Wednesday, December 1, 2010

New York: Landmark Legislation Designed to make New York City Greener

By: Kenneth Weissenberg, Esq., CPA

This article appears in and is reproduced with the permission of the Journal of Multistate Taxation and Incentives, Vol. 20, No. 8, November/December 2010. Published by Warren, Gorham & Lamont, an imprint of Thomson Reuters. Copyright © 2010 Thomson Reuters/WG&L. All rights reserved.

New York City is reaping praise for recently enacted landmark legislation designed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by existing government, commercial, and residential buildings in New York City. Not only will this legislation help the City achieve its goal of reducing such emissions by 30% by 2030, it also aims to create nearly 18,000 jobs and save consumers $700 million annually in energy costs.

Presented as a six-point "Greener, Greater Buildings Plan," enacted as part of "PlaNYC" (a group of more than 120 initiatives to reduce the City's greenhouse gas emissions), the legislation comprises four bills, along with two PlaNYC programs that will (1) train workers for the new construction-related jobs that will be created and (2) facilitate financing for energy-saving improvements using $16 million in federal stimulus funding.

Commenting on the enactment of this legislation, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted: "By requiring buildings to conduct energy audits and improve their energy efficiency, the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan will reduce the city's total greenhouse gas emissions while creating thousands of jobs and dramatically reducing annual energy costs."1 According to an official from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program established by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), buildings are responsible for 40% of all global emissions of greenhouse gases.2 The Mayor's Office observed that energy use by New York City's buildings accounts for about 80% of city's carbon footprint. Further, 85% of the buildings that exist today still will be functioning in 2030. Thus, increasing efficiency in existing buildings is critical to meeting the city's goal of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The current legislation will reduce citywide greenhouse gas emissions by 4.75%, the largest reduction achieved by a single program.3

The energy legislation.The four legislative components of the New York City initiative are:

(1) City Energy Code (Int. No. 564-A, 12/28/09; Local Law 85).

(2) Benchmarking (Int. No. 476-A, 12/28/09; Local Law 84).

(3) Lighting Upgrades and Sub-Metering (Int. No. 973-A, 12/28/09; Local Law 88).

(4) Energy Audits and Retro-Commissioning (Int. No. 967-A, 12/28/09; Local Law 87).

The energy code. Int. No. 564-A amends the New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code to create a "New York City Energy Conservation Code" (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-101.1 et seq.). As enacted by Int. No. 564-A, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-101.4.4 states, in part: "Additions, alterations, renovations and repairs to an existing building, building system or portion thereof shall conform to the provisions of this code as such provisions relate to new construction without requiring the unaltered portion(s) of the existing building or building system to comply with this code."

This language effectively closes a long-standing loophole that allowed buildings to remain noncompliant with provisions governing new construction if the renovations are performed on less than 50% of a given building system. The new legislation, effective 7/1/10, requires that the renovation of any portion of a building system must be compliant with building code provisions for new construction.

Building owners should note that, with regard to certain renovations or repairs (e.g., installing storm windows or glass-only replacements in existing frames; existing insulated ceiling, wall, or floor cavities exposed during construction; or construction where the existing roof, wall, or floor cavity is not exposed), compliance is not required if the energy use of the building is not increased.

Under new N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-101.5.1, any required compliance must be documented with a statement from a registered design professional or lead energy professional attesting to that compliance. Also, an energy analysis is required to demonstrate how the plans and project designs comply with the code.

Notwithstanding the above, buildings and structures designated as landmarks or certified historic properties are exempt from compliance with the new energy code (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-101.4.3, as amended).

Benchmarking. Int. No. 476-A (which added new N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-309.1 et seq.) requires an energy and water efficiency benchmarking standard for (1) "city buildings," which generally are buildings larger than 10,000 square feet that are owned by the city or for which the city pays at least part of the annual energy bills, and (2) "covered buildings," which generally means privately owned (a) buildings larger than 50,000 square feet, (b) two or more buildings on the same tax lot that, together, exceed 100,000 square feet, or (c) two or more buildings owned in condominium form that are governed by the same board of managers and that, together, exceed 100,000 square feet. Benchmarking allows building owners to gauge the efficiency of their buildings and improves the ability of prospective buyers and tenants to value a property.

The legislation requires owners to assess and monitor their buildings' annual energy and water consumption using a free online "Portfolio Manager" tool provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).4 Commencing in 2010 for city buildings and in 2011 for covered buildings, by February 15 of every year owners are required to obtain any tenant's separately metered energy usage for the prior calendar year. More specifically, if a building contains a tenant-occupied non-dwelling unit or space that is separately metered by a utility company, in January the building owner must request the energy-use information from the tenant, who then has until February 15 to provide that information to the owner.

In addition, no later than 5/1/10 for city buildings and 5/1/11 for covered buildings, and by every May 1st thereafter, city agencies and building owners, respectively, are required to input their buildings' energy usage (and if the building is equipped with appropriate automatic meter-reading equipment, water usage) directly into the EPA's online benchmarking tool.

Lighting upgrades and sub-metering. Noting the vast improvements in lighting technology that have facilitated dramatic reductions in energy use, Int. No. 973-A (adding new N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§28-310.1 et seq. and 28-311.1 et seq., effective immediately) targets lighting, which, in New York City, accounts for approximately 20% of the energy used in a building and approximately 20% of a building's carbon emissions.5 Under this legislation, the lighting systems of "covered buildings" (generally defined as in the benchmarking legislation, but it does not appear to exclude what that legislation termed "city buildings") must be upgraded by 1/1/25 to meet the requirements of the City's Energy Conservation Code.

In addition, noting that most large buildings have one master meter that measures electricity usage building-wide, the legislation requires (also by 1/1/25) that covered buildings install sub-meters to separately measure electricity usage in certain large, non-dwelling-unit tenant spaces. Furthermore, building owners must provide those tenants with a monthly statement showing electric consumption and the amount charged for that electricity.

Audits and retro-commissioning. Int. No. 967-A, adding new N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-308.1 et seq., effective upon enactment, requires "covered buildings" (defined as discussed above, but expressly including, with certain exceptions, covered buildings owned by the city and for which the city pays at least part of the annual energy bills) to conduct energy audits and undertake retro-commissioning measures at least once every ten years. Exemptions are provided, however, for buildings that face severe financial hardship.

Retro-commissioning is a process for optimizing the energy efficiency of existing base building systems by identifying and correcting deficiencies (e.g., properly calibrating heating and cooling systems, cleaning and repairing ventilation systems, and modifying operational practices). Base building systems include heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems; conveying systems; domestic hot water systems; and electrical and lighting systems.

The audit process focuses on the base building systems and should identify, at minimum, five areas:

(1) All reasonable measures, including capital improvements, that, if implemented, would reduce energy use and/or the cost of operating the building.

(2) For each of these measures, the associated annual energy savings, the cost to implement, and the simple payback, calculated by a method determined by the City's Department of Buildings. (Simple payback is the time it will take to recover an investment with the energy savings produced by that investment, without taking into account the time value of money.)

(3) The building's benchmarking output consistent with the U.S. EPA's online Portfolio Manager tool (discussed above) or as otherwise established by the City's Department of Buildings.

(4) A calculation of energy use by system and estimated energy savings by system, after implementation of the proposed measures.

(5) An overall assessment, based on a sample of spaces, of the impact of major energy consuming equipment and systems used within tenant spaces on the energy consumption of the base building systems.

Beginning with calendar year 2013, an energy efficiency report, which includes both an energy audit report and a retro-commissioning report, must be filed in the calendar year with a final digit that is the same as the last digit of the building's tax block number (e.g., tax block number ending with 7, first report due in 2017). The energy audit generally must be completed no earlier than four years prior to the date on which the energy efficiency report is filed.

Incentives.Two significant programs accompany the legislative components of the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan. As mentioned above, around 18,000 jobs are expected to be created under the plan, increasing the demand for energy auditors, construction workers, contractors, and other construction and energy-related positions.

Worker training programs. New York City has created the Working Group for Green Building Workforce Development to ensure that worker qualifications are up to par for those obtaining these jobs stemming from the legislation. Among its effort, the Working Group will identify workforce needs and opportunities, identify training needs, and advise on certification requirements for energy auditors and retro-commissioners.

Relevant courses are widely available at the City University of New York (CUNY). Course topics cover a wide range of areas connected to environmentally conscious building and development. For example, Bronx Community College, a part of CUNY, offers "building analyst training." The course teaches how a residential building operates as a system, and topics include energy consumption analysis. Advanced courses cover a variety of additional issues such as building envelope diagnostics. Significantly, the costs of these courses are generally reimbursed by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).6

Financing the changes. The second program—Green Building Financing—provides building owners with financing in the form of direct loans to help mitigate the costs of retrofits and improvements necessitated by the new legislation discussed above. The financing will be available through a revolving loan fund established by New York City, which will fund the program using $16 million in federal stimulus funding allocated to the City as part of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program.

Building owners should see immediate economic benefits under the program, as the loans generally will be structured so that loan repayments will be less than the projected energy savings. Of course, after the loans are paid back, building owners should continue to reap the benefits of energy savings for years to come. Moreover, loan repayments under the program will replenish the loan fund's coffers, enabling additional building owners to take out loans and, thus, further extend the benefits of the $16 million funding.

Conclusion. The combination of laws and programs discussed above clearly demonstrates New York City's commitment to improving the local environment and being at the forefront of the environmental movement. By providing generous incentives for funding and worker training, these initiatives appropriately target buildings that are environmentally inefficient. As an added bonus, these efforts will create jobs for thousands of New Yorkers.7[]

Sidebar

Practice Note: Keep in Mind the Six Points

New York City's "Greener, Greater Buildings Plan," created as part of "PlaNYC" (a compilation of more than 120 initiatives to reduce the City's greenhouse gas emissions), consists of the following six components (discussed more fully in the accompanying article):

(1) New York City Energy Code: Eliminates a critical loophole for relatively smaller renovations: inefficient equipment cannot replace inefficient equipment; rather, the renovation of any portion of a building system must be compliant with building code provisions for new construction.

(2) Benchmarking: Annual analysis of energy usage now mandated for larger buildings.

(3) Lighting Upgrades and Sub-Metering: Large buildings require upgrades; separate measurement of electricity usage in certain large, non-dwelling-unit tenant spaces.

(4) Audits and Retro-Commissioning: Energy audit (and related energy-system fixes) required for large buildings every ten years.

(5) Green Workforce Development Training: Some 18,000 jobs will be created; training will be provided to ensure the needed supply of skilled workers.

(6) Green Building Financing: Beneficial financing is available to building owners to help mitigate the costs of retrofits and improvements.

NOTES

1. New York City Office of the Mayor, Press Release (PR-532-09, 12/9/09), available via the Mayor's Office website at www.nyc.gov/mayor (click on "News and Press Releases"). More information on PlaNYC and the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan is available online via the websites www.nyc.gov/planyc2030 and www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/buildings_plan.shtml.

2. Id. As described on its website, the U.S. Green Building Council is a Washington, D.C.-based IRC §501(c)(3) nonprofit organization "committed to a prosperous and sustainable future for our nation through cost-efficient and energy-saving green buildings. USGBC works toward its mission of market transformation through its LEED green building certification program, robust educational offerings, a nationwide network of chapters and affiliates, the annual Greenbuild International Conference & Expo, and advocacy in support of public policy that encourages and enables green buildings and communities." Further, the LEED green building certification program "is a voluntary, consensus-based national rating system for buildings designed, constructed and operated for improved environmental and human health performance. LEED addresses all building types and emphasizes state-of-the-art strategies in five areas: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials and resources selection, and indoor environmental quality." For more information, on these green initiatives, see the USGBC website at www.usgbc.org.

3. PR-532-09, supra note 1.

4. The tool is available via the Energy Star website, at www.energystar.gov (click on "Buildings & Plants" and "Portfolio Manager"). Portfolio Manager is EPA's system for tracking and helping to improve energy efficiency across an entire portfolio of buildings. Energy Star is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy, designed to save money and protect the environment through energy-efficient products and practices.

5. PR-532-09, supra note 1.

6. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is a public benefit corporation created in 1975 under Article 8, Title 9 of the State Public Authorities Law. NYSERDA's earliest efforts focused solely on research and development with the goal of reducing the state's petroleum consumption. Today, NYSERDA's aim is to help New York meet its energy goals: reducing energy consumption, promoting the use of renewable energy sources, and protecting the environment. NYSERDA's programs and services provide a vehicle for the state to work collaboratively with businesses, academia, industry, the federal government, environmental community, public interest groups, and energy market participants. Through these collaborations, NYSERDA seeks to develop a diversified energy supply portfolio, improve market mechanisms, and facilitate the introduction and adoption of advanced technologies that will help New Yorkers plan for and respond to uncertainties in the energy markets. For more information, see the group's website at www.nyserda.org.

7. To read about some New York State actions in this area, see McLaughlin and Williams, "Governor Approves Two Green Building Laws for Residential and State Structures," 19 J. Multistate Tax’n 42 (June 2009). For more on "green" and "energy" incentives generally, see, e.g., Bowman, "Going ‘Green’: How States Are Using Tax Incentives to Protect the Environment," 18 J. Multistate Tax’n 16 (Nov/Dec 2008); Berry and Feller, "Tax-Credit Bonds Finance Energy Production and Energy Conservation Projects," 19 J. Multistate Tax’n 34 (January 2010).

Monday, November 22, 2010

Home Sales and the Post-2012 Medicare Contribution Tax

by Ken Weissenberg

A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report tries to reduce fears that the 3.8% Medicare contributions tax on unearned income (added by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) effective for tax years beginning in 2013, is a “real estate” or “home sales” tax. As noted below, part or all of the gain on the sale of a residence will be subject to this new tax, along with many other items of passive income.

The Medicare contribution tax is a 3.8% additional tax that is imposed on individuals, estates and trusts on the lesser of (i) unearned income and (ii) Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) in excess of a threshold amount. The threshold amount for married individuals filing jointly is $250,000 ($125,000 if filing separately) and $200,000 for all others.

The CRS report stresses that the tax is not limited exclusively to real estate transactions and does not apply to the portion of gain which is excluded from tax under Internal Revenue Code section 121. Currently, under code sec 121, when a taxpayer sells his or her principal residence, there is an exclusion from taxable income of up to $250,000 of the capital gain if single or $500,000 if married filing jointly. Certain ownership and use tests must be satisfied to qualify for the exclusion. Gains in excess of the section 121 exclusion will be treated as capital gain for regular tax purposes and investment income for purposes of the 3.8% Medicare tax. However, given the exclusion amount only a limited number of taxpayers would be affected, especially since many home owners have experienced a decline in the value of their homes in recent years. It should be noted that gains on the sale of second homes (i.e., those which are not a principal residence) will not be eligible for the exclusion and may very well be subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax, in addition to the regular income tax.

If you are planning on selling a primary residence with a significant gain in excess of the $250,000/500,000 or a second residence, it may be a better idea to sell before the end of 2012 to avoid this additional 3.8% tax. For sales after 2012, installment sales reporting may be helpful to spread the recognition of gain into more than one year. An installment sale would also spread the regular capital gains tax over more than one year, but you are also delaying the receipt of the cash. An unknown is what would happen if you made an installment sale of a home in 2012 with some of the proceeds payable in 2012. Would the portion of the gain reportable in 2013 for regular tax purposes be subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax?

Finally, for regular tax purposes a loss on the sale of a personal residence is not deductible. Will the same rule apply to the 3.8 % Medicare tax or can that loss be used to reduce the tax on other investment income?

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

1968 Law Garners Attention

by Aninda Dhar

Real state developers should be aware of an esoteric federal law garnering attention in the press. The 1968 law, the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, has recently enabled a number of condominium purchasers to be released from their contracts without forfeiting their down payments. Generally under the Act, developers of condominiums with at least 100 units are required to provide buyers detailed property reports and file a report with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. With some exceptions, the purchaser may cancel the contract if the reports are not filed within two years. One key exception is that if the developer legally obligates itself to complete the project within two years, it does not have to file these reports. For more information on the Act, please click here. For recent press coverage on this Act, please click here.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

The FASB Proposed New Lease Accounting


by: Aaron Kaiser

This past August, the FASB and its international counterpart, the IASB, responded to criticism (from sources unnamed) of the presently constituted GAAP model for lease accounting, that the present accounting model (paraphrasing from the exposure draft) omits relevant information and fails to provide a sufficiently faithful representation of leasing transactions. The Boards recently issued an exposure draft of this proposed new accounting standard as the first stage of their joint project to address this presumed deficiency by developing a new approach to lease accounting, one that would address the criticisms and provide that appropriate assets and liabilities arising from leases be presented in the balance sheet.

The deadline for comments on the exposure draft is December 15; the Boards are expected to issue the new final standard sometime in 2011. The new lease accounting standard will constitute a major change from present GAAP and the results of its application will be very DIFFERENT looking financial statements for most companies. Will these differences result in a BETTER presentation? That’s yet to be determined.

It’s DIFFERENT; Is it BETTER?

It’s Different:

• It will cover substantially ALL leases of PP&E.
• If services are included in consideration, you will generally have to bifurcate elements.
• The basic concept referred to internationally as the “right to use model” will require the lessee to recognize an asset representing the right to use the leased item for the lease term with a liability for the rent to be paid. This is effectively a financing model whereby amortization/interest expense will be recognized in the income statement each year, instead of rent expense (how boring). Interest expense will be highest in the earliest years of the lease and will reduce as the related obligation is deemed “repaid,” so forget the “straight-line” concept of old.
• The new lease asset generally would represent the present value of the future lease payments as well as initial direct costs (i.e., commissions, professional fees, etc.) incurred to negotiate/execute the lease--the liability will be the NPV of the estimated future payments.
• Present value will be determined using the lessee’s incremental borrowing rate, or if readily determinable (not likely in real estate transactions) the lessor’s built in rate.
• Complications and subjective judgments will come into play in determining the expected term of the lease to use in the computations as that number may be a moving target (principles vs. rules again, so make a good guess preparers).
• Ditto with respect to such rental payments which in the bad/good old days used to be considered “contingent” such as CPI adjustments, percentage rent payments, other escalations; they all get included in the estimate of future cash outflows to be made at the inception of the lease. (And of course they will all require adjustment “true-up” to the actual facts as they occur. This is not going to be easy/fun to implement and maintain, neither for preparers of financials or for their auditors.)
• Lessor accounting (which we will not get into here) essentially follows the same concept as lessee accounting and will vary only based on whether the lessor retains exposure to risk/loss during or at the end of the lease.
• Special rules for subleases but conceptually similar accounting as would apply to prime leases.
• Presentation matters: The Boards proposed specially segregating related lease assets, liabilities, amortization expense and interest on the face of the financial statements, but has left this matter open to public comment (i.e., footnote disclosure only). Cash flows related to leasing will be in the financing section of the cash flow statement, separately stated.
• All kinds of expanded footnote disclosure will be required, arising chiefly because of all the subjectivity introduced by the accounting and the required truing up to reality which will be an annual task.
• Once the standard is adopted, it will be required to present information retrospectively for prior periods presented (that will require a good deal of work). Certain prior capital lease obligations will be exempted from the requirements.
• If /when adopted, this standard is likely to be effective in 2013 or 2014 so there will be time to deal with the changes
• By the way, it would be prudent for all of us in the real world to estimate the impact of this likely new standard on our financial statement ratios, debt covenant compliance, etc., including (please consult with counsel) the possible impact on what was presumed to be prior years’ compliance in the case of an after-the-fact retrospective presentation of previously reported amounts. Get ahead of the curve, start doing the work and prepare for the negotiations ahead.

Is it BETTER?

• The idea behind the proposal is to better converge U.S. GAAP with International Accounting Standards, the better to facilitate the ultimate goal of switching everyone to IFRS.
• In general, there seems to be a continued self flagellation among the GAAP standard setters that somehow our “rules” are inferior to the world’s “principles.” Is this really so?
• Under GAAP, there are all kinds of disclosures made with respect to required cash flows and payments to be made by those accounting for operating leases. Are the users of those financials somehow less informed by the “just the facts” approach to those executory obligations? Is something really lost by not having these items on the balance sheet? Is someone somehow mis/underinformed? I doubt it.
• From a lessor/landlord perspective, how does adding a new asset/liability to the balance sheet, while still retaining the historical cost model otherwise, add to improved representation of reality and transparency?
• In the name of theoretical purity, all kinds of subjectivity (and wherever there is subjectivity there will eventually be a misuse and scandal to come, trust me) will be introduced into what had heretofore been a straightforward if imperfect exercise
• It’s not just about leasing. The overriding accounting concept of principle vs. rule is going to create a minefield for preparers, users and auditors and we may yet find that we have achieved less comparability, at higher cost and without achieving appreciable clarity for the users of the financial statement information. I hope I am wrong, but 35+ years of practice suggests otherwise.
• At least the banks will be happy. They will get to extract their ounce or two of flesh for agreeing to accommodate the new accounting in the covenant calculations where there has been NO change in the underlying economics. The power of the pencil emerges triumphant (at least for some)!!

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Year-end Asset Purchases Get Big Write-offs

by Ken Weissenberg

The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, (the "Act") signed into law on September 27, 2010, contains generous expensing allowances for new assets. First, the bonus depreciation deduction has once again been extended for new assets placed in service on or before December 31, 2010. The bonus depreciation deduction of 50 percent applies to new tangible personal property, qualified leasehold improvements, and certain restaurant and retail improvements. Qualified leasehold improvements are limited to nonresidential property in buildings which have been in service for at least three years and that meet certain other requirements.

In addition, the Act expands the expensing allowance of Internal Revenue Code Section 179 by increasing the amount allowed as a first year write-off to $500,000 for assets placed in service in 2010 or 2011. For the first time, qualified leasehold improvements, along with qualified restaurant property and qualified retail improvements, qualify for the Section 179 write-off as well. As much as $250,000 of the $500,000 cap can consist of these real property assets. The phase-out limitation for the Section 179 deduction was also increased for 2010 and 2011. The available Section 179 deduction is reduced dollar for dollar (but not below zero) by the amount of eligible property placed in service during the year in excess of $2,000,000. The amount of Section 179 property costs which can be expensed in a given year generally cannot exceed taxable income derived from an active trade or business in the year. It should be noted that, under the Act, Section 179 deductions attributable to qualified real property which are disallowed under the trade or business income limitation can only be carried over to tax years in which the definition of eligible Section 179 property also includes qualified real property.

Finally, an $8,000 Section 179 deduction is available for new cars, light trucks and vans placed in service during 2010, increasing the first-year deduction limit (which includes depreciation) for luxury cars to $11,060 and the first-year deduction limit for light trucks and vans to $11,160.

If you're planning on making any significant purchases in the near future, these tax law changes certainly sweeten the deal. Please contact Ken Weissenberg or your EisnerAmper advisor to see how you may benefit from these expanded deductions.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Observer Readers Recognize Firm Among Top in Commercial Real Estate

In an online poll, readers of The New York Observer recently lauded the firm for having one of the top three commercial real estate practices.

In addition, the Commercial Observer profiled "The Top Number Crunchers" featuring our own Ken Weissenberg.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Project Controls and Processes for Real Estate Developers

By Edward Opall

Real estate developers manage a significant amount of risk throughout their projects. Conceiving of a plan, locking in the variables, making the deals, and managing stakeholders are an "art" in this business. Managing the day-to-day aspects of a development project and realizing a profit are a different matter. Successful project execution requires effective controls and processes.

No matter the size of the organization, a strong control environment and an effective project management process is necessary. Multiple layers of staff and management increase the complexity and require more rigid policies with formal approvals. Smaller organizations should follow the same principles, taking into account their circumstances.

To read more about project controls and processes for real estate developers, click here.