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

Commercial architecture is its own field of design, with unique concerns and practices. To give a simple commercial architecture definition, it is architecture focused solely on buildings and spaces thatare usedfor commercial purposes. These include offices, retail outlets, and other facilities where commercial businessis conducted.

At first glance, the basic processes followed in many types of architecture seem the same. Whether a project is commercial, residential, institutional, etc., it tends to follow the same set of basic steps:

Thatbeing said, there is still quite adifference in the details and considerations of commercial architecture. These unique aspects are what define commercial architecture as its own category of design.Letsreview them closely.

Commercial architecture stands apart from other forms by focusing on the clients business needs. The entire designmust be engineeredto accommodate the type of business run within the facility and make the clients business goals easier to reach.

This is where commercial architects must meet a higher challenge.In residential work, for example, the design must only cater to the needs of a small group of people the occupying household.Butin commercial architecture, the design must satisfy the occupying business, its employees, and all customers(or patients, clients, and any other people the business may serve).

Commercial architects work to understand the behavior of customers and others who interact with their clients business. This requires a firm graspof the psychology of sales, as well as a familiarity with consumer trends.

Most importantly, commercial architects investigate how various design choices can influencehow consumers behave, what decisions they make, and how they perceive the clients brand, products, and services.

Of course, consideration of consumers only makes up a part of commercial designs duties. Architects in this sector must also know how to best approach design for their clients specific facility type and specific business operations. This includes accommodating the particular equipment, merchandise, and storage needs of the clients business.

For example, a producer of fresh beverages may need their facilitys design to provide large temperature-controlled storage areas. Such a client could also need spacious loading bays that allow delivery vehicles to easily access these storage areas and maintain stable transport conditions.

Accommodating business operations often requires extra infrastructure as well. Architects working on commercial projects must be ableto strategically incorporateelevators, parking lots, and other features that would rarely be seen in the residential sphere.

Overall, commercial design must account for the way that the clients business functions on aday to daybasis. It should enable all business activitiesto not only becomfortable, but also as efficient as possible. This is true whether the client is serving customers in a fast-food restaurant, or manufacturing products in a large workshop.

Commercial architecture requires a sharp business sense with an eye for future developments. Architects in this sector must be able to design a facility that will be suitable for many years to come. They should also spot opportunities to give their clients a competitive edge.

Successful commercial designs can adapt to market trends and allow for business growth,even as the clients industry evolves and changes. This is why flexibility is a prized feature in commercial architecture, and market research is such a powerful tool.

At one point or another, every commercialbusiness needs help improving an existing facility or developing a new property. Corporate offices, retail shops, restaurants, and a variety of other businesses can all benefit frompartneringwith a skilled commercial architect.

If your business needs assistance with designing an ideal commercial property,PionArchcan help. You can leverage our expertise to gain important insights for your project and develop a design that offers maximum value for your company and its stakeholders.Welldeliver strategies backed by industry knowledge, and results that will meet your companys every need.

From hip cafes to sleek workspaces, our portfolio features a diverse range of standout projects. Our teams extensive experience will ensure that your project enjoysits own great success.

Ifyoudlike to learn more about our packages and pricing, please read about ourdesign fees.Yourealso welcome to reach out to us for a personal consultation and detailed quote.

Reveal Your Businesss Potential Get Your Quote.

Read the original here:
What is Commercial Architecture? | PionArch, LLC

Lincolnshire-based architectural practice PolkeyCollins is celebrating a strong year in business, despite the uncertainty that the COVID-19 pandemic presented the construction industry earlier this year.

Specialising in commercial architectural services, across multiple sectors including retail, office, science and education, PolkeyCollins has reported an increase in turnover in 2020 compared with 2019.

The company, which was founded by Clive Polkey and Daniel Collins, made multiple hires throughout the year including architectural and administrative staff, who have helped to propel the companys growth strategy forward, and has now prompted a decision to move to new, larger offices in 2021.

As well as strengthening the team, PolkeyCollins has also made significant investments in its BIM (Building Information Modelling) capabilities, which includes the introduction of upgraded software and training for the team.

Director Clive Polkey, said: This year has been a challenging time for everyone and we are grateful for the support we have had from our clients, partners and team members, who have pulled together throughout the year.

By specialising in understanding the client and applying design rigour across multiple sectors, we have seen positive responses and attitudes to the way we work. Our ethos has always been about creating a progressive architectural practice that delivers cost effective, detailed designs that are viable from concept to completion. This is something we strongly believe in and has proven to be even more important this year.

We are lucky to count some the UK best known brands and leading educational organisations as clients and along with new business, we have seen the number of enquiries for our services and live projects grow. This is reflected in our turnover increase and is testament to our teams skill and hard work.

Fellow director Daniel Collins, added: The challenges of this year have helped us to focus on supporting our team and meeting and surpassing the needs and expectations of our valued clients.

We are proud of our achievements as a business over the last twelve months despite the uncertainty and we have remained focused on our business plan. We are now seeing the positive results of that strategy, with a clear direction for the company over the next few years.

Our team are everything; they have worked together through difficult times with their positive, energetic and productive approach and it has made a huge difference in the work we have been able to achieve this year.

Visit link:
Architect eyes larger office after 'strong' year | TheBusinessDesk.com - The Business Desk

Life as we know it has changed due to the pandemic; masks are mandatory, social distancing is encouraged and sanitisation is life-saving. Our homes have now become a place to work, relax, exercise, attend school and shop its no surprise that interior design trends are seeing a massive change.

With economies freefalling, the Interior Design industry has dealt with its fair share of impact. However, heres some good news: the global interior design services market to reach four billion, growing at a CAGR of 7.8% between 2020 to 2027. China is forecast to grow at 11.9% CAGR. Japan and Canada are forecasted to grow at 4.2% and 7% respectively. Germany is set to grow approximately 5.1% CAGR.

More construction in developed economies such as the US is likely to increase the demand for design and architecture services. As the rich get richer, new homes are acquired and existing spaces are constantly renovated. There is a growing trend to customise and personalise the space we live in, from kitchens to bath spaces and more recently, home offices and study rooms.

Source: Mireya Acierto/Getty Images for Robin Wilson Home/AFP

People still want big kitchens that open onto a family room but home offices, outdoor spaces, and Zoom rooms (or at least a dedicated space for Zoom meetings and lecturers) are big on wish lists, says interior designer Caitlin Scanlon of Caitlin Scanlon Design.

For students who enjoy frequent excursions to IKEA and constantly marvel at showroom exhibitions, a degree in Interior Design might just be the next best move. You can learn how to create your own showrooms, the skills to deal with clients and the technical knowledge to create spaces that consider human health, well-being, and safety. With this degree, youll have access to internship opportunities and formal training to progress to earning your license and practice alternatively, you can continue with a masters degree and then a PhD.

For those planning to join the industry, the average interior designer makes an average of US$50,224, which is one of the highest median wages, compared to professions in other fields.The BA (Hons) Interior Design at University of Arts London has produced graduates that are not only industry ready and qualified, but also think out of the box as they take part in a live project in year two and a large-scale interior project that examines all aspects of an interior environment from conception through to completion in year three.

Situated in Sydney and Melbourne, Whitehouse Institute of Design offers a Bachelor of Design (Interior Design) programme that focuses on a diverse range of areas including residential, retail, community and commercial office interior design. New York School of Interior Designs Bachelor of Fine Arts in Interior Design offers interesting modules that include kitchen and bath design, furniture design, and an architectural workshop. Thats not all, students must also take an intensive course in either French or Italian heres to a well all-rounded education!

See the original post here:
Why 2021 is the year you should become an Interior Design major - Study International News

Pune, India, Dec. 16, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The global architectural acoustic panels market size is projected to reach USD 9,752.8 million by 2027, exhibiting a CAGR of 4.1% during the forecast period. Development of acoustic panels made from eco-friendly and recycled organic waste will be a prime growth determinant for this market, states Fortune Business Insights in its report, titled Architectural Acoustic Panels Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Product Type (Metal Acoustic Panels, Plastic Acoustic Panels, Wood Acoustic Panels and Others), By Application (Residential, Commercial and Industrial) and Regional Forecast, 2020-2027. The construction industry predominantly relies on synthetic and inorganic materials such as polystyrene and glass wool for thermal insulation and noise reduction. However, these materials are known to have significant environmental impacts and as a result, acoustic panel manufacturers are showing increasing interest in utilizing biodegradable materials for making soundproofing solutions. For example, Soundproof Cow has engineered the Quiet Batt 30 Soundproofing Insulation, which is made from 80% recycled cotton and is non-toxic as well as itch-free. Similarly, Audimute has developed its green sound absorption solution, the eco-C-tex, which has been produced from recycled cotton and cellulose. With regulatory bodies emphasizing on reducing pollution from buildings, the demand for green architectural acoustic panels is expected to rise in the coming years.

Get Sample PDF Brochure with Impact of COVID19:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/covid19-impact/architectural-acoustic-panels-market-104454

According to the report, the global market value stood at USD 7,862.8 million in 2019. The top features of the report include:

List of theTop Companies Profiled in the Global Architectural Acoustic Panels Market are:

Restraining Factor

Subdued Construction Activities amid COVID-19 to Stifle Market Growth

A major challenge impeding the architectural acoustic panels market growth is the on-going and the steadily intensifying COVID-19 pandemic that has caused unprecedented damage to the global construction industry. A recent survey by the London-based Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) found that construction activity contracted across the globe in the second quarter of 2020. With 25% of projects coming to a standstill and on-site productivity falling by 12%, the escalating costs are anticipated to exert tremendous pressure on the construction industry over the next twelve months.

Inquire Before Buying This Research Report:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/queries/architectural-acoustic-panels-market-104454

The adoption of architectural acoustic panels will be inevitably affected due to the sudden decline in constructions as these panels are widely utilized for noise control in this industry. Moreover, disrupted investment plans will further hamper the market as acoustic panels are expensive.

Regional Insights

Massive Investments in Infrastructure to Propel the Asia Pacific Market

Asia Pacific is expected to dominate the architectural acoustic panels market share during the forecast period on account of the massive public and private investment in infrastructure development in the region. The region is also witnessing a huge influx of foreign investments in the construction sector, which also favors the growth of the market. In 2019, the Asia Pacific market size stood at USD 3,533.4 million.

Europe is predicted to hold the second-largest position in the global market as a large number of multinational companies in the region are rapidly adoption architectural acoustic panels to comply with the green building regulations set by the European Union (EU). Robust growth of the construction industry in the US will accelerate the growth of the North America market in the forthcoming years.

Competitive Landscape

Apex Players to Implement Aggressive Expansion Strategies

With the intent to capture a larger market share, key players in this market are aggressively implementing strategies to entrench their position. Chief among these is the launch of sound-absorbing solutions made from sustainable materials as the emphasis on green buildings is rising worldwide. The other strategy adopted by the leading companies is the acquisition of regional players to deepen their presence in regional markets.

Browse Detailed Summary of Research Report with TOC:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/architectural-acoustic-panels-market-104454

Key Industry Developments:

Detailed Table of Content:

TOC Continued!

Speak to Our Expert:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/speak-to-analyst/architectural-acoustic-panels-market-104454

Have a Look at Related Research Insights:

Acoustic Panel Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Product type (Wooden Acoustic Panels, Mineral Wool Acoustic Panels, Fabric Acoustic Panels, Polyester Acoustic Panels Others), By Application (Construction, Industrial, Transportation, Other) and regional forecast 2020-2027

Acoustical Ceiling Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Product type (Mineral fibre, Gypsum, Others), By Application (Non-Residential, Residential, Industrial) and Regional Forecast, 2020-2027

About Us:

Fortune Business Insightsoffers expert corporate analysis and accurate data, helping organizations of all sizes make timely decisions. We tailor innovative solutions for our clients, assisting them to address challenges distinct to their businesses. Our goal is to empower our clients with holistic market intelligence, giving a granular overview of the market they are operating in.

Our reports contain a unique mix of tangible insights and qualitative analysis to help companies achieve sustainable growth. Our team of experienced analysts and consultants use industry-leading research tools and techniques to compile comprehensive market studies, interspersed with relevant data.

At Fortune Business Insights, we aim at highlighting the most lucrative growth opportunities for our clients. We, therefore, offer recommendations, making it easier for them to navigate through technological and market-related changes. Our consulting services are designed to help organizations identify hidden opportunities and understand prevailing competitive challenges.

Contact Us:

Fortune Business Insights Pvt. Ltd.

308, Supreme Headquarters,

Survey No. 36, Baner,

Pune-Bangalore Highway,

Pune - 411045, Maharashtra, India.

Phone:

US: +1 424 253 0390

UK: +44 2071 939123

APAC: +91 744 740 1245

Email:sales@fortunebusinessinsights.com

Fortune Business Insights

LinkedIn | Twitter | Blogs

Read Press Release:

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/press-release/global-architectural-acoustic-panels-market-10334

Continue reading here:
Architectural Acoustic Panels Market to Hit USD 9,752.8 Million by 2027; Rising Demand for Efficient Soundproofing Solutions from the Hotel Industry...

10. Arper Outfits the CBRE Groups New Office in AmsterdamThe CBRE Group, the worlds largest commercial real estate services and investment firm, moved into new Amsterdam offices that once housed a car garage. The Dutch branch relied on their own design team to create the modern interior of The Core, which merged original details with new furnishings from Arper.

9. The noho move chair Is Made From Reclaimed Fishing Nets + CarpetsNew brand noho launched with a new chair thats completely sustainable, as its made from a 100% regenerated and regenerable nylon. Based in Aotearoa, New Zealand, noho collaborated with Aquafil to create an everyday chair collection made out of ECONYL regenerated nylon, a material from upcycled waste plastic, like reclaimed fishing nets and end-of-use carpets. The noho move chair is designed with dynamic comfort which allows the user to sit back and lean forward while the chair moves with you.

8. Montreals Empty Olympic Tower Revived into Offices for DesjardinsAbandoned since 1987, the Olympic Tower of Montreal was transformed into new offices for Desjardins, one of Quebecs largest financial institutions. Provencher_Roy designed the office interiors which span seven of the buildings 12 floors, equaling 80% of the available rental space. Now labeled the Montreal Tower, the structure was opened up when Provencher_Roy removed a good portion of the prefabricated concrete panels and replaced them with an all-glass curtain wall covering about 60% of the facade.

7. ROOM Launches New Modular Meeting Rooms for the Modern WorkspaceNew York-based ROOM continued to reimagine the modern workspace with modular architectural solutions that give employees options for privacy. The startup launched a trio of new designs the Meeting Room, Open Meeting Room, and the Focus Room offering private spaces for focused work or collaboration, whether its in-person or virtual.

6. The Ziggy Table and Stool Easily Adapt to Any Work SituationMany companies have been prioritizing adaptability to keep up with the needs of their ever-evolving workspaces and employees. The Ziggy Table and Ziggy Stool, designed by Brad Ascalon for Hightower, are compact pieces that keep that in mind. The geometric duo are both fun and functional and can easily be moved around as needed for solo work or brought together to collaborate with others.

5. H-E-B Digital and Favor Set up New Office in Austins 1st Recycling CenterOnce home to Austins first recycling center, this 81,000-square-foot warehouse was renovated by IA Interior Architects to become the new home of H-E-B Digital and Favor Delivery. The massive transformation resulted in an energetic headquarters decked out with local art and materials that give nod to its Texas location.

4. Nendo Infuses 1s and 0s into Glass Partitions at an Office in TokyoWhen designing the new interior of the IoT Center for a global professional firms Tokyo office, nendo dove into the digital world. In addition to the typical workspaces and conference rooms, the digital hub in Tokyo housesthree galleries and a lounge where new digital technologies are put on display and a multipurpose space for seminars and events. Instead of using typical partitions to divide the spaces, nendo designed transparent glass walls infused with binary code, i.e. the 0s and 1s computers use to write and store data.

3. Shapeless Studio Brings Geometric Shapes to the New NYC Ahlem Eyewear ShopLA-based Ahlem Eyewear enlisted the help of Shapeless Studio Architecture & Interiors to design their retail space in New York City. The modern eyewear brand, which specializes in design-focused frames handmade in Paris, moved into the flexible 500-square-foot space situated on Elizabeth Street in SoHo a space that can easily morph into a showroom, gallery, or event space. Taking inspiration from the brands unique eyewear, particularly their craftsmanship, geometric forms, and use of sustainable materials, the designers created a space that welcomes visitors with a floating curved wall, custom millwork, and sculptural walnut doors inspired by the work of Isamu Noguchi.

2. A Warehouse Is Transformed with Shipping Containers into Innovative OfficeWhen the Spectris Innovation Centre Porto was looking to expand, studium transformed an empty warehouse in Maia, Portugal. The basic warehouse with grey walls is now a colorful home to a variety of meeting areas, team spaces, individual work spots for about 60, and select places for leisure time.

And the most popular At The Office post of 2020 is

1. See Inside the New Art-Filled Offices of JAY-Zs Roc NationSurrounded by galleries in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City, the new offices of Roc Nation fit right in with founder and rapper JAY-Zs collection of modern art displayed throughout. Working closely with Roc Nations CEO, Desiree Perez, architect Jeffrey Beers designed a sleek, collaborative environment perfectly complementing the entertainment companys impressive roster of talent and other creative ventures.

Read the rest here:
Best At The Office Posts of 2020 - Design Milk

Brainerd Chemical Company Inc. is a major manufacturer and distributor of chemicals for research facilities, industrial plants and agricultural operations.

C L Boyd Company Inc., aka the Clarence L Boyd company, is the John Deere construction equipment dealer for much of Oklahoma and more than 100 years old. The Crews family has been involved in operations since the 1930s.

CACI is a $5.7 billion company whose mission and enterprise technology and expertise play a vital role in our national security, safeguarding our troops, and enabling our government to deliver cost-effective and high-quality support for all Americans..

Casualty Corporation of America, Inc. is a locally owned Oklahoma property and casualty insurance company based in Jones. The company commenced business in 1964.

CEC is a privately held, multidiscipline engineering firm whose collaborative, highly skilled problem-solvers provide solutions to improve infrastructure, from conception, to design, to construction. Incorporated in 1966, CEC has grown to more than 210 employees strong, with offices located in Texas, along with Oklahoma. Clients include numerous federal, state, municipal, county, government agencies and private organizations.

Central Technology Center, part of the Oklahoma CareerTech system, provides technical education leading to individual success and elevates the workforce through economic development collaborations. Last year, CTC had more than 20,000 enrollments and provided customized business and industry training to 400 companies. Training included a wide array of safety classes with an emphasis on tailoring curriculum to meet the needs of each specific industry.

City of Mustang offers wide-ranging services to the citizens of Mustang, a suburb of Oklahoma City. An award winning Library, unmatched recreational opportunities and programming, emergency services that are well planned, equipped and trained, a commitment to reinvest in infrastructure, a construction environment that is not over regulated, a fiscally conservative administration, a calm political climate and a willing and helpful team of employees are what make the organization successful.

Claims Management Resources adjusts and recovers property damage claims for self-insured entities. CMR partners with organizations in the utility industry and governmental agencies.

Read more here:
Who are the Top Workplaces contenders? - Oklahoman.com

Three projects and initiatives in Covington and Ludlow received funding Tuesday from the 2020 Urban Revitalization grant program from Duke Energy.

The utility company awarded $213,500 to eight projects and small business assistance programs across the Cincinnati area.

This is the tenth year of the program which has awarded more than $2.6 million to 83 projects across the region.

Its exciting and gratifying to see how these grants have spurred development and lasting change along dozens of Main Streets across southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky over the past 10 years, said Amy Spiller, president of Duke Energy Ohio/Kentucky. These urban cores are transforming into vibrant and entrepreneurial hubs with beautifully restored buildings, dynamic businesses and a diversity of new jobs.

The Duke Energy grant really uplifts and injects life into our project and inspires hope around what we can bring to the West End community amidst a health and racial pandemic, said Toilynn ONeal Turner, founding director of the Robert ONeal Multicultural Arts Center, which was awarded $100,000 as part of this years Urban Revitalization grants.

The reality is every dollar makes a significant impact, said ONeal Turner. And the initial dollars, for things like our architect and our surveyors and to develop our marketing strategy, these dollars are crucial for us to see the vision of this project coming to life.

Its been a wonderful experience to keep moving forward at a time when many of us are really trying to evaluate and address how were going to move forward collectively.

$10,000 was awarded to the Catalytic Development Fund of Northern Kentucky for 722 Scott Blvd. in Covington, the former site of NorthKey Community Care.

The project will create 11,600 sq. ft. of office space.

The grant funds will assist in architectural and engineering drawings, as well as other pre-development costs required to qualify for historic tax credits.

The Catalytic Fund was also awarded $15,000 for 471 Elm St. in Ludlow where North South Baking Co. is set to expand. Owner Kate Standfest owns and operates the business and is working with the Catalytic Fund to transform the property into a commercial baking kitchen to serve wholesale customers, and to offer on-site retail.

The grant will go towards architectural design and engineering services for the 3,000-sq. ft. building which was originally home to an automobile service and filling station.

The Center for Great Neighborhoods of Covington was awarded $11,000 in support of culinary businesses and a commercial bakery retail space.

The funding will allow the organization to offer virtual support to local chefs, many of whom completed its chef fellowship program, launched in 2016 to support local residents passionate about food, but lacking money and connections to bring their visions to fruition.

It will also allow for pre-development work on a shared retail and commercial bakery space on Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.

-Staff report

Image via Kenton Co. PVA

Read more from the original source:
Covington, Ludlow Development Projects Awarded Funds - The River City News

Flagler County commissioners on Monday will consider approving a $20 million loan from a commercial bank to finance the proposed Sheriffs Operations Center in Bunnell, significantly adding to the countys current debt load of $142 million and annual debt servicing of more than $11 million, records show.

Six banks responded to Flaglers Nov. 3 request for proposals to finance the loan. The countys financial adviser is recommending awarding the bid to CenterState Bank, whose Gary Lubi, a well-connected local banker and past president of the now defunct Chamber of Commerce, submitted that banks proposal: a 15-year loan at a fixed 1.83 percent interest, pending a closing on or before Dec. 18. Lubi has brokered various financing and re-financing arrangements with Palm Coast, the county and the school board over the years.

CenterStates was not the lowest bid. Capital One offered a 1.68 percent interest rate, one of J.P. Morgans four options was a rate equal to that of CenterState, and RaymondJames offered a 1.69 percent rate. Other bidders were KeyBank and Truist.

While CenterState did not offer the lowest fixed interest, Jay Glover, the countys financial adviser wrote in a memo to Jerry Cameron, the county administrator, their proposal includes an attractive draw down feature that will allow the County to draw funds down through June 30, 2022. This minimizes the interest cost in early years and gives the County flexibility on final draw if the full $20,000,000 is not needed to complete the project. When comparing the CenterState proposal to the lowest interest rate proposal (Capital One at 1.68%), there is a small present value benefit in debt service cost with the draw down feature.

The CenterState loan would bring principal and interest costs of the loan to $22.85 million.

Architects and the general contractor on the project unveiled plans for the 51,000 square foot building along the future Commerce Parkway, south of the Government Services Building complex, at a commission meeting on Monday. The county is the landlord for all constitutional officers, responsible for housing all their offices at the countys expense. The sheriffs Office vacated its operations center off State Road 100 in mid-2018 after employees became chronically sick from what was believed to be water intrusion and other issues that caused symptoms similar to sick building syndrome. The county had bought and renovated that building for $7 million less than three years before. The building was sold at a huge loss in July: the buyer paid $807,000 for it, an apparent difference of just $423,000 from the price the county paid for it in 2013, but that was before the nearly $6 million in renovations the county invested in the building. The county is still carrying that debt.

Contrary to Camerons claims to commissioners on Monday, the proposed loan for the new building will not be bonded and financed by the countys half-penny surtax that the commission approved in 2012: since the commission voted in the tax, foregoing a referendum, the commission does not have the authority to bond revenue or finance a loan from that particular tax. It will finance the bank loan through the countys portion of the states sales tax revenue.

The two taxes are often confused, as Cameron appeared to have been on Monday when a commissioner noted that the local surtax doesnt go on forever. It does if you say it does Cameron told the commissioner (the tax is not set to expire before 2032). Each tax generates about $2.9 million a year.

The small county surtax we enacted cannot be used to pay debt and cannot be used to repay this bank loan, County Attorney Al Hadeed confirmed. (Cameron himself appears to have ordered his public information office not to answer questions about his inaccurate statements on Monday. When asked what bond he was referring to on Monday, Julie Murphy, whos in charge of Camerons PR, wrote, This is not a public records request. The records, however, which were not provided by Murphy, clarify the picture, though it isnt clear why Cameron did not disclose the financial recommendations to commissioners on Monday: the countys financial adviser sent his memo on Dec. 1.)

The countys commission-approved half-penny surtax has paid or will pay for such things as the cottages at Princess Place Preserve, parking at Bings Landing, improvements at Bunnells Carver Gym and the long-planned, yet-to-be-built south branch library. Revenue from the half-penny share of the state sales tax, which may be bonded, paid for the jail expansion, the once and future sheriffs operations center, the GSB complex and will be used for a west-side fire station.

But in both cases, money spent on those projects means its money diverted from other needs. That will also be true of the financing of the sheriffs operations center, which will significantly narrow the countys ability to pay for other projects through that fund. It is difficult to conceive, for example, how the county would pay for both the operations center and a branch library. The countys available funds for unexpected projects or emergencies will also be further limited.

The loan amount for the proposed sheriffs building falls short of projected costs for the building, which on Monday were pegged at just under $21 million, when architectural and engineering fees and furniture costs are included, as they must be. The cost does not include an additional building for purchasing and logistics planned for the sheriffs grounds, and it does not include interest on the loan, all of which would push the cost well beyond $21 million.

Fortunately for the county, it has no legal debt limits.

The $142.5 million in debt the county is currently carrying was issued between 2004 and 2020. Not all of it is for general government services. For example, the nearly $10 million owed for the Plantation Bay sewer plant and water projects the commission approved this year and last are administered through a separate fund that only Plantation Bay utility ratepayers are responsible for. Thats also the case for the outstanding debt of $6.5 million from when the county acquired the plant in 2014. The airport and a Beverly Beach utility the county administers also have their own funds, outside of the general government stream.

In sum, the county currently owes $115 million through its general government funds, and $27 million through proprietary funds such as Plantation Bay and the airport. In general government, for example, the county took out a bond to build the GSB complex in 2005 and refinanced in 2015, leaving it with a still-outstanding debt of $52 million. The $33 million bond to build the courthouse in 2005 was not refinanced. The county still owes nearly $29 million on that building. (See the countys debts in detail here.)

Read the rest here:
$21 Million Sheriff's Building Would Be Financed With 15-Year CenterState Bank Loan at 1.83% Interest - FlaglerLive.com

Editors note: Click media kit to view and download related video clips and photos.

CINCINNATI Duke Energy today announced the recipients of its 2020 Urban Revitalization grants, which deliver $213,500 to eight redevelopment and small business assistance programs across southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky.

This is the 10th iteration of the companys Urban Revitalization grants. Since launching the program in 2011, Duke Energy has awarded more than $2.6 million to 83 grantees across Greater Cincinnati.

Its exciting and gratifying to see how these grants have spurred development and lasting change along dozens of Main Streets across southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky over the past 10 years, said Amy Spiller, president of Duke Energy Ohio/Kentucky. These urban cores are transforming into vibrant and entrepreneurial hubs with beautifully restored buildings, dynamic businesses and a diversity of new jobs.

Video Amy Spiller speaks about Urban Revitalization grant program

On top of funding redevelopment projects in urban areas outside of Cincinnatis central business district, this years Urban Revitalization grants also provide support to entrepreneurs and small businesses that continue to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Duke Energy grant really uplifts and injects life into our project and inspires hope around what we can bring to the West End community amidst a health and racial pandemic, said Toilynn ONeal Turner, founding director of the Robert ONeal Multicultural Arts Center, which was awarded $100,000 as part of this years Urban Revitalization grants.

The reality is every dollar makes a significant impact, said ONeal Turner. And the initial dollars, for things like our architect and our surveyors and to develop our marketing strategy, these dollars are crucial for us to see the vision of this project coming to life.

Its been a wonderful experience to keep moving forward at a time when many of us are really trying to evaluate and address how were going to move forward collectively.

VideoToilynn ONeal Turner speaks about impact of Urban Revitalization grant

Duke Energy, through the Duke Energy Foundation, provided more than $2 million in grants across Greater Cincinnati communities in 2020. This includes nearly $300,000 for pandemic-related causes like hunger relief and elder care, supplies for front-line workers, and grants to struggling small businesses owned by women, veterans and minorities.

Grants provide gap funding, catalysts for further economic development

The vision for the Urban Revitalization grant program emerged during and after the Great Recession. Thats when Duke Energy leaders learned that nontraditional developers like community groups, small business owners and entrepreneurs were interested in giving new life to historic, yet blighted and neglected, buildings that once served as the epicenters of communities and neighborhoods. However, these visionaries experienced difficulties getting these projects off the ground.

Plans to restore a 100-year-old structure from top to bottom oftentimes cannot move forward due to small, but critical, upfront costs, like the development of detailed architectural and engineering plans, said Spiller. This is where the Urban Revitalization grants prove invaluable.

While our funding is modest in comparison to the costs to redevelop or revamp a property, these catalyst grants are vital for individuals and organizations to obtain the necessary credentials for seeking and securing permits, additional grants and traditional financing for construction.

Photos Urban Revitalizations grantees, past and present

2020 Urban Revitalization grantees

The following Greater Cincinnati projects were awarded grants today:

Catalytic Development Funding Corp. of Northern Kentucky

The redevelopment of the former NorthKey Community Care building will create 11,600 square feet of high-quality and desirable office space. Future tenants will value the buildings location, which is one block west of Covingtons vibrant Madison Avenue commercial corridor and 1 mile south of downtown Cincinnati, as well as its 40-space, on-site parking lot. The Urban Revitalization grant will be put toward architectural and engineering drawings, as well as other predevelopment costs required to qualify for historic tax credits. Experts believe this project could serve as a catalyst for the redevelopment of at least three neighboring properties along Scott Street.

Catalytic Development Funding Corp. of Northern Kentucky

Kate Standfest owns and operates North South Baking Co. and sells her delicious baked goods at events, cafes and coffee shops across the region. Soon shell be able to expand her operations and create jobs all while giving new life to a vacant, 90-year-old structure in the heart of Ludlow. Standfest is working with the Catalytic Fund to transform the building at 471 Elm St. into a commercial baking kitchen that will serve North South Bakings existing wholesale customers as well as offer an on-site retail area. The Duke Energy grant will be used for architectural design and engineering services related to the transformation of the 3,000-square-foot building, which originally housed an automobile filling and service station.

Center for Great Neighborhoods of Covington

The Center for Great Neighborhoods of Covington will use its Urban Revitalization grant for two purposes. First, the funding will allow the organization to offer virtual support to local chefs, many of whom completed the Chef Fellowship program. The fellowship program was launched in 2016 to support local residents who are passionate about sharing their food creations but lack the money, language, connections and more to make their dreams come to life. The virtual support will help these individuals and other food entrepreneurs navigate the realities of operating food-based businesses during the pandemic.

The second focus of the Duke Energy grant is predevelopment work associated with the creation of a shared retail and commercial bakery retail space along Covingtons Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. commercial corridor. This future community asset will serve the broader neighborhood and provide an affordable space for local bakers looking to start their own businesses.

Avondale Development Corp.

The planned Avondale Leadership Development Center of Excellence will be a high-tech, multipurpose education and training facility serving as a hub for community members and the growth of next-generation leaders. Avondale Development Corp. will use its grant money for a variety of predevelopment work associated with transforming the 1.2 acres of vacant land in the heart of the Avondale community.

Among other amenities, the Avondale Leadership Development Center of Excellence will offer affordable office space for local small businesses; multipurpose space for community events, programs and groups; a 400-seat auditorium for major community forums and meetings of nonprofit organizations; and an industrial kitchen that will serve as a soup kitchen for community members, as well as a facility for restaurateurs.

College Hill Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.

Just a stones throw from recent Urban Revitalization grantees Tortilleria Garcia and Kiki, the Ruth Ellen Building at 5904 Hamilton Ave. in College Hills mid-business district is primed for a new beginning. The College Hill Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. was awarded a grant to begin restoring the buildings historic integrity including the removal of a deteriorating facade that was added about 60 years ago.

The grant dollars will be put toward developing architecture and construction drawings, both of which will qualify the project for the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit program a requisite to ensure the projects short- and long-term viability. Once the Ruth Ellen Building is restored, it will feature 11 housing units capable of housing more than 20 residents who will add to the liveliness and strength of the College Hill community.

Hamilton County Development Corp.

The Hamilton County Development Corp. will apply its Duke Energy grant dollars toward the creation of an assistance program that aims to help small businesses, especially those owned or led by minorities and women, that have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This support includes helping businesses navigate the various state and local programs and relief packages available; guidance related to cash flow, staffing, marketing, accounting, supply chain and more; and expert advice on planning for the post-pandemic recovery period and the expected longer-term shift in consumer behaviors.

Mt. Airy Community Urban Redevelopment Enterprise (CURE)

The Mt. Airy CURE is in the midst of facilitating the revitalization of the Mt. Airy business district and surrounding neighborhood, which is located in and around Colerain Avenue in northwest Cincinnati. The organization will use its grant to create conceptual renderings of its business district and commercial properties that will be used to build interest and grow momentum among developers, businesses looking to set up shop in the area and other stakeholders.

Robert ONeal Multicultural Arts Center

Cincinnatis West End neighborhood has a rich history, and Toilynn ONeal Turner intends to preserve and build upon it with the creation of the Robert ONeal Multicultural Arts Center. Named for Toilynns father, a famed Cincinnati artist and civic activist who passed away in 2018, the center will be a modern, professional-grade facility that will celebrate the works of local African American and multicultural artists. It will also serve as a multipurpose hub that houses a marketing agency, co-working studios for creatives of color, and street-level retail and event space that will host national and local performances, conferences and meetings.

The grant will fund complex architectural and engineering plans for the complete restoration and expansion of a historic, yet vacant and dilapidated, West End property that will be home to the Robert ONeal Multicultural Arts Center. The award will also be put toward the creation of renderings and other graphics and presentation materials to support the centers ongoing marketing and fundraising efforts.

Duke Energy Ohio/Kentucky

Duke Energy Ohio/Kentucky, a subsidiary of Duke Energy, provides electric service to about 870,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in a 3,000-square-mile service area, and natural gas service to approximately 542,000 customers.

Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK), a Fortune 150 company headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., is one of the largest energy holding companies in the U.S. It employs 30,000 people and has an electric generating capacity of 51,000 megawatts through its regulated utilities, and 3,000 megawatts through its nonregulated Duke Energy Renewables unit.

Duke Energy is transforming its customers experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy and expanding natural gas infrastructure to create a smarter energy future for the people and communities it serves. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure units regulated utilities serve approximately 7.7 million retail electric customers in six states North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure unit distributes natural gas to more than 1.6 million customers in five states North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The Duke Energy Renewables unit operates wind and solar generation facilities across the U.S., as well as energy storage and microgrid projects.

Duke Energy was named to Fortunes 2020 Worlds Most Admired Companies list, and Forbes 2019 Americas Best Employers list. More information about the company is available at duke-energy.com. The Duke Energy News Center contains news releases, fact sheets, photos, videos and other materials. Duke Energys illumination features stories about people, innovations, community topics and environmental issues. Follow Duke Energy on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.

Media contact: Lee Freedman800.559.3853@DE_LeeF

Original post:
Duke Energy awards more than $200000 to Greater Cincinnati ventures that aim to spark redevelopment, help small businesses - Duke Energy News Center