Â Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â

Post a reply

Username

Subject

Message body

Emoticons

Font colour: Font size:

Close Tags

[quote="Guest"]CRANBURY TOWNSHIP COMMENTS ON A-500

Hello, I am Christine Smeltzer, Cranbury Township Administrator. I am here representing the Cranbury Township Mayor and Committee Members.

The new Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) rules have created major issues for us to the tune of 500 additional affordable housing units. Our hope is to continue to provide affordable housing without bankrupting our tax payers. The problem is not only the numbers from the formulas established with the revised 3rd round rules, that became effective June 2, 2008 but funding for the third round.
Certain sections of Bill A500 as amended by the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee before you today, would create an onerous burden for Cranbury Township’s taxpayers. It would throw a wrench into what has been a workable plan for Cranbury Township to create affordable housing opportunities locally as well as regionally. The elimination of Regional Contribution Agreements and the proposed funding of 2.5% replacing the payment in lieu* are Cranbury Township’s major problems with Bill A500 as amended.

To illustrate, why these are problems let me briefly give you a snapshot of Cranbury Township. The population of Cranbury Township was 3,227 as of the last census and at that point there were 1,211 housing units. The Cranbury population has not increased much since the 2000 Census, it is still well under 4,000. Cranbury has one school which is a public school with grades K-8.
Eight per cent of the residences in Cranbury are affordable housing. Cranbury has satisfied the last two rounds of affordable housing with developments of 100% affordable housing integrated into, or adjacent to our one square mile historic village district. A new third round development of affordable housing had just been completed when the rules for Round 3 came out. The 3rd Round RCA agreement, has been ready since 2005 for COAH approval. Notice that Cranbury Township was eagerly moving forward to comply with Round 3, as it had in Rounds 1 and 2. However the new warehousing formula, as recently amended, caused an additional 500 units for the Township to deal with!

In addition to the 100% affordable program to create affordable housing in town, Cranbury has used Regional Contribution Agreements with Carteret and Perth Amboy to provide regional affordable housing over the years. The latest RCA agreement, was never processed by COAH. so those 81 families are not receiving the benefit of the $2,800,000 that Cranbury would pay for those regional units.

Why are RCAs key to Cranbury affordable housing compliance? Cranbury is a town of 13 square miles, few people, but outstanding soil and about half preserved farmland. In the village district, the areas for residential development are being developed with affordable housing. Recently the Township Committee purchased another parcel for additional 3rd round housing. However this district is running out of area to develop for housing at the numbers that are being assigned by the COAH formulas.

Cranbury needs the ability to contribute to RCAs to stay in compliance with COAH rules. Thus Cranbury is opposed to the elimination of RCAs as proposed in Bill A500.

The elimination of the payments-in-lieu fees from non-residential development would be a funding catastrophe, since this can be a major source of funding. for Cranbury Township. Cranbury has tried to raise enough affordable housing fees in the past years with the 2% non-residential development fee. The Affordable Housing Trust fund sits with less than $300,000 at this point. As the office uses build out in Cranbury, the payment in lieu will continue to be needed to help finance the jobs/units created. As it stands with the largest component, of commercial development, the warehousing, the payment in lieu cannot be assessed. So Cranbury has been forced to stick with the inadequate 2%.
Cranbury Township opposes the elimination of the payment in lieu section, in Bill A500.

Cranbury Township opposes the suggestion that $20,000,000 is going to be an adequate amount to replace RCAs and otherwise assist municipalities with affordable housing. Currently RCAs can be in the area of $20,000,000 or more for one receiving town alone to satisfy the 3rd round. So how far can $20,000,000 be spread?
Lastly, I must relate to you the burden that the new rules, lack of RCAs, lack of payments in lieu will create for taxpayers. Cranbury Township’s budget is around $12,000,000. Currently, Cranbury Township taxpayers are supporting $3,500,000 in affordable housing costs, since the 2% affordable housing fees only brought in $1,000,000 since 1998. Another $3,800,000 will be added for the 3rd round RCA, (which is a cost effective affordable housing compliance mechanism for Cranbury Township) and the new site recently acquired for affordable housing.

Cranbury Township opposes Bill A500 because of the proposed elimination of Regional Contribution Agreements as well as the creation of 20,000,000 funding that is inadequate to replace RCAs. Cranbury Township is also opposed to A500 as amended due to the proposed elimination of the non-residential payment in lieu.
For more information contact: Christine Smeltzer, Township Administrator, at Cranbury Township 609 395-0900.

*$145,903 per unit created by certain non residential developments that are not warehousing.

http://cranburytownship.org/CRANBURY-TOWNSHIP-COMMENTS-ON-A500.pdf[/quote]

Options
HTML is ON
BBCode is ON
Smilies are ON

	Disable HTML in this post
	Disable BBCode in this post
	Disable Smilies in this post