New Jersey Governor Signs into Law Act Permitting Private Companies to Construct and Operate Public Schools in Newark, Trenton and Camden

On January 12, 2012, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed into law the Urban Hope Act (“Act”), S3173/A4426, which allows private companies to construct, operate and manage up to twelve public schools in three under-performing public school districts in the State: the Newark School District, the Trenton School District and the Camden School District.  These “failing districts,” as such are defined in the Act as those in which a below average percentage of students scored at least in the partially proficient range on State assessments administered in the 2009-2010 school year, have been unable to convert, year after year, “increased State aid and other resources into improved student achievement, higher graduation rates, or greater student readiness for postsecondary education and gainful employment.”  Recognizing that although New Jersey’s per pupil public school expenditures are among the highest in the nation, many of the State students are nonetheless failing to achieve the core curriculum content standards, the New Jersey Legislature passed, and the Governor approved, the Act to “provide local boards of education, partners, students, and teachers with more and better options for addressing their failing schools.”

The Act offers one such option by allowing the identified school districts, on a limited pilot program basis, to partner with one or more nonprofit entities to create “renaissance schools.”  Under the Act, a “renaissance school project” (“RSP”) means “a newly-constructed school, or group of schools in a common campus setting, that provides an educational program for students enrolled in grades K through 12 or in a grade range less than K through 12, that is agreed to by the school district, and is operated and managed by a nonprofit entity in a renaissance school district.”  A “renaissance school district” (“RSD”) is “a failing district in which [RSPs] shall be established.”  Private or parochial schools are not eligible for RSP status under the Act.

Upon receiving local school district approval, nonprofit entities can apply, within three (3) years of the Act’s passage, to the state Commissioner of Education (“Commissioner”) to create up to four (4) RSPs in each RSD.  The nonprofit entity must demonstrate experience in operating a school in a “high-risk, low-income urban district.”  Similarly, “an entity retained by the nonprofit entity for the purpose of financing or constructing the [RSP] shall also have appropriate experience.”  In its application, the nonprofit entity is required to outline its goals, policies, and a financial plan.  In addition, the nonprofit entity must provide a description of the process employed by the RSD to find and partner with the chosen nonprofit entity to create a RSP; such process should be “open, fair and subject to public input and comment.”

Once the nonprofit entity obtains state approval, it can then enter into a contract with the RSD in which the RSP will be located, setting forth the terms and conditions for the RSP including the operation, management, and funding of the RSP.  The nonprofit entity is also required to file an organizational document with the Commissioner. 

The Act permits for-profit entities to construct a RSP.  RSPs may also be located on land owned by a for-profit entity.  Moreover, the nonprofit entity is authorized to retain for-profit entities to staff, operate, and manage the RSP.  Although RSPs shall be considered public schools under the Act, the nonprofit entity or any entity acting in cooperation with a RSP, including for-profit businesses, would not be subject to public bidding requirements for goods and services, as is otherwise required for public schools under the “Public School Contracts Law,” N.J.S.A. 18A:18A-1 et seq.  Further, any such contracts entered into would not be deemed public contracts or public works, except for the purposes of the “New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act,” N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.25 et seq., which the RSPs are subject to.  All costs of the RSP, including the costs of land acquisition, site remediation, site development, design, construction, and any other costs required to place into service the school facility or facilities constituting the RSP, are to be paid for by the nonprofit entity.  State funds may be used to pay for a lease, debt service, or mortgage for any facility constructed or otherwise acquired. 

Under provisions of the Act, RSPs may also be built on land owned by the New Jersey Schools Development Authority (“SDA”) or the RSD.  Ownership of the land on which the RSP is constructed determines which students are permitted to enroll at the RSP.  The Act also permits the SDA to convey the land by ground lease or fee simple title to either the RSD or the entity constructing the RSP, including to private developers, “for such consideration and on such terms as the [SDA] determines to be in the best interest of the State.”  The conveyance must contain a restriction that the land be used solely for a school or it shall revert to the SDA.  In the event the land is conveyed to a RSD, the RSD may enter into a sublease of the property with the entity.  Such a sublease must contain a similar use restriction and reverter provision, and be reviewed and approved by the Commissioner.

Moreover, if any board of education determines by resolution that any tract of land is no longer desirable or necessary for school purposes, it may authorize the conveyance of such a tract to a RSP, similarly conditioning the conveyance on the property’s continued use for school purposes by the RSP.

Under the provisions of the Act, the RSD will pay to the nonprofit entity operating a RSP an amount per pupil equal to 95% of the district’s per pupil expenditure.  The RSPs are required to meet the same testing and academic performance standards established by law and regulation for public students. The nonprofit entity may also establish additional testing and academic performance standards which, upon the Commissioner’s approval of the same, the RSP must meet as well.  The RSPs are subject to periodic reviews and assessments by the Commissioner, and the Commissioner has the right to review the RSP’s and the nonprofit entity’s records and facilities to ensure compliance with the RSP’s organizational document, and with State laws and regulations.  In addition, five (5) years following the date of the opening of the third RSP, or ten (10) years after the opening of the first RSP, whichever occurs first, an independent education researcher or research organization selected by the Commissioner will conduct a review of the efficacy of the RSPs.  The Act requires that the Commissioner report the results of the review to the Governor, the State Board of Education, and the Legislature, and the RSP program altered and/or expanded based on these results.

The Act received wide support from education organizations and the state’s largest teachers union, the New Jersey Education AssociationUnder the Act, educators in the RSPs will have the same qualification requirements, salary minimums and collective-bargaining powers as teachers in other public schools

The Urban Hope Act is one of several pieces of the administration’s overall effort to improve education.

 

New Jersey Signs Act to Extend the Permit Extension Act of 2008 to December 31, 2012

On September 6, 2008, in response to unprecedented economic and financial crisis and as an attempt to protect development permits that were scheduled to expire, then New Jersey Governor John Corzine signed P.L. 2008, c. 78 (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-136.1 et seq.), legislation known as the Permit Extension Act of 2008 (the “Permit Extension Act”). The Permit Extension Act extended the terms of certain governmental development permits and approvals to July 1, 2010, with up to a six-month phase-in period until January 1, 2011. Governor Corzine, as one of his last acts as Governor, signed legislation (Chapter 336, Assembly No. 4347) extending the end of the tolling period under the Permit Extension Act from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012.

The primary goal of the Permit Extension Act is to promote development once the economy has strengthened and prevent the abandonment of approved projects and activities. The Permit Extension Act tolls the running of governmental development permits and approvals obtained during the period from January 1, 2007 through July 1, 2010, with up to a six-month phase-in period until January 1, 2011, thus amounting to a maximum four-year permit extension period.

The Permit Extension Act is a compromise between developers and community activists, including environmentalists. As such, it excludes the following categories from eligibility for extension:

  1. Permits and approvals issued by the US government or any permit or approval with a duration or fixed expiration date determined by a federal law or regulation;
  2. Approvals in “environmentally sensitive areas”;
  3. Permits or approvals issued pursuant to the “Pinelands Protection Act” if the extension would result in a violation of federal law or any state rule or regulation requiring approval of the Secretary of the Interior;
  4. New Jersey Department of Transportation permits, other than right-of-way permits;
  5. Flood Hazard Area Control Act permits, except where work has already commenced; and
  6. Coastal centers pursuant to the “Coastal Area Facility Review Act” where (a) an application for plan endorsement was not submitted to the State Planning Commission as of March 15, 2007, and (b) was not in compliance with the Coastal Zoning Management Rules.

The Permit Extension Act does not prohibit the granting of additional permit extensions otherwise provided for under law when its tolling period expires. In addition, the Permit Extension Act does not affect any administrative consent orders issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and in effect during the extension period, nor does it extend any approval in connection with a resource recovery facility.

Should you have any questions with regard to the applicability of the Permit Extension Act to any existing project, permits, or approvals, please contact an attorney knowledgeable with New Jersey laws and the Permit Extension Act.
 

Can Towns Make Real Estate Developers Set Aside Open Space in Their Projects?

Real estate developers in New Jersey often face a myriad of state and local regulations under which their development activities must comply. The Appellate Division issued a ruling in two lawsuits brought by builders associations against two New Jersey municipalities which should give developers some welcome relief.


In May 2003, Jackson Township passed an ordinance requiring a minimum of 10% to 40% of a parcel contemplated for development, depending on the zoning district in which it was located, be reserved as open space, with a minimum of 50% of such open space consisting of land which could be used for recreational use.


Jackson Township revised these requirements in 2006 by requiring all residential developments provide 12.5 acres of land per thousand projected residents of the development for recreational purposes subject to certain additional specified standards. If a developer could not satisfy these requirements, or if the planning board agreed to a developer’s request, a developer could make a cash contribution in lieu of compliance with these requirements by contributing to so-called “off-tract recreational improvements.” Further, a developer was required to pay its “fair share” for off-site open space and/or recreational land and improvements as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval.


The New Jersey Shore Builders Association challenged the enforceability of these ordinances. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the builders association, finding these ordinances to be ultra vires and unenforceable since the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) does not give municipalities the right to require on-site dedications of open space (with the exception of planned unit developments, planned unit residential developments and residential clusters) unless the municipality compensates the developer for the portion of the property set aside as open space.


In Egg Harbor Township, ordinances similar to the Jackson Township ordinances were already in place. Residential developers were required to set aside one-half of an acre for recreation and open space for each one thousand persons expected to reside in a proposed development. The Egg Harbor Planning Board had discretion to accept a cash payment in lieu of compliance with the recreational facilities and open space requirements if it determined that “both the area local to the development and Egg Harbor Township’s park and recreation needs would be better served by an agreed cash bequest to the designated parks and recreation budget.”


In addition, developers were required to install recreational facilities in all residential developments requiring those facilities, “on the land that has been set aside for recreational purposes” (such as playgrounds, tennis and basketball courts), based on the number of dwelling units in a development. In lieu of installing these facilities, a developer could, at its option, make a cash contribution to the Township’s parks and recreation budget.


In 2004, Egg Harbor Township passed a new ordinance giving the Township the option to require an off-tract assessment and revising the formula used for determining the recreational facilities in a residential development. Later that year, another new ordinance granted developers the option in designated zoning districts to post such assessments if the developer determined “that the on-site construction of active recreation facilities and/or provision of open space for passive recreation would result in a loss of potential dwelling units on the subject parcel.”


In like fashion to the Builders Association, The Builders League of South Jersey challenged enforcement of the Egg Harbor ordinances; however, the trial court in this action ruled completely contrary to the trial court in the Jackson Township case. The loser in each case appealed the trial court’s decision. The Appellate Division consolidated both appeals given the similarity of the issues in dispute.


In New Jersey, the MLUL is the basis upon which municipalities may control zoning, with the purpose of achieving certain goals that are specified in the statute, such as adequate open space. Both builders groups argued that the MLUL gave municipalities the authority to require dedications of common open space and recreational areas only when planned developments where the subject of the application, and did not provide for payments in lieu of set-asides. The Townships acknowledged this, but argued that the MLUL granted such authority by implication.


The court agreed with the builders groups that the MLUL, while conferring substantial powers to municipalities with regard to zoning, limited such power with respect to set-asides for recreational and open space purposes to planned developments only. The court’s ruling carefully distinguished this power under the MLUL from the more general power provided elsewhere in the MLUL allowing municipalities to impose requirements on developers to contribute toward the cost of off-site water, sewer, drainage and street improvements in lieu of on-site set-asides.
 

In light of this ruling, only time will tell whether the state legislature takes any action to close this loophole.