Bill Text: NJ A3411 | 2012-2013 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Authorizes civil action against developers who fail to reimburse municipalities for professional services expenses; bars developer challenges to municipal professional service charges not timely appealed.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 2-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2012-10-18 - Introduced, Referred to Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee [A3411 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2012-A3411-Introduced.html
Sponsored by:
Assemblyman MICHAEL PATRICK CARROLL
District 25 (Morris and Somerset)
SYNOPSIS
Authorizes civil action against developers who fail to reimburse municipalities for professional services expenses; bars developer challenges to municipal professional service charges not timely appealed.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning developer responsibilities for certain municipal professional services expenses and amending P.L.1991, c.256 and P.L.1995, c.54.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. Section 13 of P.L.1991, c.256 (C.40:55D-53.2) is amended to read as follows:
13. a. The chief financial officer of a municipality shall make all of the payments to professionals for services rendered to the municipality or approving authority for review of applications for development, review and preparation of documents, inspection of improvements or other purposes under the provisions of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.). Such fees or charges shall be based upon a schedule established by resolution. The application review and inspection charges shall be limited only to professional charges for review of applications, review and preparation of documents and inspections of developments under construction and review by outside consultants when an application is of a nature beyond the scope of the expertise of the professionals normally utilized by the municipality. The only costs that shall be added to any such charges shall be actual out-of-pocket expenses of any such professionals or consultants including normal and typical expenses incurred in processing applications and inspecting improvements. The municipality or approving authority shall not bill the applicant, or charge any escrow account or deposit authorized under subsection b. of this section, for any municipal clerical or administrative functions, overhead expenses, meeting room charges, or any other municipal costs and expenses except as provided for in this section, nor shall a municipal professional add any such charges to his bill. If the salary, staff support and overhead for a municipal professional are provided by the municipality, the charge shall not exceed 200% of the sum of the products resulting from multiplying (1) the hourly base salary, which shall be established annually by ordinance, of each of the professionals by (2) the number of hours spent by the respective professional upon review of the application for development or inspection of the developer's improvements, as the case may be. For other professionals the charge shall be at the same rate as all other work of the same nature by the professional for the municipality when fees are not reimbursed or otherwise imposed on applicants or developers.
b. If the municipality requires of the developer a deposit toward anticipated municipal expenses for these professional services, the deposit shall be placed in an escrow account pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1985, c.315 (C.40:55D-53.1). The amount of the deposit required shall be reasonable in regard to the scale and complexity of the development. The amount of the initial deposit required shall be established by ordinance. For review of applications for development proposing a subdivision, the amount of the deposit shall be calculated based on the number of proposed lots. For review of applications for development proposing a site plan, the amount of the deposit shall be based on one or more of the following: the area of the site to be developed, the square footage of buildings to be constructed, or an additional factor for circulation-intensive sites, such as those containing drive-through facilities. Deposits for inspection fees shall be established in accordance with subsection h. of section 41 of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-53).
c. Each payment charged to the deposit for review of applications, review and preparation of documents and inspection of improvements shall be pursuant to a voucher from the professional, which voucher shall identify the personnel performing the service, and for each date the services performed, the hours spent to one-quarter hour increments, the hourly rate and the expenses incurred. All professionals shall submit vouchers to the chief financial officer of the municipality on a monthly basis in accordance with schedules and procedures established by the chief financial officer of the municipality. If the services are provided by a municipal employee, the municipal employee shall prepare and submit to the chief financial officer of the municipality a statement containing the same information as required on a voucher, on a monthly basis. The professional shall send an informational copy of all vouchers or statements submitted to the chief financial officer of the municipality simultaneously to the applicant. The chief financial officer of the municipality shall prepare and send to the applicant a statement which shall include an accounting of funds listing all deposits, interest earnings, disbursements, and the cumulative balance of the escrow account. This information shall be provided on a quarterly basis, if monthly charges are $1,000 or less, or on a monthly basis if monthly charges exceed $1,000. If an escrow account or deposit contains insufficient funds to enable the municipality or approving authority to perform required application reviews or improvement inspections, the chief financial officer of the municipality shall provide the applicant with a notice of the insufficient escrow or deposit balance. In order for work to continue on the development or the application, the applicant shall within a reasonable time period post a deposit to the account in an amount to be agreed upon by the municipality or approving authority and the applicant. In the interim, any required health and safety inspections shall be made and charged back against the replenishment of funds. If an applicant fails to replenish an escrow account or deposit to reimburse a municipality for any charges to the escrow account or deposit for any professional services, which are the obligation of the applicant but which have been incurred by the municipality due to an insufficient escrow balance, within 60 days of the disposition of an application and the applicant has not timely appealed such charges pursuant to section 3 of P.L.1995, c.54 (C.40:55D-53.2a), the unpaid balance thereof and all interest accrued thereon may be recovered by the municipality or any affected professional in a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. The prevailing party in such action shall be awarded attorney's fees of $300 per hour, to be adjusted at an annual percentage increase rate of five percent beginning in the year next following the enactment of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), and costs.
d. The following close-out procedure shall apply to all deposits and escrow accounts established under the provisions of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.) and shall commence after the approving authority has granted final approval and signed the subdivision plat or site plan, in the case of application review escrows and deposits, or after the improvements have been approved as provided in section 41 of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-53), in the case of improvement inspection escrows and deposits. The applicant shall send written notice by certified mail to the chief financial officer of the municipality and the approving authority, and to the relevant municipal professional, that the application or the improvements, as the case may be, are completed. After receipt of such notice, the professional shall render a final bill to the chief financial officer of the municipality within 30 days, and shall send a copy simultaneously to the applicant. The chief financial officer of the municipality shall render a written final accounting to the applicant on the uses to which the deposit was put within 45 days of receipt of the final bill. Any balances remaining in the deposit or escrow account, including interest in accordance with section 1 of P.L.1985, c.315 (C.40:55D-53.1), shall be refunded to the developer along with the final accounting.
e. All professional charges for review of an application for development, review and preparation of documents or inspection of improvements shall be reasonable and necessary, given the status and progress of the application or construction. Review fees shall be charged only in connection with an application for development presently pending before the approving authority or upon review of compliance with conditions of approval, or review of requests for modification or amendment made by the applicant. A professional shall not review items which are subject to approval by any State governmental agency and not under municipal jurisdiction except to the extent consultation with a State agency is necessary due to the effect of State approvals in the subdivision or site plan. Inspection fees shall be charged only for actual work shown on a subdivision or site plan or required by an approving resolution. Professionals inspecting improvements under construction shall charge only for inspections that are reasonably necessary to check the progress and quality of the work and such inspections shall be reasonably based on the approved development plans and documents.
f. If the municipality retains a different professional or consultant in the place of the professional originally responsible for development, application review, or inspection of improvements, the municipality or approving authority shall be responsible for all time and expenses of the new professional to become familiar with the application or the project, and the municipality or approving authority shall not bill the applicant or charge the deposit or the escrow account for any such services.
(cf: P.L.1995, c.54, s.1)
2. Section 3 of P.L.1995, c.54 (C.40:55D-53.2a) is amended to read as follows:
3. a. An applicant shall notify in writing the governing body with copies to the chief financial officer, the approving authority and the professional whenever the applicant disputes the charges made by a professional for service rendered to the municipality in reviewing applications for development, review and preparation of documents, inspection of improvements, or other charges made pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.). The governing body, or its designee, shall within a reasonable time period attempt to remediate any disputed charges. If the matter is not resolved to the satisfaction of the applicant, the applicant may appeal to the county construction board of appeals established under section 9 of P.L.1975, c.217 (C.52:27D-127) any charge to an escrow account or a deposit by any municipal professional or consultant, or the cost of the installation of improvements estimated by the municipal engineer pursuant to section 15 of P.L.1991, c.256 (C.40:55D-53.4). An applicant or his authorized agent shall submit the appeal in writing to the county construction board of appeals. The applicant or his authorized agent shall simultaneously send a copy of the appeal to the municipality, approving authority, and any professional whose charge is the subject of the appeal. An applicant shall file an appeal within 45 days from receipt of the informational copy of the professional's voucher required by subsection c. of section 13 of P.L.1991, c.256 (C.40:55D-53.2), except that if the professional has not supplied the applicant with an informational copy of the voucher, then the applicant shall file his appeal within 60 days from receipt of the municipal statement of activity against the deposit or escrow account required by subsection c. of section 13 of P.L.1991, c.256 (C.40:55D-53.2). An applicant may file an appeal for an ongoing series of charges by a professional during a period not exceeding six months to demonstrate that they represent a pattern of excessive or inaccurate charges. An applicant making use of this provision need not appeal each charge individually. Failure by an applicant to appeal the charges made by a professional for service rendered to a municipality within the time limits prescribed in this subsection, shall constitute a jurisdictional bar to any challenge of those charges.
b. The county construction board of appeals shall hear the appeal, render a decision thereon, and file its decision with a statement of the reasons therefor with the municipality or approving authority not later than 10 business days following the submission of the appeal, unless such period of time has been extended with the consent of the applicant. The decision may approve, disapprove, or modify the professional charges appealed from. A copy of the decision shall be forwarded by certified or registered mail to the party making the appeal, the municipality, the approving authority, and the professional involved in the appeal. Failure by the board to hear an appeal and render and file a decision thereon within the time limits prescribed in this subsection shall be deemed a denial of the appeal for purposes of a complaint, application, or appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction.
c. The county construction board of appeals shall provide rules for its procedure in accordance with this section. The board shall have the power to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of relevant evidence, and the provisions of the "County and Municipal Investigations Law," P.L.1953, c.38 (C.2A:67A-1 et seq.) shall apply.
d. During the pendency of any appeal, the municipality or approving authority shall continue to process, hear, and decide the application for development, and to inspect the development in the normal course, and shall not withhold, delay, or deny reviews, inspections, signing of subdivision plats or site plans, the reduction or the release of performance or maintenance guarantees, the issuance of construction permits or certificates of occupancy, or any other approval or permit because an appeal has been filed or is pending under this section. The chief financial officer of the municipality may pay charges out of the appropriate escrow account or deposit for which an appeal has been filed. If a charge is disallowed after payment, the chief financial officer of the municipality shall reimburse the deposit or escrow account in the amount of any such disallowed charge or refund the amount to the applicant. If a charge is disallowed after payment to a professional or consultant who is not an employee of the municipality, the professional or consultant shall reimburse the municipality in the amount of any such disallowed charge.
e. The Commissioner of Community Affairs shall promulgate rules and regulations pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to effectuate the purposes of this section. Within two years of the effective date of P.L.1995, c.54 (C.40:55D-53.2a et al.), the commissioner shall prepare and submit a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the General Assembly. The report shall describe the appeals process established by section 3 of P.L.1995, c.54 (C.40:55D-53.2a) and shall make recommendations for legislative or administrative action necessary to provide a fair and efficient appeals process.
(cf: P.L.1995, c.54, s.3)
3. This act shall take effect immediately.
STATEMENT
This bill would permit municipalities and affected professionals to bring civil actions against developers to recover unpaid charges for reviews and inspections related to development applications, together with attorney's fees and costs. The bill would also clarify that developers may not challenge the charges for these services if they do not timely appeal the charges.
To ensure that developers, and not taxpayers, are responsible for the costs of development applications, many municipalities require that developers post escrows against the municipal costs incurred for expert and professional services. Sometimes, the cost of these services exceeds the amount of funds in escrow and the developer refuses to pay the difference. Although the amount of the shortfall is often relatively small because professionals typically discount their services to municipalities, the developer's default leaves either the taxpayers to pay the difference or the professionals to absorb it as a loss. Many times, a lawsuit is impractical because the cost of litigation outweighs the amount of the default. This bill would protect both the taxpayers and professionals who provide services to municipalities against a default of a developer's obligation to pay for professional services by authorizing a cause of action against a defaulting developer and requiring the award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in such action.
This bill would also clarify that a developer may not challenge a charge for professional services rendered to a municipality if the developer does not appeal the charge to the county construction board of appeals within the existing statutory timeframe by adding language that expressly bars any untimely challenge.
