NAHB Recommendation. WHEREAS, NAHB provided customized Affiliation Agreements to all Affiliated Local Associations for execution;

Transcription

1 NAHB Recommendation Recommendation No. 1 Date: 2/21/2019 City: Las Vegas, NV Title: Sponsor: Submitted by: NAHB Policy on Affiliation Agreements State Representatives Tony Foust WHEREAS, on June 6, 2014 the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Board of Directors approved a Chartered Association Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Affiliation Agreement ), which is to be executed by NAHB and each Affiliated Local Association; WHEREAS, the Affiliation Agreement sets forth in a one-page document the respective obligations and responsibilities of NAHB and an Affiliated Local Association as required pursuant to the NAHB bylaws, which govern the relationship between Affiliated Associations and NAHB; WHEREAS, NAHB provided customized Affiliation Agreements to all Affiliated Local Associations for execution; WHEREAS, to date more than 80 percent of the Affiliated Local Associations have signed the Affiliation Agreement; WHEREAS, it is the goal of NAHB to achieve 100 percent compliance by all Affiliated Local Associations; and WHEREAS, NAHB provides many opportunities for Affiliated Local Associations to receive financial support and services from NAHB, by participating in various programs, including, but not limited to: the Legal Action Fund, the State and Local Issues Fund, Affinity Programs and related royalty share options, financial grants, pilot programs such as the Membership Model pilot program, and annual Membership Drive awards, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMENDED that the policy of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) shall be that in order for an Affiliated Local Association to be eligible to participate in any NAHB program(s) that provide direct financial support and services to the Affiliated Local Association, the Affiliated Local Association must have executed the Affiliation Agreement and must remain in good standing with NAHB. Board of Directors Action: Executive Board Action: Resolutions Committee Action: Budget & Finance Committee Action: Membership Committee Action: National Area/Associate Chairmen Action: State Representatives Action: Association Planning Committee Action:

2 2019 IBS Board Meeting Recommendation No. 1 Title: NAHB Policy on Affiliation Agreements Check one of the four boxes below: [ ] This recommendation requires additional budget appropriations, which will be presented and considered as part of NAHB's normal budget review process. The amount of the new budget request to be presented to the NAHB Budget Committee is. [ ] The above recommendation can be implemented using already approved budget and staff resources, but may require some shifting of priorities in terms of staff time and other resources. The preliminary cost estimates for implementing the above recommendation are (bold one): -- Less than $20, Between $20,000 and $50, Between $50,000 and $100, More than $100,000. [ ] Impractical to provide a preliminary cost estimate at this time. [X] No cost implications.

3 NAHB Recommendation Recommendation No. 2 Date: 2/21/2019 City: Las Vegas, NV Title: Sponsor: Submitted by: Qualifications for the Chair of NAHB Budget and Finance Committee Texas Association of Builders Robert Wood, Michael Biggerstaff WHEREAS, it is critically important to the financial health of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) that the association Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee be duly qualified; WHEREAS, providing competent and professional guidance to the NAHB staff and board is critical; WHEREAS, not having a competent and experienced Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee could place NAHB as risk; WHEREAS, the NAHB Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee shall be a stand-alone appointed association member position whose responsibilities do not fall upon another elected officer of the association; WHEREAS, the NAHB Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee shall have accounting and budgeting experience; WHEREAS, the NAHB Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee shall be appointed to a three-year term; WHEREAS, the NAHB Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee is not a NAHB staff member; and, WHEREAS, the Texas Association of Builders finds it to be in the best interest of NAHB to have a qualified member of the association be the appointed Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee of the association, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED that the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) amend its bylaws so that the Chair of the NAHB Budget and Finance Committee has accounting and budget experience, be an appointed association member and serve a three-year term. Board of Directors Action: Executive Board Action: Resolutions Committee Action: Budget and Finance Committee Action: National Area/Associate Chairman Action: State Representatives Action: Association Planning Committee Action: Please note: If approved, a proposed bylaw amendment to implement this recommendation will be circulated for consideration by NAHB Delegates at their next scheduled meeting. Bylaw amendments require a two-thirds majority vote for approval.

4 2019 IBS Board Meeting Recommendation No. 2 Title: Qualifications for the Chair of NAHB Budget and Finance Committee Check one of the four boxes below: [ ] This recommendation requires additional budget appropriations, which will be presented and considered as part of NAHB's normal budget review process. The amount of the new budget request to be presented to the NAHB Budget Committee is. [ ] The above recommendation can be implemented using already approved budget and staff resources, but may require some shifting of priorities in terms of staff time and other resources. The preliminary cost estimates for implementing the above recommendation are (bold one): -- Less than $20, Between $20,000 and $50, Between $50,000 and $100, More than $100,000. [ ] Impractical to provide a preliminary cost estimate at this time. [X] No cost implications.

5 Resolution No. 3 Date: 2/21/2019 City: Las Vegas, NV NAHB Resolution Title: Sponsor: Submitted by: Cluster Box Unit Mail Delivery HBA of Alabama Todd Slyman WHEREAS, the delivery of mail is one of the basic functions of the federal government, specifically authorized to Congress in the Constitution; WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent branch of the Executive Office of the United States Government, governed by a nine member Board of Governors and overseen by the Postal Regulatory Commission, an independent oversight Commission whose members are also appointed by the President and whose appointment is approved by the Senate; WHEREAS, the USPS has seen reduced revenues due to competition with private express carriers, innovations in delivery services, and dramatically oscillating fuel prices; WHEREAS, in an effort to reduce delivery costs, effective April 5, 2012, the USPS revised the Postal Operations Manual (POM) regarding mode of delivery, giving it autonomy in determining how deliveries to new addresses will be made and effectively changing the way Americans receive mail by focusing delivery away from sidewalk and curbside delivery and towards delivery only to centralized Cluster Box Units (CBUs), Parcel Lockers, or UPSP-STD-4C Mail Boxes in new residential developments; WHEREAS, to do so, the POM identifies centralized delivery as the default method and requires special approval to use curbside and sidewalk methods; WHEREAS, the POM also requires newly established or extended business or residential customers to request and receive approval of the delivery location and mode of delivery from the local Postmaster or District designees, and specifies that these deliveries will not receive mail delivery service until the mail receptacles are installed and the units and locations are approved by the local postmaster; WHEREAS, the USPS, and not the local planning department or municipal decision-making body, retains the authority to approve the mailbox site(s) and type(s) of equipment;

6 Resolution No. 3 Cluster Box Unit Mail Delivery 2/21/2019 pg. 2 WHEREAS, centralized delivery may require developers to incur increased costs in the form of land to be used for the units themselves, as well as for access and parking, and possibly other safety and security features, none of which will be provided by the USPS; WHEREAS, centralized delivery can be particularly problematic for projects that are already underway and the USPS has, in many instances, failed to adequately notify developers, engineers, surveyors, planning and zoning administrators, homeowners, or homeowners associations of this change in policy, thus necessitating the redesign of subdivisions that have already approved and/or are under construction to allow for centralized delivery of mail; and WHEREAS, there has been inconsistent and uneven application of the POM by local postmasters or district designees and the POM does not provide adequate guidance as to when alternative delivery modes may be approved, how to address ongoing projects or who has the responsibility to maintain centralized delivery structures and under what circumstances, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) support maintaining the option of curbside delivery in new residential developments; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NAHB urge the United States Postal Service (USPS) to immediately abandon efforts to eliminate curbside delivery of mail in new residential developments nationwide; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NAHB actively oppose any effort by the USPS to mandate cluster mailbox delivery as the preferred method of delivery in new residential developments; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NAHB encourage USPS to recognize that the various modes of delivery contained in the Postal Operations Manual are valid for election by developers and builders to utilize; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NAHB demand the Postal Regulatory Commission to ensure through its oversight that the USPS abandon this discriminatory policy that has permitted the reduction in services to rural, lower income, and predominately minority communities across the country; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, should the USPS refuse to abandon its efforts to mandate cluster box delivery, NAHB press USPS to reimburse all expenses associated with such installation to include the equipment, land costs, infrastructure costs, maintenance, and costs associated with compliance with any applicable federal, state and local requirements, and USPS to assume all liability associated with the use and maintenance;

7 Resolution No. 3 Cluster Box Unit Mail Delivery 2/21/2019 pg. 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NAHB urges Congress to hold hearings to investigate cost saving measures and revenue enhancements that can be implemented to ensure curbside delivery of mail to all new and existing residential developments, including staffing, equipment, funding, and privatization of postal operations. Board of Directors Action: Executive Board Action: Resolutions Committee Action: Land Development Committee Action: State & Local Government Affairs Committee Action: Single Family Builders Committee Action: Federal Government Affairs Committee Action: If approved, this resolution would replace policy No. 3 Centralized Mail Delivery (see attached)

8 Resolution No. 3 Date: 7/28/2018 City: Portland, OR NAHB Resolution Title: Sponsor: Submitted by: Centralized Mail Delivery Land Development Committee George LaCava WHEREAS, the delivery of mail is one of the basic functions of the federal government, specifically authorized to Congress in the Constitution; WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent branch of the Executive Office of the United States Government, governed by a nine member Board of Governors and overseen by the Postal Regulatory Commission, an independent oversight Commission whose members are also appointed by the President and whose appointment is approved by the Senate; WHEREAS, the USPS has seen reduced revenues due to competition with private express carriers, innovations in delivery services, and dramatically oscillating fuel prices; WHEREAS, in an effort to reduce delivery costs, effective April 5, 2012, the USPS revised the Postal Operations Manual (POM) regarding mode of delivery, giving it autonomy in determining how deliveries to new addresses will be made and effectively changing the way Americans receive mail by focusing delivery away from sidewalk and curbside delivery and towards delivery only to centralized Cluster Box Units (CBUs), Parcel Lockers, or UPSP-STD-4C Mail Boxes in new residential developments; WHEREAS, to do so, the POM identifies centralized delivery as the default method and requires special approval to use curbside and sidewalk methods; WHEREAS, the POM also requires newly established or extended business or residential customers to request and receive approval of the delivery location and mode of delivery from the local Postmaster or District designees, and specifies that these deliveries will not receive mail delivery service until the mail receptacles are installed and the units and locations are approved by the local postmaster; WHEREAS, the USPS, and not the local planning department or municipal decision-making body, retains the authority to approve the mailbox site(s) and type(s) of equipment; WHEREAS, centralized delivery may require developers to incur increased costs in the form of land to be used for the units themselves, as well as for access and parking,

9 Resolution No. 3 Centralized Mail Delivery 7/28/2018 pg. 2 and possibly other safety and security features, none of which will be provided by the USPS; WHEREAS, centralized delivery can be particularly problematic for projects that are already underway and the USPS has, in many instances, failed to adequately notify developers, engineers, surveyors, planning and zoning administrators, homeowners, or homeowners associations of this change in policy, thus necessitating the redesign of subdivisions that have already approved and/or are under construction to allow for centralized delivery of mail; and WHEREAS, there has been inconsistent and uneven application of the POM by local postmasters or district designees and the POM does not provide adequate guidance as to when alternative delivery modes may be approved, how to address ongoing projects or who has the responsibility to maintain centralized delivery structures and under what circumstances, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) urge the United States Postal Service (USPS) to maintain the option of curbside or sidewalk delivery in new residential developments where centralized delivery may be inappropriate and provide detail in Postal Operations Manual Section Hardship Cases; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NAHB urge the USPS to provide uniform guidance to local postmasters regarding a grace period and grandfathering of projects that have already received local plan approval, including all future phases; the process and criteria by which alternative delivery modes may be approved; and long-term maintenance responsibilities; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that NAHB urge the USPS to advise their local postmasters of the need to further communicate these changes to local governments, local homebuilders associations (HBAs), home builders, homeowners, and homeowners associations. Board of Directors Action: Executive Board Action: Resolutions Committee Action: Land Development Committee Action: State & Local Government Affairs Committee Action: Single Family Builders Committee Action: Federal Government Affairs Committee Action: APPROVED