Archive for September, 2009

New Shoreland Act Changes Effective 9/13/09

Friday, September 11th, 2009

Homeowners, developers and contractors will get little more flexibility, and lower fees, when building along the shoreland in New Hampshire when changes to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act takes effect on Sunday, September 13th.

Among the changes in the act:

• Contractors doing maintenance work will get a break on fees. On projects that go through permit by notification process (a relatively new option to speed the permit process up for those that don’t actually expand the footprint of an affected area) a flat fee of $100 for water quality improvement projects and $250 for all other projects. Fees used to cost $100 plus 10 cents per square foot, which added up on larger projects.
• Developers will be able to build multifamily housing on shoreland, provided that they meet septage and zoning requirement. The old shoreland act – with its limit of one household per 150 feet of frontage — ruled that out.
• A number of smaller ponds will no longer be included under the act. That’s because the old law actually named bodies of water covering more than 10 acres that were covered. It turns out many of those bodies were actually under 10 acres. The new law drops the list, and just provides the 10-acre criteria.
• Determination of shorelines will no longer fluctuate based on flowage rights (for dammed-up bodies of water) but be based on single surface area. This might result in other ponds dropping off the list.
• Central business districts have another option in dealing with riverfront projects, giving them more flexibility.

Exorbitant design fees?

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Exorbitant design fees?
Your architect or designer may not be making as much as you think

by Richard Morrison, AIA, ASID

I occasionally hear from people who are shocked by some of the hourly rates that architects and designers charge, perhaps anywhere from $75/hour to $250/hour or more. No doubt they are comparing these rates to their own hourly income (or the annual equivalent) as an employee, and imagine that these design professionals are just raking in the money. As a public service to my design colleagues, I am going to let you in on some of the “behind the scenes” financials.

The reality is that an hourly rate needs to cover much more than what a design professional takes home as his/her pay. Let’s take a billing rate of, say, $120/hour as an example.

To start with, not all time is billable. Most independent practitioners and owners of firms are thrilled when they can get 50 percent of their time billed. Some of the non-billable tasks that owners of firms must deal with are: accounting and billing, meeting with prospective contractors and product representatives, marketing, phone calls from non-business sources, fixing the printer that’s just jammed, attending trade shows and seminars, setting up filing systems, dealing with their insurance agent, listening to employees’ or colleagues’ gripes — well, the list is endless.

So, if only 50 percent of the time is billable, that means that each billed hour must cover two working hours — effectively creating an income rate of $60/hour.

But there are many expenses that need to be paid out of this money: office rent, new computers and software, insurance, phones, office supplies, professional licenses and dues, non-billable consultants, reference books — well, the list is again almost endless. It’s not uncommon to see 50 percent of total revenue go towards this “overhead” of maintaining an office.

So now we are down to a net (pre-tax) take-home revenue of maybe $30/hour from that original $120/hour — hardly supporting an opulent lifestyle in this part of the country. Of course, some professionals can reduce their overhead to the bone and work longer hours to generate more income, but it’s not a get-rich-quick profession.

The situation is somewhat similar when a design office bills for employees. It is common to see billing rates of 2.5 to 3 times the actual hourly wage of an employee. So if an employee is being paid, say, $25/hour, you will likely be billed $60-$75/hour for that employee. Remember that the employer is paying not only the direct wages of $25/hour, but also for vacation days, sick days, workers’ compensation insurance, health insurance, training days, and other non-billable time. The billing rate must cover not only that employee’s costs, but also general office overhead costs such as an office manager and rent on a larger space, and the equipment and supplies needed by that employee. Oh, and maybe a little profit, too.

While all of this is likely to be self-evident to anyone owning their own business, hopefully, those who don’t will now understand the reason for these “exorbitant” design fees. I always encourage people to focus on the overall value that is being provided by a design professional. Usually, it far exceeds the fees being charged.

Richard Morrison, AIA, ASID, is a Menlo Park architect and interior designer

6 Myths of Green Consumers

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

New study shatters stereotypes of what motivates buyers.

By: Jennifer Goodman

 

 

A new national study of green consumers contradicts several long-held stereotypes about them: The environment is not their top concern, their kids are not influencing them to be green, and while many know what they should do to save the planet, they often don’t do it.  As a result, marketing messages aimed at this group often fall on deaf ears, says Suzanne Shelton, whose Knoxville, Tenn., firm, Shelton Group, conducted the study.

 

“Most green advertising is created as if there’s one pool of green consumers and they’re all motivated by ‘Save the planet!’ messaging,” Shelton says. “We need a revolution in this thinking. Not all green consumers are the same, they’re not all motivated by the same messages, and they’re not all inclined to buy only green products.”

 

Released Aug. 21, the Green Living Pulse study polled 1,007 U.S. consumers who at least occasionally buy green products (77% of the population) and found there is no typical “green consumer.”  The study discovered six myths about this group:

 

Myth 1: Green consumers’ top concern is the environment.
When asked to identify their top concern, the economy, by far, is No. 1 (with 59% calling it their top concern) and the environment falls far behind (8%).

 

Myth 2: Green consumers’ main motivation when reducing their energy use is to save the planet.
When asked the most important reason to reduce energy consumption, 73% chose “to reduce my bills/control costs” and only 26% chose “to lessen my impact on the environment.”

 

Myth 3: Green consumers are all-knowledgeable about environmental issues.
For example, the survey asked, “From what you have read or heard about CO2 (carbon dioxide), please place a check beside any of the following statements you think are true.”  Almost half (49%) chose the incorrect answer, “It depletes the ozone layer.”

 

Myth 4: Green consumers fall into a simple demographic profile.
While the study detected some demographic tendencies, it found that green consumers aren’t easily defined by their age, income, or ethnicity.  

 

Myth 5: Children play a big part in influencing their parents to be green.
Only 20% of respondents with children said their kids encouraged them to be greener by, for example, promoting recycling and turning off lights.

 

Myth 6:  If buyers just knew the facts they’d make greener choices.
The study showed that knowledge does not always lead to eco-conscious behavior. Individuals who answered all of the science-related questions correctly did report participating in a significantly higher average number of green activities, such as driving a fuel-efficient car or lowering their thermostat during the winter; however, the 25- to 34-year-old age group consistently answered the questions correctly, yet, on average, this group’s green activity levels were lower than those of older respondents.

 

“Because green consumers are being stereotyped, and these myths we tested are embraced by marketers as facts, many green messages are falling on deaf ears,” Shelton says. “If these messages were better targeted, more people would be buying green products, conserving electricity, and doing more to save the planet.” 

 

Jennifer Goodman is Senior Editor Online for EcoHome.