the IRS may have been so keen to fight this battle so far away from the promised battleground of valuations: On both occasions, the Service came up second-best in the valuation race.

The value of a conservation easement is its fair market value (FMV) at the time of the contribution, with Treasury regulations defining FMV as the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller. These regulations prefer using sale records of properties with easements comparable to the contributed easement at issue, provided a substantial record of such sales exists. That, however, is seldom the case. Recognizing that, the same regulation provision allows looking to the difference between the FMV of the property encumbered by the easement before and after the grant of the easement, the so-called before-and-after test. For purposes of this test, the regulations provide considering not only the propertys current use, but also the propertys highest and best use both before and after the easement grant. In computing before and after values for the test, courts generally use the comparable-sales and income methods. Regardless of the method used, the before-and-after test usually boils down to a duel between the IRS and taxpayers economic experts, each side marshaling assumptions and projections about the larger economy and the specific piece of property at issue to answer an imponderable: what might the property have been worth had it been put to its highest and best useboth with and without the easement on it.

In both the post-Pine Mountain cases I examine here, the IRS drew attention to provisions in the respective easement deeds to argue that the perpetual-grant requirement had been violated. And in each case, the Tax Court put a stop to those arguments by pointing to its own Pine Mountain opinion regarding the 2007 easement at issue in that case. Once we decided in Pine Mountain that the power of parties to amend a deed of easement did not ipso facto render all donations of such easements nondeductible, this case became one of the apparently rare instances in which the only dispute is about the proper value of an easement, the Tax Court wrote in the first of these cases, Kissling v. Commissioner . Similarly, in the second case, Rajagopalan v. Commissioner, the Tax Court, while acknowledging the presence of an amendment clause that allows the parties to modify certain restrictions in the deed of easement, nonetheless rejected the IRS argument that this deprives the easement of the required perpetuity, stating that the court expressly rejected this argument in its Pine Mountain opinion.

The duel of the experts then ensued in each case. Kissling involved faade easements on three commercial buildings in Buffalo, New York, contributed to the National Architectural Trust in 2004 by individual taxpayers through a partnership. The IRS fielded a solitary valuation expert against three for the taxpayer. The court expressed some serious concerns about the IRS experts methodology. Cherry-picking its way among the several components of the before-and-after test based on the reports of the different experts, the court determined that the correct total value of the easements was only slightly lower than what the individual taxpayers had claimed on their returns; $ 672,512 rather than $770,310, for a total difference of $97,798, a difference too small to attract any accuracy-related penalties.

The second case, Rajagopalan, turned out to be an even bigger rout for the IRS. At issue was an easement on almost 90 acres of land in Haywood County, North Carolina, granted to NALT in November 2006, at what turned out to be very nearly the frothiest point on a local real-estate bubble that was even bubblier than it was in most parts of the nation. Once again, the easement had been granted through a partnership. Each side fielded a single expert. The IRS expert determined a before value of $1,280,000 and an after value of $560,000, for an FMV for the conservation easement of $720,000. The taxpayers expert determined a before value of $4,150,000 and an after value of $1,250,000, for an FMV for the conservation easement of $2,900,000. The partnership had claimed on its return an FMV for the easement of $4,879,000, and the individual taxpayers, on whose returns the deduction had flowed through, urged the Tax Court to disregard their own expert and conclude that the FMV of the conservation easement is at least the amount claimed by the partnership.

The Tax Court acceded and reached that very conclusion, even though it admitted that [t]his is an exceptionally unusual conclusion to reach in a conservation-easement case. But the court felt compelled, given plenty of credible evidence that land prices per acre were booming in the years before the easements creation. Looking at it from within the market bubble that existed at that time, the court found the claimed deduction entirely reasonable. Justifying its decision to settle on a number outside the range provided by the experts who battled it out at trial, the court noted that while the taxpayers expert had relied primarily on transactional data of other properties, the court itself relied on transactional data of the specific property at issue. Of course, the court had to do so, because that transaction was the only transaction before the court.

A third case in which the Tax Court decided against the IRS expert is Glade Creek Partners, LLC v. Commissioner. In Glade Creek, the Tax Court held that the charitable donation deduction was invalid because the deed making the conservation easement donation improperly subtracted posteasement improvements from the extinguishment proceeds before determining the share to donate to the conservancy receiving the donation. In other words, Tax Court held the deed did not properly allocate extinguishment proceeds as required by the applicable Treasury Regulation. Although the deduction was disallowed, the court still considered expert testimony on the question of value to determine if the IRS penalty proposed applied.

Glade Creeks attorneys made quick work of the IRS appraiser, who relied on several incorrect and misguided assumptions in rejecting the taxpayers experts conclusion that residential real estate development was the highest and best use of the property (HBU). And even once the court determined that the HBU was in fact residential real estate, the Tax Court disregarded several other portions of the IRSs expert testimony, including his comparable price properties and sales history analysis. Taken together, the court found the IRS appraisers conclusions were so flawed that his testimony was disregarded entirely for determining the before value of the easement. However, the IRS did not accept the taxpayers conclusions whole cloth, either. The taxpayer claimed a deduction of $17.5 million, and the IRS argued that the entire deduction should be disallowed and a 40% penalty applied. While the entire deduction was disallowed due to the issue with the deed discussed above, after considering both the taxpayers expert and discounting the IRSs expert, the Tax Court held that the proper value of the easement deduction was closer to $8.6 million and applied a 20% penalty to that reduced amount.

Challenging Notice 2017-10

In my earlier article, I discussed an IRS settlement program for such syndicated easement grants made through partnerships. Pine Mountain, Kissling, and Rajagopalan all seem to indicate that taxpayers with large amounts of claimed contribution deductions at stake who have made good-faith efforts to comply with substantiation and other requirements governing conservation easements may well spurn this offer and litigate their valuation disputes. If any of these taxpayers need stiffening of their resolves, the Supreme Court may soon provide it.

On December 1, the Court heard oral argument in CIC Services, LLC v. IRS, a case in which the taxpayer is asking the Court to allow a pre-enforcement challenge to an IRS notice impacting captive insurers, a notice issued without notice-and-comment rulemaking and one imposing onerous reporting requirements, huge potential tax penalties, and possible criminal penalties. What does this case have to do with conservative easements? Recall that both of the IRS recent pronouncements on conservation easementsNotice 2004-41 and Notice 2017-10were issued without notice-and-comment rulemaking. And more importantly, analogous to the notice at issue in CIC Services, Notice 2017-10 imposes burdensome reporting requirements on donors making conservation easements through partnerships or other pass-thru entities as well as their material advisors with failure-to-comply penalties of as high as $200,000 for an entity and $100,000 for an individual. Civil and criminal penalty possibilities abound in both captive insurance and conservation easements.During the CIC Services oral argument, a clear majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to allow the taxpayer to challenge the notice without first paying the penalty. If, as expected, the Court allows a pre-enforcement challenge in CIC Services, a similar pre-enforcement challenge to Notice 2017-10 should get underway almost immediately.Prior to the Supreme Court taking up CIC Services, I argued in Tax Notes that Notice 2017-10 (subscription required) is problematic for these very reasons.

It has been more than 15 years since the IRS threatened in Notice 2004-41 to crack down on what it characterized as abusive transactions involving exaggerated valuations of conservation easements. But instead of a front-on challenge to these valuations, the Service seems to have been engaged in two-pronged asymmetric warfare. First, it has largely confined its litigation strategy to taking sniper shots at the easement grants themselves, claiming that they violate one or both perpetuity requirements. And second, through Notice 2017-10, it has sought to strong-arm participants in syndicated conservation easement transactions to settle. But the Eleventh Circuits Pine Mountain opinion appears to have stymied the first prong. And a taxpayer-friendly result in CIC Services may well defang Notice 2017-10. If so, the IRS may soon run out of cover and be forced to litigate the merits of conservation easement valuations, a development that good-faith donors of such easements should welcome.

It Seems Like Taxpayers are Winning Whats the Downside of Participating in a Conservation Easement?

Yes, some taxpayers are winning, and there have been some key taxpayer victories lately.But there are a few things about these victories that investors should keep in mind.The process of battling the IRS takes a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of nerve.

Time: For those taxpayers who are encouraged by the Pine Mountain win in the Eleventh Circuit, consider this: the tax years at issue in that case are 2006, 2006, and 2007.You read that right.It has been over ten years since the tax returns at issue were filed, and the case is not over yet.It is heading back to Tax Court.

Money: The IRS knows right where to look to see if the partnership or LLC fighting the battle has enough capital to fight the good fight the balance sheet.Is this partnership well capitalized or not?If not, then there wont be sufficient funds to fight the IRS at the IRS Exam, IRS Appeals levels, then in Tax Court, if necessary in Appeals Court, and if necessary back in Tax Court.The IRS is taking an aggressive approach and is auditing every single syndicated Conservation Easement Deduction, and likely will issue notices of deficiency for all.Legal fees can easily exceed what partnerships have in reserves, and if so, partners will have to infuse additional capital into the partnership in order to keep fighting the IRS.

Moreover, even if a partnership does keep up the fight, in light of these recent taxpayer victories, does it mean that all conservation easement cases will be decided in favor of taxpayers?Not even close.It is therefore critical that partners consider that a deduction today may very well turn into a tax bill later, plus interest.The IRS is entitled to interest at 3% above Prime on tax, which is due from the date the tax was due.Looking back to Pine Mountain, if the partners in that entity end up owing tax, they will owe interest since 2005.

Nerve: Fighting the IRS is no easy task, even with a good lawyer by your side.It is important to consider whether you are the kind of person who can sleep at night knowing that the IRS may literally come knocking on your door.Taxpayers who participate in conservation easements can expect to have the deduction disallowed until they are proven right and this is not an emotional place that many taxpayers are comfortable in.

Conclusion

In light of these recent taxpayer wins in Tax Court and at the Eleventh Circuit, those who have a stake in the conservation easement world have good reason to take heart.But as any attorney who has actually tried tax cases will tell you, trials are unpredictable and expensive. Indeed, fighting with the IRS even before getting to trial is expensive and takes a toll on those who are forced to do so.One client of mine put it this way: when the battle with the IRS first began, whenever I went out to the mailbox, my hands would start trembling. Taxpayers who are considering whether or not to settle should be encouraged by the recent hard-won taxpayer victories, but take care not to discount the cost of a trial and appeal, both from a financial and emotional perspective.

See the rest here:
Courts Are Deciding Some Conservation Easement Cases In Favor Of Taxpayers - At Least In Part. Is It Time To Rethink Settlement? - Forbes

This rustic, log construction 1.5 sty home offers everything you'd expect. 3+ acres w/direct access to Greenfelder, bike trails, hiking trails, ski area & more! Recently sealed timber construction & wrap around porch paint a perfect picture as you enter this 1.5 sty home. Inside you'll find an open floorplan encompassing natural surroundings w/warm earth tones, tall ceilings, wood floors & more. 2-sty great room accented w/soaring ceilings, chandelier, architectural windows & floor to ceiling stone stacked FP w/rustic mantle. Modern, gourmet kitchen improved w/granite counters, SS appliances, custom backsplash, breakfast bar & timber beams. Dining area adjacent. Main floor MB suite features recently renovated MB w/marble shower surround & dual vanities. 2nd main floor BR has it's own full bath. Upstairs you'll find a large den area, 2 add. BR's & full bath. LL is finished w/full bar, family room, 5th BR, full bath & WB stove. 2 & 3 car garages, LL guest suite access, LL laundry area.

View Listing

See more here:
12 of the Most Expensive Homes for Sale in the Park Hills Area - Daily Journal Online

Windows at Emerson Hough Elementary are going to be replaced, but it will cost the Newton school district $135,000 of its Secure an Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE) funds, which is funding stream primarily used for infrastructure needs.

Tim Bloom, director of business services, said the Newton Community School District received two bids. The $135,000 bid came from Elite Glass & Metal, LLC. Bloom said NCSD Maintenance Supervisor Jack Suttek met with the two companies and walked them through Emerson Hough.

Suttek told school board members that the contractors took good notes during their tour. The part of the Emerson Hough building that maintenance is looking at is the original, two-story rectangular section. Right now, the school is experiencing weather issues with those windows.

School board member Graham Sullivan asked Suttek if the contractor is going to replace all the windows in Emerson Hough. Suttek confirmed Elite Glass & Metal will replace most of them, except for the big ornamental-type windows in the gymnasium and some other areas of the school.

Were definitely going to make a nice improvement on that building with those windows, Suttek said. There are some nice, one-inch insulated aluminum windows (that are) going to match all the existing windows in the building. Of course, originally that school did not have a drop ceiling.

Both contractors the other being Forman Ford have worked with the Newton school district in the past and are very reputable companies, Suttek added. Bloom acknowledged the Emerson Hough window project was initially budgeted at a lower price than the proposed bids.

We did have this as part of our capital improvement plan, he added. Our budget was $100,000. This came in at a little bit more. We feel like this is a good investment. It might shift some things in our capital improvement plan, but right now its not affecting anything.

The school district had a good carryover balance, which allowed for the extra $35,000 to be absorbed, Bloom said.

Suttek said the rest of the building will not need replacement projects for the next 10-15 years. The windows on the north side edition of Emerson Hough, Suttek pointed out, are still in good shape. The districts maintenance supervisor is hoping to be done with windows for quite a few years to come.

Contact Christopher Braunschweig at 641-792-3121 ext. 6560 or cbraunschweig@newtondailynews.com

See the article here:
Emerson Hough windows to be replaced for $135K - Newton Daily News

A do-it-yourself approach for home improvement projects may reduce your initial costs but for certain jobs, the risks far outweigh any potential savings. If any of these projects are on your to-do list, call in the pros unless youve got plenty of related experience.

1. Roof replacement

Roofing is extremely hard and dangerous work. Any upfront savings you might get with a DIYroof replacementcould easily be eclipsed by the costs of making expensive mistakes or causing dangerous accidents. Aside from having the skills and tools needed to do a decent job, youll also need to climb ladders, lift heavy materials and navigate a steeply pitched surface high above the ground. Risks include:

Cost of hiring a pro

Roofers charge about $150 to $300 per roofing square in addition to the cost of materials, which typically brings the total price of installing a new roof over your existing one to about $5,400 to $10,900, according to the home services company HomeAdvisor. Removing the old roof or repairing damage can add to that cost.

In some cases, homeowners insurance might cover some or all of these expenses. Opting for less-expensive materials can also lower the bill. And if youre installing an energy-efficient roof that meets certain criteria, you might qualify for a tax credit.

2. Mold removal

Everyones cleaned up a bit of mold at some point, and even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gives the green light on DIY mold removal for areas under 10 square feet. But once mold infestation becomes widespread, it might become necessary to open up walls, lift up carpeting or take out fixtures to fully remove it and clean and dry the space thoroughly. A DIY approach, in this case, means risking:

Cost of hiring a pro

Professional mold remediation generally costs about $1,500 to $3,150, or $15 to $30 per square foot, according to HomeGuide, a home services referral website.

To make sure that money is well-spent, go with an experienced, well-reviewed mold remediation specialist who can do a thorough job.

3. Toilet replacement

To install a new toilet, youll have to shut off the water; disconnect, drain and remove the old toilet; and seal and connect the new one. Thats a manageable task for someone with basic plumbing knowledge. But if youre a DIY newbie, its trickier. Risks include:

Cost of hiring a pro

The average labor cost for basic toilet installation runs between $70 and $190, according to the services marketplace website Thumbtack, and that doesnt include the price of the toilet. Underlying problems your plumber finds (such as leaky pipes, a cracked flange or leaky valves) can increase costs; disposing of your old toilet also runs about $50 to $200, the site notes.

If youre installing a water-saving toilet, you might qualify for arebate from your state, which could defray some of these costs.

4. Window replacement

Replacing drafty old windowscan reduce your utility bills but only if its done correctly. Installing a window is a meticulous process, and any mistakes may leave your home unexpectedly vulnerable to the elements. Other pitfalls include:

Cost of hiring a pro

Professional window installation usually runs between $175 to $700 per window, but can be much more expensive for high-end windows, according to Angies List, a website that provides referrals for home services pros. If the frame needs to be replaced, thats extra.

Choosing less-expensive materials reduces upfront costs. And if youre switching to more energy-efficient windows that meet certain specifications and are professionally installed, you might qualify for rebates in some states.

More From NerdWallet

Roberta Pescow is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: USexpansion@nerdwallet.com.

The rest is here:
4 home repair projects that are best left to the pros - OregonLive

Honda is recalling a total of 1.79 million cars worldwide1.4 million in the U.S.across four separate campaigns. It boils down to three distinct issues, one of which has been linked to over a dozen reported fires due to a part that's already been recalled before. According to the NHTSA doc, precisely 268,652 CR-Vs from model years 2002 to 2006 have been recalled in the U.S. over power window master switches that are at risk of melting, smoking, and catching fire if exposed to moisture.

Notably, the issue was already addressed in a 2012 recall that apparently attempted to remedy the issue using butyl tape. The documentation specifically calls out this previous campaign as "insufficient" and will be replacing switches entirely this time around with a redesigned part.

Via NHTSA: "The recall remedy for NHTSA recall ID number 12V-486 of applying butyl tape to seal the power window master switch (PWMS) from moisture was insufficient. The butyl tape could separate from the PWMS if improperly applied. Under certain conditions, moisture may enter through an open drivers window and reach the PWMS on the door. Over time, exposure to moisture can cause electrical resistance in the switch, which ultimately can cause the switch to overheat and melt, damaging the switch and potentially damaging an associated wire harness. Additionally, if a switch melts, it could produce smoke and increase the risk of a fire."

As of late November, Honda is aware of 16 fires and 87 reported "thermal events" related to the second-gen CR-V's window switch woes but no injuries.

Honda's recall blitz also affects 737,233 cars made much more recently such as certain 2018 to 2020 Accords, Accord Hybrids, and 2019 to 2020 Insights that have been recalled in order to install an update to those cars' Body Control Module software. "Inappropriate software programming" is said to be the culprit over electrical components failing after "a certain combination of driver actions and vehicle conditions" that "may intermittently or continuously disrupt communication between the BCM and other components." This is said to affect windshield defrosters, wipers, automatic headlights, turn signals, rearview cameras, and power window systems.

Lastly, two separate campaigns will address front driveshafts on some of the company's compact models that may break due to corrosion from road salt. Only applying to cars residing in 22 states and the District of Columbia that keep ice off their roads during the wintertime using salt, Honda's recall applies to the 2012 Civic Hybrid, 2007 to 2014 Fit, 2013 to 2015 Acura ILX, and 2013 to 2015 Accord, according to Reuters. Affected cars will be inspected and if (but only if) corrosion is found, front driveshafts will be replaced.

Got a tip? Send us a note: tips@thedrive.com

More here:
Honda Recalls Nearly 1.8 Million Cars Over Flaming Window Switches and Corroding Driveshafts - The Drive

New West Brom manager Sam Allardyce has admitted the January transfer window will be important to the clubs hopes of survival.

The 66-year-old has been tasked with the job of keeping the Baggies in the Premier League and signed a contract until the end of the 2021-22 season.

Allardyce replaced Slaven Bilic, who was sacked after West Brom secured only one victory from their opening 13 games to leave them two points from safety.

Speaking to talkSPORT on Thursday morning, the new man in the hotseat at the Hawthorns said: They (the board) are prepared to get some players, but we need to find where those players are and who wants to let a player go in this pandemic.

I cant suggest at this moment how many players we need.

By the time I had finished four weeks and no wins in six games at Crystal Palace, I knew exactly what we needed to do and pushed Steve (Parish) beyond the brink of really where he wanted to go which paid off in the end.

It will be a very important part I think and while the players here are trying their very best and had a fantastic gutsy performance at Manchester City, which I watched live on the TV, it is always good when a player sees a new player come in.

And then sees that player on the training ground who will make them better. The difficulty is finding that player and we will have to do our best to do that.

This is Allardyces first role since he left Everton after he guided them to an eighth-place finish in the 2017-18 campaign after they were embroiled in a relegation battle when he had replaced Marco Silva six months earlier.

After keeping up Sunderland and Crystal Palace in similar circumstances, the one-time England national team boss expressed sympathy for predecessor Bilic, who replaced him at West Ham in 2015.

You always look at the job and say how difficult will it be and have you got an opportunity to try and turn it around and use your experience, which I have done on many occasions over the last few years and I only hope I can have the same influence at West Brom, with no guarantee of course, that I have had at many other clubs, Allardyce added.

All of a sudden you have gone 13 games with only one win and unfortunately for Slaven that is what has cost (him) and made West Brom think they need to make a change.

I know Slaven and he is a great guy, but it is what it is when the board make a decision and I am here to try and save West Brom and keep them in the division for next season. If I can do that it would be great.

Bilic has expressed his sadness at leaving West Brom but wished his old club all the best in their battle for Premier League survival.

The Croatian was dismissed by the Baggies on Wednesday, with his last game in charge a creditable 1-1 draw at Manchester City on Tuesday.

During his year-and-a-half spell at the Hawthorns, the 52-year-old led the club back to the top flight with automatic promotion last season, but seven points out of a possible 39 this term has proved his undoing.

I am hugely disappointed to have left West Bromwich Albion, Bilic said in a statement to the Daily Mail.

I am honoured to have managed this unique football club with full commitment and integrity. I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to all the players, my hard-working coaching team and our dedicated staff.

I am incredibly proud that we secured automatic promotion from the Championship in our first season. It was a real shame to not have our loyal supporters there with us during that moment and upon our return to the Premier League.

In what has been a really difficult year for so many, those special fans have stood alongside us throughout it all.

My staff and I are grateful for having had the privilege to serve them. They would have enjoyed some of our excellent performances where the team showed how much they wanted us to succeed.

Ultimately, I am sad that it hasnt worked out in the way we wanted. But I leave with my head held high, along with some wonderful memories that I will always cherish.

Im sorry that I cannot say goodbye to you all properly at The Hawthorns. I genuinely wish the club well for the future.

West Brom are second from bottom and two points from safety, with new boss Allardyce due to face the media later on Thursday afternoon.

Originally posted here:
Sam Allardyce admits January transfer window could be key to West Brom survival - FourFourTwo

The window minimizing feature is set to leave Windows 10 in early 2021.

An upcoming Windows 10 update will remove one of the operating system's least liked and least used features.

That's right: Shake to Minimize is leaving Windows 10 for good.

Although it is an underused Windows 10 feature, it is also one that drew considerable ire from users, usually after triggering the feature accidentally.

Shake to Minimize was first introduced with Windows 7. It allows users to close all windows on their screen bar one by moving their mouse back and forth rapidly.

Microsoft doesn't advertise the option widely, and many users only discover it when all of their windows disappear from the screen.

The feature, also known as Aero Shake, is the only existing Windows 10 option that allows a user to close all windows except the one you shake. As such, some users will definitely bemoan the loss of the feature, especially without a replacement.

Shake to Minimize will be removed in Windows 10 build 21277, which was pushed to Windows 10 Insider Preview users on the Dev Channel in December 2020.

Given the normal timetable of Windows 10 features moving from the Dev Channel into a proper release, you can expect to see the removal of Shake to Minimize in the Windows 10 21H1 update, expected in the first half of 2021.

Related: The Most Important Things to do After Installing Windows

True to form, dedicated Microsoft users have already found a method to switch Shake to Minimize on again. The fix involves creating a new registry key, but it isn't a difficult process.

To switch Shake to Minimize on in Windows 10:

Please note that this fix will only take effect on systems where Shake to Minimize has been disabled. If you're using Windows 10 on the standard release branch, as most users do, Shake to Minimize is still active on your machine.

Related: How to Clean Up Your Computer Without Reinstalling Windows

The loss of Aero Shake leaves Windows 10 users with two alternative desktop minimization shortcuts. You can use Windows Key + D to show or hide the entire desktop, or Windows Key + M to minimize all open windows. Furthermore, you can restore all of your open windows using the Windows Key + Shift + M shortcut.

You need specialized search engines to find legal torrents, foreclosed houses, public records, and even UFOs. Enter the dark web.

Gavin is the Junior Editor for Windows and Technology Explained, a regular contributor to the Really Useful Podcast, and was the Editor for MakeUseOf's crypto-focused sister site, Blocks Decoded. He has a BA (Hons) Contemporary Writing with Digital Art Practices pillaged from the hills of Devon, as well as over a decade of professional writing experience. He enjoys copious amounts of tea, board games, and football.

Join our newsletter for tech tips, reviews, free ebooks, and exclusive deals!

Please confirm your email address in the email we just sent you.

See more here:
Microsoft to Remove Handy Windows Feature in Upcoming Update - MakeUseOf

In what might prove to be the biggest Android news story of the week, today Google announced that all of Qualcomm's future chipsets, starting with the upcoming Snapdragon 888, will support three Android OS updates and four years of security updates. In layman's terms, that means some new phones landing in 2021 will probably get an extra year of updates assuming OEMs step up to the plate and follow suit.

The change builds on some of Google's previous improvements, and it's pretty technical. Most of our readers are probably already familiar with Project Treble, which restructured how parts of Android work in a way that made it easier for manufacturers to deliver updates and that's actually making a difference, too. But because of how it worked, this actually made chipset manufacturers' jobs harder, amplifying the work they had to do to support multiple generations of software depending on when phones would launch during that chip's lifecycle. In short: Making it easier for smartphone makers to deliver software updates pushed extra work onto companies like Qualcomm.

Above: A rough idea of how complicated a chipset vendor's job used to be across years of updates. Below: How it is now, with these changes.

Over the past year, Google has been working with Qualcomm to fix that problem, bringing the logic of Treble's modularity down to the chipset level as well. This makes Qualcomm's job easier, allowing them to maintain chips for a longer period, resulting in today's news: All future Qualcomm chipsets starting with the Snapdragon 888 will support four years of Android OS version updates three Android OS updates and four years of security patches. That means some Android phones launching in 2021 and later could see four years of updates.

That lack of certainty is because, although Google and Qualcomm have made this change, they're not the ones that deliver updates to your phone. This just guarantees that the updates will be available should smartphone companies want them. Right now, we don't know of any manufacturers that have stepped up to match these numbers when it comes to Qualcomm's future chips. But, I think there's a good chance that companies known for their update commitment like Samsung and Google will take advantage of it. Or, at least, they should.

We've asked Google if any phone manufacturers are on board already to match that change, and if there are plans to bring this same level of support to other chipset vendors (like MediaTek), but have yet to hear back at the time of writing. We'll update if and when more information is available.

Up until now, the best update commitment you could get in the world of consumer Android devices is three years usually for security patches paired with either two or three years of OS updates. This is in stark contrast to iPhones, which get updates pretty much until Apple can't get the software to run on its older hardware that's usually around five years, and sometimes more. In many cases, perfectly capable Android phones have been left behind as a result of limited software support windows, as was the case just this month with Google's recent Pixel 2 series.

Ultimately, we can't promise that today's change will result in longer-lasting Android phones. This change only even applies to future phones powered by upcoming Qualcomm chipsets, starting with the 888, and it's still on phone makers to actually deliver those updates, regardless of the changes Google or Qualcomm implement. Best case scenario, we'll finally reap these benefits in 2025. But hey, at least it's something.

The joint announcement was slightly misleading, and there's a little more subtlety involved than we originally thought. Google and Qualcomm are promising three OS version updates and four years of security updates, rather than just four years of OS updates. (While four years of OS updates would usually equate to three version updates under most software upgrade schedules, they are technically different things.)

Phones like Pixels actually already meet that requirement, by virtue of being updated at the last minute to the latest version (and therefore getting three total updates) before being dropped. However, it still sounds to us like Qualcomm and Google are now promising four years of security updates as a result of this change, which would be an extension of our understanding of the current policy, and more than the best-case three-year promise most smartphone vendors have now.

This is more complicated than it probably needs to be, and we're digging into the details in case this slightly more nuanced understanding is also flawed, but it sounds like the two companies are still making it possible to get an extra year of security updates on top of what we're currently used to, if smartphone makers will use it.

Link:
Future Android phones may get 4 years of updates, thanks to Google and Qualcomm - Android Police

Obrein Simasiku

OMUTHIYA - The atmosphere is hyped up in Oshikoto as revellers continue indulging midway into the festive season, with Othithiya water spring emerging as the most preferred recreational spot attracting hordes of people from all the four northern regions.

Upon approaching the place, one is welcomed by the fauna and flora of the environment coupled with a cool breeze. Its also commonly known for sundowners overlooking the Okashana grazing land and salt pans. It has become an intertwined area where both human and wildlife coexist in harmony.

Having existed for decades, the fountain which has water running all year round through a tiny opening has proven to be an ideal place for friends and families to sit, catch a cool breeze overlooking the King Nehale conservancy, presenting an opportunity to interact with nature.Others descend to braai and enjoy the serenity with ice-cold beverages. The area is situated roughly 10 kilometres south of Omuthiya en route to Etosha National Park through the King Nehale conservancy, thus also makes it accessible to tourists visiting the park.Far end revellers have already started preparing camping chairs, tents and cooler boxes, as its a norm people camp at the open area towards Christmas leading to New Years Eve to secure space.As much as the area is admired by many, the masses feel more improvements should be done to make it an extraordinary place of relaxation.Among such, the residents appeal to Omuthiya town council to install electricity to cater for those willing to stay up late, as well as provide tap water.The need for flushing toilets was raised while bemoaning the few dilapidated pit latrines. This is a great idea for sure.We need to upgrade this hotspot, a town council refreshments shop would do, they can start with a container. Security is also becoming a necessity since we have heard a few robberies there lately. A few lights for those who wish to spend extra time is also needed, remarked Omuthiya resident Salomo Ndeshimona.Extra garbage bins and more shades are a must. A volleyball court in the sand may as well do. Then deepening it a little for better cooling off, perhaps even paving the area north-eastern close to the main fountain so that it appears cooler, provided that it does not disturb the birds sanctuary southwestern of the main pond, further suggested Ndeshimona.Another resident Selma Namgongo feels it would be nice to fence off the area for better management, in terms of cleaning and maintenance. She, however, feels fencing might also interfere with nature, as its within the conservancy and its a source of water for wildlife.Making his voice heard Johannes John from Otavi and who is planning to come to spend time at Othithiya this festive, suggests the road should be tarred as it leads to a national park thus this can attract many people to visit.Its such a unique place, it, therefore, needs an investment to change the face of it so it can be seen beyond the borders of the country and as a national attraction site, he noted.Former councillor of Guinas Betty Kaula wishes the swimming pool is constructed using the same water from the fountain, while on a long term one can consider constructing a lodge to provide accommodation and boost tourism and hospitality industry.osimasiku@nepc.com.na

Read more here:
Othithiya is still the place to be - Truth, for its own sake. - New Era

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) today welcomed Clayton Homes of Bean Station, a Tennessee-based producer of manufactured homes, into the Tennessee Green Star Partnership.

This is the third Clayton Homes site in Tennessee that has joined the partnership. The others are Clayton-Rutledge and Clayton-Savannah.

The Tennessee Green Star Partnership is an environmental leadership program that recognizes manufacturers who are committed to sustainability and exhibit continuous improvement throughout their entire operation.

Clayton Homes of Bean Station demonstrates environmental responsibility throughout its work, and we are pleased to add it to the Green Star Partnership, Kendra Abkowitz, director of TDECs Office of Policy and Sustainable Practices, said. It is a worthy member of this program.

Clayton Homes has made significant commitments to sustainability across all operations and manufacturing plants across the state, especially at its Clayton Homes of Bean Station location. Clayton Homes of Bean Station diverted 200 tons of waste from the landfill in 2020 through recycling metal, cardboard, wire, and plastic. The facility has also achieved a 50 percent reduction in water in one year by upgrading to waterless urinals and motion-sensor faucets, which in turn saved 40,000 gallons annually.

In addition, the entire facility has gone through a lighting retrofit, converting all lights to LED. Clayton Homes of Bean Station is going beyond adopting sustainability measures in its facility; it has also passed those environmental and economic savings on to its customers. Homes manufactured by Clayton Homes come standard with LED lights and Energy Star certification.

The Bean Station location can produce over 1,600 manufactured homes annually. Clayton Homes is the largest builder of manufactured housing and modular homes in the United States. Clayton Homes was founded in Tennessee and is owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Group. The company is headquartered in Maryville.

To become a member in the Tennessee Green Star Partnership, a manufacturer must operate under an ISO 14001 certification, a voluntary environmental management standard developed by the International Organization for Standardization, and/or an environmental management system that conforms to ISO 14001, and must have a minimum of three years of exceptional environmental compliance with TDEC.

For more information about TDECs Green Star Partnership program, please visit this site.

Here is the original post:
TDEC Welcomes Clayton Homes of Bean Station Into Green Star Partnership - tn.gov