New Jersey Lawyer & Attorney : Stark & Stark Law Firm : New Jersey Law Blog

Renewable energy opportunities continue to exist and will likely increase drastically in the future. One of the concerns here in New Jersey is the need to extend, accelerate or expand the Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC) opportunities.
 

SRECs are those credits purchased by power companies for the production of solar energy. Given that solar energy facility production has exceeded expectations, creating a glut of SRECs available for purchase, the value of the SRECs have dropped to less than half of the pre-glut value.
 

The newly adopted New Jersey Energy Master Plan proposes to accelerate the purchasing obligation of utilities, or take other actions to stabilize the SREC market, and therefore may improve the value of SRECs and increase the ability to finance solar energy facilities. That, along with ongoing federal tax credits, create the opportunity for New Jersey to continue to be one of the national leaders in solar energy production, currently second only to California.
 

However, one significant component of solar energy facilities is the cost of the solar panels themselves. A recent report conducted by Science Daily concludes that the cost of solar panels has dropped by 70% since 2009, significantly enhancing opportunities to make solar energy production a more attractive investment for those producing and selling energy as well as those building net-metered energy facilities, providing energy for on-site use.
 

For the foregoing reasons, opportunities and profitability of solar energy continues to increase and should be considered by most property owners, including those that might have declined to pursue solar energy as recently as a few months ago. Below is the link to the Science Daily article discussing the huge drop is the cost of solar panels.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In previous blogs, I discussed the scope of Chapter 91, whether an owner-occupied property is subject to a Chapter 91 request, and the problems associated with requesting a reasonableness hearing when a Chapter 91 motion is granted. Now we move to what happens when the property owner mails its response to the Chapter 91 request, but the municipality denies receipt of the response?
 

The New Jersey Tax Court recently answered this question in a case where the court sided with the property owner and denied the municipality’s motion to dismiss a tax appeal.  See Cam Gar v. Verona Township, Docket No. 004838-2011, NJ Tax Court, Nov. 9, 2011 [link]. 
 

Verona Township sought to dismiss a tax appeal alleging the property owner failed to respond to a Chapter 91 request.  The property owner admitted it received the request, but argued it responded to the request in a timely manner by mailing the completed response to the assessor.  To support its position, the property owner offered the testimony of its bookkeeper, a 16-year employee whose job responsibilities include responding to Chapter 91 requests sent for the numerous properties managed by her employer. The bookkeeper went through in detail the procedures she implemented to handle Chapter 91 requests and produced a copy of the Chapter 91 response which had her hand written note “mailed w/rent roll 9/24/10.”  Although she admitted that she did not have a specific recollection of completing or mailing the form, “she testified that she would have followed all of the above procedures as to the handling of the Chapter 91 request.”
 

The municipality argued that without a specific recollection of completing and mailing the Chapter 91 response, the property owner cannot take advantage of the “presumption of receipt” arising under New Jersey case law. In addition, the municipality argued that vague testimony would lower the standard for other property owners who could merely argue “the check is in the mail” and avoid having its complaint dismissed. The court disagreed with the municipality and denied the motion.
 

It is important to note that the court’s decision turned on the credibility of the witness and the corroborating evidence produced at the hearing. It is not enough for a property owner to allege “I believed I mailed it”, or “since I responded every  year, I believe I responded this year”, without providing a thorough description of the procedures implemented to handle Chapter 91 requests and producing documentation that supports the testimony. Prudent property owners should adopt specific procedures for responding to Chapter 91 requests, including:

1. stamping the request with the date it is received;
2. having the information assembled immediately for a timely response;
3. mailing the response by certified mail; and
4. keeping a copy of the response with some record of when it was mailed

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As a general rule, a property owner must be current with its property taxes when it files a complaint with the New Jersey Tax Court to appeal a property tax assessment. If the taxes are not current, the municipality can move to dismiss the complaint.

Is there an exception to this rule? Yes, but it is very limited.

 

The New Jersey Tax Court can “relax the tax payment requirement and fix such terms of payments as the interests of justice may require.”  N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(b).  Recently, the New Jersey Tax Court reviewed a case where a property owner asked the court to relax the payment requirement because the municipality was partially to blame for the financial problems arising from the development of the property being appealed.  Evans-Francis Estates Associates, LP v. Township of Cherry Hill, Docket No. 012386-2011, New Jersey Tax Court, Nov. 9, 2011.   The owner alleged the municipality’s reluctance to allow affordable housing units to be constructed on the property contributed to the financing obstacles.  However, the owner conceded that the collapse in the tax credit equity market contributed to delays in starting construction.

 

The Court applied the following three part test when reviewing the request to relax the tax payment requirement:

At a minimum, it would seem that such circumstances must be (1) beyond the control of the property owner, not self-imposed, (2) unatributted to poor judgment, a bad investment or a failed business venture, and (3) reasonably unforseable.
 

The Court found the property owner failed to meet any part of the test because the “obstacles encountered by the plaintiff in securing the approvals and financing necessary to construct its project are commonplace and reasonably foreseeable.”   The Court was not persuaded that the municipality’s conduct was a mitigating factor or that the severe economic times excuse the obligation to pay property taxes.
 

The case demonstrates the challenges facing property owners in these tough economic times when it comes to appealing a distressed property. To appeal, a property owner must find a way to be current through the first quarter of the year or risk having its appeal dismissed, good times or bad. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vincent J. Mangini, Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Real Estate, Zoning & Land Use Group, authored the article, Builders and Contractors Take Note: The Move to Make Buildings Healthier is Upon Us, for the October 2011 edition of Mercer Business Magazine.

When construction a new building, contractors should ensure that the facility is sturdy, functional and safe. However, some materials and products used in building design and construction are not. Due to this fact, government agencies and non-profit organizations have recently expressed concerns over the chemicals used in construction and their impact upon the public health.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In New Jersey, solar energy facilities have become very popular, especially among businesses and residential property owners, making our State second only to California on the national stage for total solar installations. According to the 2011 Draft Energy Master Plan released by the Christie Administration this past June, there are approximately 9,000 solar photovoltaic projects within the State and most of these are located on commercial and residential sites. Specifically, as of February 28, 2011, in terms of installed capacity, commercial and residential solar projects produced approximately 240 megawatts of power and accounted for 82% of all projects statewide (with most of the remaining 51 megawatts being installed on government sites, school properties and farmland).
 

The drive by commercial establishments and property owners to offset conventional power sources with solar energy certainly comports with current State and federal energy policies.  However, the construction and operation of a solar energy facility may involve a myriad of legal issues for which the advice and counsel of a knowledgeable attorney is essential.
 

Broadly speaking, businesses and individuals interested in hosting a solar energy facility on their premises may do so either by purchasing the solar panels and related equipment outright from a solar developer pursuant to an engineering, procurement and construction contract (EPC) or by leasing the facility long-term (usually 15 to 20 years) pursuant to a power purchase agreement (PPA).  Under both types of agreements, the solar developer may offer to design, build and maintain the solar facility.
 

One threshold matter that applies equally to EPC and PPA contracts is whether to obtain a solar feasibility study for the subject property and the proposed system equipment from an independent technical professional in consultation with an attorney. A solar developer will often perform a property and equipment analysis prior to installing the facility. However, the solar developer’s feasibility study may not include everything that a commercial enterprise or property owner may want to know before committing to the purchase or rental of a solar energy facility. For example, in order for a solar energy facility to operate efficiently and productively the owner or lessee of the system may need to prune or remove trees on site or may need to secure a solar easement from a neighboring property owner to restrict the location and/or height of a building addition, landscaping or other improvements (which might otherwise block access to sunlight).
 

A solar feasibility study should also gauge whether the proposed system size will adequately serve current energy needs (as well as any anticipated change thereto that might occur in the future) and whether the roof of the existing building where the proposed facility is to be constructed and all other structural components and the electrical system can handle the load of the proposed facility. In this regard, by way of further due diligence following receipt of a solar feasibility study, a prospective owner or lessee of a solar energy system should (1) verify with its insurance agent that the proposed facility will not require an insurance upgrade; and (2) contact all companies that have supplied warranties for the roof or other building components that the proposed facility will not require any special inspections to avoid invalidation of any such warranties.
 

Another consideration integral to both EPC and PPA contracts is the procurement of land development approvals and permits for the solar installation.  Indeed, it should not be assumed that the solar developer will obtain any required land development approvals, such as site plan or variance relief (although often they will secure the building permit) or that any failure to acquire such approvals will operate to terminate an agreement with a solar developer.  Therefore, during contract negotiations, a prospective purchaser or lessee should discuss with the solar developer and resolve such matters as which party will be responsible to make application and pay for approvals or permits and whether a failure to obtain any such approvals or permits after making a good faith effort shall operate to terminate the contract.
 

The foregoing represents just a handful of the issues that may come into play when considering whether to install and operate a solar energy system.  If you are interested in learning more about EPC or PPA contracts or have a legal issue relating to solar installations that you would like to discuss, do not hesitate to contact Vincent J. Mangini, Shareholder and LEED Accredited Professional BD+C, here in our Lawrenceville, New Jersey office.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thomas S. Onder, Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Litigation Group, and Cary S. Kvitka, member of Stark & Stark’s Litigation Group, authored the article, Handling Protesters/Solicitors at N.J. Shopping Malls for the September 5, 2011 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal.

Mr. Onder and Mr. Kvitka state that generally, mall owners may impose restrictions against commercial solicitations and restrictions on the place, time and manner of noncommercial speech activities. However, any commercial restriction should be less onerous than the restrictions noted in the cases cited. Additionally, a mall owner should not adopt any such restrictions unless it can justify that each requirement is necessary in order to protect the mall owner’s commercial interests.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

To the extent there was any doubt, a recent article in the New Jersey Law Journal reports that a third county prosecutor has determined that deliberations via email of municipal action by a quorum of municipal officials about government business violates the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act (commonly known as the Sunshine Law). As in the cases of the Cape May County and Burlington County Prosecutors, the Gloucester County Prosecutor declined to pursue an action, notably because the incidents in question were deemed to be incidental and unintentional and the penalty for a first offense is merely $100, with penalties up to $500 for subsequent violations of the Sunshine Law.

Where this becomes more relevant is in the possible challenge to municipal action where the deliberations take place outside public scrutiny via email. Given that emails discussing government business are subject to scrutiny under the Open Public Records Acts, we can and should anticipate greater inquiry and possible challenge to municipal actions based upon violations of Sunshine Law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you are like most people in the Northeast, you experienced wind, rain and flooding right out of a disaster movie. Now that the storm has passed, it’s time to begin to look at the next stage of recovery and the most important document you should be reviewing is your insurance policy. Commercial landlords and tenants spend a great deal of time and money obtaining property insurance coverage for their businesses. However, not everyone knows the intricacies of insurance coverage following a natural disaster, nor do they have a full understanding of their rights to recover their losses.  

Following are some quick tips for dealing with insurance issues:

• Review Your Policy. Before you do anything else, make sure you have a complete, current copy of your policy(s) and review them to get an understanding of what insurance coverage you have. For example, what are the policy limits? Are their endorsements pertaining to a “hurricane” loss? What are your deductible limits?
• Review and Categorize Your Loss. The differences in loss and coverage for commercial landlords and tenants can vary greatly. For instance, you may not have suffered any flooding or damages due to the wind and rain, yet you may have had a shutdown in your business due to protracted power outages. It is important to review your policy and characterize your total loss. A restaurant’s loss could include spoiled food or perishable inventory, for example. A clothing retailer’s loss may be the number of days the store remained closed due to power loss or other localized damage.
• How Does Your Insurance Policy Characterize the Loss? The precise language of your policy will determine whether you can recover for your losses, and in what amount. In a very recent development following the hurricane, the New Jersey Commissioner of Banking and Insurance has ruled that hurricane Irene did not generate sustained hurricane – force winds of above 74 mph as it hit New Jersey, (apparently the wind was measured at a peak velocity of 71 mph) and, accordingly, losses should not be characterized by insurance adjusters as having been caused by a “hurricane.” This has tremendous significance in connection with how losses are adjusted in New Jersey since many policies have very high deductibles for losses caused by wind and other damage associated with a hurricane.

This is good news for policyholders and should result in many more claims falling within coverage, within otherwise applicable policies. You should be aware, however, that many policies may not cover losses attributable to “flood” or related water damage driven claims. 

This is all the more reason you need to examine your policy carefully, in consultation with your insurance agent or broker, and to seek legal assistance if the insurance carrier is not recognizing your claim in full, or is citing exclusions or other policy language inconsistent with your good-faith reading of the policy. These issues can be tricky, especially for most people who are unfamiliar with the nuances of insurance coverage, and examine their policies carefully only after a significant loss. 

These are just a few of the issues commercial landlords and tenants will be dealing with over the next few months due to Hurricane Irene. Regardless of what insurance or other legal issues you face, Stark & Stark’s Commercial Landlord & Tenant, and Insurance Coverage Groups are available to assist you. Feel free to contact Tom Onder, Tom Pryor or Tara Speer in our Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, regarding these issues. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Gary Forshner, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Real Estate, Zoning and Land Use Group, meets with Chris Savastano, Director of Commercial Development for NJR Clean Energy Ventures understand what NJR Clean Energy Ventures is and what type of projects they are familiar with.

What is NJR Clean Energy Ventures? from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The real estate industry has seen a lot of changes over the past several years, and now, for those in the state of New Jersey, there is one more. In the matter of Fair Share Housing Center Inc. v. N.J. State League of Municipalities, the New Jersey Supreme Court took what at first blush might have been thought an unusual decision yesterday, declaring that the New Jersey League of Municipalities is a “public agency” possessing “government records” and therefore is subject to disclosure under the Open Public Records Act. The League is a nonprofit, unincorporated association representing all of New Jersey’s 566 municipalities, which includes over 13,000 municipal officials and over 560 mayors. 

The League is the lobbying arm of New Jersey’s municipalities and is supported in large part from public funding in the form of membership dues. Additionally, its employees participate in the Public Employees’ Retirement System, after The League was declared a public agency for that purpose by a 1955 Attorney General Opinion. Given that the lobbying done by The League on behalf of municipalities throughout the state of New Jersey, which until now the documentation for was private, one would expect a treasure-trove of information to become available to those seeking to challenge the lobbying and other efforts of The League in the future. 

In this instance, Fair Share Housing was seeking information regarding the League’s position opposing affordable housing regulations proposed by the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). Therefore, all COAH regulations adopted in the past 10 years have been declared unconstitutional. The latest regulations are on appeal before the New Jersey Supreme Court challenging the latest determination of unconstitutionality. The League has largely been supportive of these unconstitutional regulations and has opposed reasonable attempts at legislation and regulations enforcing a municipality’s obligations to zone for reasonable opportunity for housing for all of the residents of New Jersey.

Here in my firm's Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, I expect this decision to be a source of conversation among our attorneys. If you have questions about how this decision could impact you and your business, feel free to contact me to discuss this matter in more detail.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link