O'port opposes bill to end RCAs
Chaump: Bill would undermine affordable housing
BY CHRISTINE VARNO
Staff Writer

Mayor Lucille Chaump

The Oceanport Borough Council is opposing a proposed reform that would end the practice of municipalities transferring their fair share housing obligations to towns outside their towns' borders.

At the Jan. 25 meeting, the council unanimously adopted a resolution opposing a bill introduced in the state Assembly, A-3857, by Assemblyman Joseph J. Roberts Jr., (D-5).

The proposed bill, introduced Jan. 4, seeks to eliminate Regional Contribution Agreements (RCA) as a method to fulfill a municipality's affordable housing obligations, a practice allowed under the state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).

In addition to eliminating RCAs, the bill also proposes the creation of a housing rehabilitation program, programs to assist buyers of affordable housing and a state housing rehabilitation program within the Department of Community Affairs.

"This bill, if enacted, would radically undermine the affordable housing plans of numerous municipalities that have, at great effort and expense, developed, adopted, filed and sought approval of their affordable housing plans," the borough's resolution states.

"Such an undermining of affordable housing plans would benefit developers who would seek to exploit the shortfalls that would result, but would not benefit municipalities or the poor who stand to benefit from approved plans and these agreements," it states.

"We are opposing the bill," said Mayor Lucille Chaump in an interview last week. "If passed, a lot of municipalities would not be able fulfill their affordable housing obligations."

If enacted, the proposed legislation would require all fair share housing obligations to be met within a municipality without the use of RCAs after June 1, 2006.

All RCAs approved prior to that date would not be affected by the bill's provisions.

The resolution was introduced and adopted at the request of Oceanport Special Counsel Jeffrey R. Surenian, who was hired by the borough in 2005 to assist the town in developing an affordable housing plan to meet its fair share housing obligation required by COAH.

According to Surenian, whose firm represents municipalities throughout the state on affordable housing matters, the bill is an "inane" piece of legislation.

"Roberts is saying we should do away with RCAs and our state, that is broke, should create a $15-million-a-year fund to fund the rehabilitation of urban areas," Surenian said in an interview last week.

"The state cannot afford to establish a fund," he said, adding, "RCAs represent a tool available to towns to meet their quota."

An RCA allows a community to transfer up to half of its required share of affordable housing units to another community within the same housing region.

Under COAH regulations, a sending municipality, generally an affluent town that does not have its share of affordable housing units, can transfer its requirement to provide affordable housing to a receiving community, which already has more than its required share of affordable housing units. The sending municipality also pays a per-unit fee to the receiving community.

"RCAs have proven to be an enormously useful and beneficial compliance technique to both sending and receiving municipalities and have also provided the poor an enormous benefit," according to the resolution.

Receiving municipalities have benefited from RCAs, according to the resolution, as a result of the millions of dollars paid, owed and anticipated through RCAs.

Sending municipalities also have benefited from RCAs by facilitating the ability of sending municipalities to meet the burden created by the responsibilities COAH has imposed, according to the resolution.

"The bill is trying to take away a valuable tool," Surenian said. "It is wrong and not beneficial."

Surenian explained that RCAs are useful to both sending and receiving municipalities.

"Receiving towns have received a steady flow of income through this," he said, adding, "And sending towns have been able to fulfill their quota.

"They minimize the burden on a town and maximize the availability of affordable housing," Surenian said.

Chaump agreed.

"You are required to meet a quota and by doing an RCA you are helping out another community and giving the people in their community something that they need," Chaump said.

Roberts contends in the proposed bill that the transfer of fair share housing obligations has proven to not be a viable method of ensuring that an adequate supply of affordable housing choices are provided in municipalities experiencing growth.

"Although the termination of [RCAs] will impact on some previously approved agreements, it is for a public purpose and for the public good that such contracts be declared void for the current and future housing obligation rounds," according to the bill.

Roberts' bill also proposes creating a program to assist buyers of affordable housing and establishing a trust fund to be known as the "Housing Rehabilitation Assistance Fund."

Because of the proposed elimination of RCAs, the bill states there is a need to prioritize the allocation of available funds in the Neighborhood Preservation Nonlapsing Revolving Fund.

Those funds would be utilized to promote the availability of affordable housing throughout the state, according to the bill.

Sending municipalities have committed to provide $210.3 million to fund the creation of 10,256 new or rehabilitated affordable units in the RCAs that COAH has approved to date, according to the Oceanport resolution.

In addition to the RCAs already approved, COAH records reveal that municipalities have proposed an additional 3,755 RCA units, according to the resolution.

It is anticipated that the 3,755 RCAs will generate more than $130 million to help house the state's low- and moderate-income households, the resolution states.

It is also anticipated that an additional group of municipalities will adopt and file affordable housing plans by May, many of which will include an RCA component that could generate several million dollars more in monies to help house the poor, according to the resolution.

The state's affordable housing requirements are the result of a 1975 lawsuit in which Mount Laurel Township wanted to eliminate affordable housing units and the N.J. Supreme Court decided that all municipalities were responsible for providing low and moderate income housing.

In 1985, COAH was created and assigned all municipalities a quantitative assessment of their fair share obligation which has been addressed in three "rounds:" creating opportunities for affordable housing, rehabilitating existing housing stock and creating new units.

In November 2005, the Oceanport Planning Board adopted a housing plan to meet the borough's affordable housing obligation, as determined by COAH.

The plan included creating six affordable housing units at Oceanport Manor Apartments on East Main Street and to create 28 affordable units at the 30-bed Checkmate Inc. homeless shelter on Main Street.

The plan additionally called for the borough to enter into an RCA with Lakewood to transfer four units of its fair share obligation at a cost of $140,000.

The borough is waiting to hear from COAH if that plan has been approved.

"It is part of our affordable housing plan," Chaump said.

"It is hard to say how some towns will meet their requirement if the bill is passed," she added.

Chaump explained that the borough could be acquiring properties due to the closing of Fort Monmouth, which could possibly help assist the borough fulfill its obligation to provide the housing.

"We may be able to have all of our affordable housing obligations from property at Fort Monmouth," Chaump said, adding, "Once we get property from Fort Monmouth, we may not need an RCA to fulfill our obligation, but we are not at that point yet."