PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 

            Pursuant to the Board of Review’s request at its March 22, 2007 meeting, the Great Meadows Regional Board of Education (the “Board” or “Great Meadows”) files this brief in opposition to Liberty Township’s (“Liberty”) February 2, 2007 Petition seeking authorization to conduct a referendum on the dissolution of the Great Meadows Regional School District (the “District”).  Through its Petition Liberty seeks to break up the District, which is comprised of less than 1,000 students, into two separate districts.  One of these proposed districts – Liberty – would have only 400 students if the dissolution occurs. 

            However, Liberty fails to recognize or admit that Great Meadows is serving both its students and community exceptionally well, with above average test scores and below average costs per pupil.  Further, the proposed “savings” that Liberty claims it will gain by dissolving the District is based upon an outdated state aid formula, and incomplete facts.

            Moreover, Liberty will also incur a great amount of debt if the District is dissolved.  By its own calculations, Liberty will incur approximately $5,722,915 in debt before it even starts to educate one pupil.  Although, at first blush, this amount may not seem extreme, it becomes alarming when one learns that Liberty will possess a borrowing margin of only $8,574,634 after the proposed dissolution.  Such a low margin would leave Liberty with only $2,851,719 of available borrowing capacity in the event of construct cost overruns or emergencies. 

            As it will be demonstrated herein, this Board has the ability to deny Liberty’s Petition if one of the following four criteria is met:

1.         An excessive debt burden will be imposed on either Liberty or Independence Township (“Independence”);

 

2.         An efficient school system cannot be maintained in either Liberty or Independence without excessive costs;

 

3.         Insufficient pupils will be left in either Liberty or Independence to maintain a properly graded school system; or

 

4.         Any other reason which this Board may deem to be sufficient.

 

See N.J.S.A. 18A:13-56.

            As it is discussed in greater detail below, it is respectfully submitted that Liberty’s request to have the Great Meadows Regional School District dissolved fails to meet two of these essential criteria.  Accordingly, Liberty’s Petition should be denied, with prejudice.

 


FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            A.        FACTUAL BACKGROUND

                        1.         General Description of District

            The District is located in Warren County, New Jersey.  The District was created in 1993 when the citizens of Liberty and Independence approved, by an almost 4 to 1 margin, a regionalization proposal.  (Gratt Cert.[1] at ¶ 3, Exh. B).  When commenting on why Liberty and Independence decided to form a regional school district Michael Doney, the former superintendent of Great Meadows, commented:

We asked ourselves why would two … proud, successful school districts consider jeopardizing their status quo by voluntarily forfeiting their total control?  Our answer to that was because we had a shared vision for improvement, there was a win-win scenario. 

 

“Findings and Recommendations of the Assembly Task Force on School District Regionalization.”  February 25, 1999 (p. 18).[2]

            Great Meadows is a kindergarten through eighth grade limited purpose school district.[3]  Currently, there are approximately only 989 students from Liberty and Independence being educated by Great Meadows.  (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. D). 

            Great Meadows currently provides instruction to the children of Liberty and Independence in three separate buildings.  (Id. at ¶ 5).  The Great Meadows Middle School offers programs from sixth through eighth grade to approximately 350 students from both Liberty and Independence.  (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. E).  These Middle School students benefit from the support of a full time guidance counselor, student assistance counselor and child study team.  (Id.). 

            The Liberty Township School is located in Liberty.  This particular school provides instructional programs to approximately 250 students from Liberty who are in kindergarten through fifth grade.  (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. F). 

            The Central School, which is located in Independence, likewise educates students in kindergarten through fifth grade.  The Central School currently educates approximately 380 students from Independence Township.  (Id. at ¶ 9, Exh. G). 

            By all accounts, the Great Meadows’ students are performing exceptionally well.  In fact, they exceed their peers in many standardized tests.  In fact, Liberty’s own Feasibility Study admits this to be true.  In the study it is specifically stated that the students of Great Meadows far exceed their peers in many standardized tests.  (See Exhibit A attached to Liberty’s Petition).  These conclusions are further supported by the most recent standardized testing results for the students of Great Meadows.  (Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. H).  These results indicate that, on average, 95 to 99 percent of Great Meadows’ regular education students score at the “proficient” or “advanced proficient” levels.  (Id.).  Clearly, Great Meadows must be doing something right in educating the children of Liberty and Independence.  

                        2.         Educational Funding

            Great Meadows’ revised budget for the 2006 – 2007 school year is $18,502,166.  (Id. at ¶ 11, Exh. I).  The tax burden is offset by $6,098,450 in aid that Great Meadows receives from the State of New Jersey.  (Id. at ¶ 12, Exh. J). 

When the voters of Independence and Liberty approved the formation of Great Meadows, they likewise approved the District’s funding formula.  (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. B).  Under this formula, both Independence and Liberty pay a per-pupil cost to the District.  (Id.).   

Great Meadows manages the tax dollars that it is entrusted with exceptionally well.  In fact, for the 2005 – 2006 budget year, Great Meadows’ costs-per-pupil were over $1,000 less than the state median of $10,712.[4]  (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. K).  Moreover, Great Meadows’ costs-per-pupil are also significantly less than many of its neighboring towns (Allamuchy - $11,551; Flemington-Raritan - $11,006; White Township - $10,677; Lebanon Township - $12,011; Harmony Township $12,191 and Hope Township - $10,533).  (Id.). 

            3.         Debt of Great Meadows

            Currently, the District has very little debt.  Great Meadows’ most recent audit revealed that the District has a borrowing capacity of $25,245,784.  (Id. at ¶ 14, Exh. L).   This audit also indicated that the District currently has debt in the total amount of $8,700,000.  (Id.).   This leaves a borrowing margin of $16,545,784.  (Id.).  

                        4.         Liberty’s Feasibility Study

            Despite all of the advantages that Great Meadows has afforded to both Liberty and Independence, Liberty nonetheless wishes to dissolve the District.  In support of its desire to deregionalize, Liberty had a “Feasibility Study” prepared.  It is submitted, however, that this Feasibility Study is vitally flawed in many aspects. 

            Initially, it is submitted that the State Aid amounts that Liberty suggests that it would receive if the District were dissolved are based upon an outdated funding formula.  In analyzing the Feasibility Study, Vince Yaniro of VDY Consulting, LLC, stated:

The petition states on a number of occasions that “withdrawal would result in a decrease in the school tax levy for Liberty Township of approximately $1.6 annually which is based in large part on the increase in state aid”.  These conclusions are based on the assumption that had state aid not been frozen over the past five years, that funding formula would have remained in place, despite the fact that the state could not fund it.  It also assumes over this period of time that the state would have not developed a different formula since the 2001-2002 formula is considered flawed and does not provide an equitable distribution as evidenced by the fact that a new formula is being developed.

 

(Id. at ¶ 2, Exh. A).   Mr. Yaniro continues by stating that a new state aid formula may actually distribute aid to Liberty and Independence on a 50/50 basis.  (Id.).  This, obviously, would decrease any alleged “savings” claimed by Liberty in the event of a dissolution.

            Regarding Liberty’s need for additional classroom space if the dissolution is granted, Mr. Yaniro concludes that, although the Feasibility Study appears to assume assistance from the State of New Jersey, such assistance may be hard to come by.

Under current state law, eligible construction projects receive 40% of the debt service payments in state aid.  This law originally provided either grants or state aid payments at 40%.  The grant fund has been exhausted but the law requiring 40% debt service aid is still in effect.  However, according to a state official, since the grant funds have been exhausted there is a possibility the legislature could eliminate the 40% debt service funding.  If this were the case it would cost Liberty Township an addition $733,402 over the four year period of the study.

 

(Id.).   Moreover, the Feasibility Study apparently also ignores the fact that while construction is occurring at the Liberty School, Liberty will need to contract for, at least, four portable classrooms.  These classrooms would cost Liberty approximately $300,000 per year, for at least two years.  (Id.).  

            Mr. Yaniro also voices serious concerns regarding the debt burden that Liberty would have to undertake if the District is dissolved.  In his report Mr. Yaniro concluded that if the District was dissolved, Liberty would have a borrowing margin of only $9,213,232.  (Id.).  Mr. Yaniro further concluded that $7,601,500 of this borrowing margin would be utilized before Liberty even began to educate one pupil.  (Id.).  This would leave only $1,611,732 in available borrowing capacity for Liberty to utilize in the event of an unforeseen emergency or cost overruns.

            With regards to additional staff that Liberty would have to hire if the District were dissolved, Mr. Yaniro concludes that an additional custodian, a superintendent, a business administrator, 2 secretaries, a bookkeeper, a treasurer, nine teachers[5], a child study team supervisor, a school psychologist, a speech therapist, a social worker, and a technology specialist would have to be retained.  (Id.).   According to Mr. Yaniro’s study, these additional employees would cost Liberty an estimated, $1,338,480 annually.  (Id.).  

            Mr. Yaniro’s study also mentions the fact that if Liberty’s Petition was granted, and the District was ultimately dissolved, the citizen’s of Independence would incur a significant increase in the costs of educating its children – almost two million dollars per year.  (Id.).  In fact, when assuming a change to the current state funding formula, this increase in Independence’s costs would be offset by a savings to Liberty of only $376,595.25.  (Id.).[6]  

            Liberty’s Feasibility Study indicates that if Liberty withdraws from the District, Independence would be able to utilize the extra capacity in the Middle School to educate tuition students from other districts.  Mr. Yaniro, however, rejects this conclusion, and instead concludes “[t]his assumes the highly unlikely scenario whereby there would be a local school district that would desire to send approximately this number of pupils to the middle school on a tuition basis.  The result is a building which was partially funded by the state through state aid that will be significantly underutilized.”  (Id.).  

            Finally, in analyzing the possible effects of Assembly Bill 1 on the ability of Independence and Liberty to provide a thorough and efficient education in the event of a dissolution, Mr. Yaniro concludes that both districts would have an extremely difficult time in attempting to prepare budgets that fall within the mandates of this legislation.  Indeed, in commenting on the effects that this legislation would have upon Liberty, Mr. Yaniro states that “[i]t will also be very difficult, if not impossible for the Liberty Township School District to prepare a budget within the administrative cost limits based on its size (565 pupils) and the new salaries it must assume … along with an audit, legal, etc.  Administrative costs, by definition, not only include administrative salaries, telephone, legal, audit expenses, and associated benefits.  In both cases [Independence and Liberty], significant budget reductions will have to be made to comply with the budget cap and administrative cost limits.”  (Id.).   

            Mr. Yaniro also opined that under the A-1 regime, it would extremely difficult for either Independence or Liberty to either maintain or enhance the current educational programs offered by the District in the event of a dissolution.  Specifically, Mr. Yaniro states:

As a district gets smaller (Great Meadows will lose 140 pupils and Liberty Township will become a district of 565 pupils, including 147 high school pupils), it becomes increasingly more difficult to prepare a budget within the state imposed budget cap.  This is due to the fact that the previous year’s tax levy is relatively low which reduces any flexibility in the budget, makes it difficult to maintain or enhance the current program and reduces the ability to accommodate large unanticipated expenditures such as energy costs, major repairs, and special education costs.  It will become even more difficult in 2008-2009 when at least 60% of the voters must approve a budget over the budget cap.

 

(Id.).

   

            B.        PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Pursuant to the Statutes of New Jersey, on or about November 2, 2006 the Mayor and Council of Liberty adopted a resolution requesting that the Warren County Superintendent of Schools make an investigation into the advisability of Liberty withdrawing from the Great Meadows Regional School District.  

            William N. King, the Warren County Superintendent of Schools responded to this request on January 8, 2007.  (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. B).  In short, Mr. King responded to this request by indicating his belief that the dissolution of the Great Meadows Regional School District was not advisable.  The basis for Mr. King’s belief in this regard was as follows:

1.         The Townships of Independence and Liberty thoroughly studied, reviewed, and eventually proposed regionalization back in 1993.  The proposal clearly indicated on the ballot that “the amounts to be raised for annual or special appropriations for such regional school district as provided in Section 18A:13-23 of the New Jersey Statutes shall be apportioned between the two municipalities upon the basis of student enrollment of each municipality.”  This referendum was approved by an almost four to one margin on October 13, 1993.

 

2.         The study [performed by the RAND Corporation, and utilized by Liberty in support of its Petition] indicates “research suggests” that a K-8 organization provides a better educational environment.  By all accounts, however, the students of Great Meadows are doing exceptionally well on State test scoring above State averages and the averages of students in similar socio-economic status. I would conclude that the current school organization is working very effectively.

 

3.         The State Legislature and the Governor are studying and are committed to a new funding formula for all of the schools of New Jersey.  There are many other regional districts that have similar concerns about the apportionment of taxes within the regional.  Liberty’s concern may very well be addressed once a new formula is adopted.

 

4.         The direction of the State Legislature, the Governor, and the Department of Education is to reduce the number of school districts through consolidation and shared services.  This proposal increases the number of districts.

 

5.         The summary of the study provides a good listing of advantages and disadvantages of dissolution.  On the surface, it appears the disadvantages outweigh the advantages for the total population of the Great Meadows Regional School District and its constituent towns of Liberty and Independence.  Although there are clear initial financial advantages to Liberty, these may be short lived once the impact of additional debt is realized. 

 

(Id.).  Mr. King also voiced concerns regarding the amount of debt that Liberty would have to incur, as well as the impact that the dissolution would have upon the current students of Great Meadows.  (Id.). 

Apparently unperturbed by Mr. King’s rejection of its request to dissolve the District, on or about February 2, 2007 Liberty filed the instant Petition with the Commissioner of Education.  (See Liberty’s Petition).  Generally, the Petition disputed Mr. King’s response to Liberty’s request for an advisability study, and stated that the populations of both Liberty and Independence would be better served by the dissolution of the District.  (Id.). 

On or about February 16, 2007 the Board filed a response to the Petition.  (See Great Meadows’ Response and Opposition to Liberty’s Petition).  The Board’s response disputed Liberty’s contentions, and argued that the District should remain intact.  Specifically, the Board argued in its response that the Petition should be denied due for the following reasons:

1.         N.J.S.A. 18A:13-51 should not be utilized to circumvent N.J.S.A. 18A:13-23 where a constituent municipality is not satisfied with the apportionment formula approved by the voters in the municipalities comprising the limited purpose regional school district.

 

2.         The financial conclusions reached by Petitioner on Liberty receiving additional state aid are speculative and cannot be relied upon to conclude that withdrawal will not have an adverse financial impact.

 

3.         Both Independence and Liberty will have smaller borrowing margins due to the reduced amount of equalized value attributable to the withdrawal of Petitioner from Great Meadows.

 

4.         A decision on whether to submit the question of withdrawal to the electorate cannot be based on a phase out plan.

 

5.         The educational programs at Great Meadows Middle School would be negatively impacted by the withdrawal of Liberty Students due to the necessary elimination of several teaching professionals.

 

6.         Withdrawal of Liberty students would result in the elimination of various course offerings at Great Meadows Middle School, and would also increase class sizes.

 

7.         Withdrawal of Liberty students would result in the diminution of the quantity and quality of the Honors classes offered by Great Meadows Middle School.

 

8.         Continued viability of clubs/activities will be compromised with the withdrawal of Liberty students.

 

9.         The withdrawal of Liberty Students will result in a reduction of 36% in the special education population at Great Meadows Middle School, which will necessitate a reduction and staff and the number of electives available special education students.

 

(Id.).


LEGAL ARGUMENT

I.                   LIBERTY’S PETITION SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT A REFERENDUM ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE GREAT MEADOWS REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF N.J.S.A. 18A:13-51, et seq., AND SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE DENIED.                                                     

 

            Dissolving a regional school district is a very serious task that has wide reaching impacts, upon not only the district’s pupils, but also on the constituent communities.  “Dissolving a regional school district or allowing a district to withdraw from a regional situation is a very serious and very important decision, and it has tremendous impacts on communities, as well as the lives of our students.”  “Findings and Recommendations of the Assembly Task Force on School District Regionalization.”  Comments by Dr. John Sherry.  February 25, 1999 (p. 15). 

The process by which a municipality may seek to withdraw from a regional school district is governed by the provisions of N.J.S.A. 18A:13-51, et seq.  Pursuant to these statutes, a petition seeking the withdrawal from a regional school district may be denied after this Board has “consider[ed] the effect of the [proposal] upon the educational and financial condition of the withdrawing and remaining districts,” and determines:

1.         An excessive debt burden will be imposed upon the remaining districts, or the withdrawing district, or upon any of the constituent districts in the event of a dissolution;

 

2.         An efficient school system cannot be maintained in the remaining districts or the withdrawing district, or in any of the constituent districts in the event of a dissolution, without excessive costs;

 

3.         Insufficient pupils will be left in the remaining districts, or in any of the constituent districts in the event of a dissolution, to maintain a properly graded school system; or

 

4.         Any other reason, which it may deem to be sufficient.

 

N.J.S.A. 18A:13-56.  See also, In re Petition for Authorization to Conduct a Referendum on the Withdrawal of the North Haledon School District from the Passaic County Manchester Regional High School District, 181 N.J. 161, 173 (2004); In re Petition for Authorization to Conduct a Referendum on the Dissolution of Union County Regional High School District No. 1, 298 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (App. Div.), cert. den. 149 N.J. 37 (1997).

            When interpreting this statutory provision, the courts of New Jersey have held that “any of the first three circumstances specified … as a justifiable reason to refuse permission for an election would result in a condition inconsistent with the ‘thorough and efficient system of free public schools…,’” which the State is obligated to maintain and support.  In re Union County, supra, quoting, N.J. Const. Art. VIII, § 4, ¶ 1.  See also, In the Matter of the Petition for Authorization to Conduct a Referendum on the Withdrawal of the North Haledon School District for the Passaic County Manchester Regional High School District, 363 N.J. Super. 130, 138 (“Facts which establish any of the statutory criteria to refuse permission to withdraw are with constitutional guarantee of a through and efficient education and dictate a denial of the petition.”).

            It is respectfully submitted that the facts here clearly mandate a denial of Liberty’s Petition.  Not only will Liberty incur an excessive, and quite possibly crippling, debt burden if the dissolution is granted, but also its withdrawal from the Great Meadows District would impose an undue financial hardship upon the residents of Independence.  Accordingly, the Board requests that the Petition be denied in its entirety.

 

 

A.        The Petition Is To Be Denied Because Liberty Will Incur An Excessive Debt Burden If The Great Meadows Regional School District Is Dissolved.                                                                                                               

            One of the factors that this Board is to examine when determining the appropriateness of a petition seeking dissolution of a regional school district is whether “[a]n excessive debt burden will be imposed upon the remaining districts, or the withdrawing district, or upon any of the constituent districts, in the event of a dissolution.”  (Emphasis added).  N.J.S.A. 18A:13-56.  The Appellate Division has specifically held that a local school district may not avoid paying its share of a regional school district’s debt by simply withdrawing from the regional district.  Winslow Township Board of Education v. Board of Review, 275 N.J. Super. 206, 211 (App. Div. 1994).

            By its own calculations, Liberty’s borrowing capacity will be approximately $8,574,634 after the proposed dissolution.  (See Exhibits A and B to Liberty’s Petition).  Liberty likewise admits in its Feasibility Study that it would have to incur approximately $5,722,915 in debt prior to even opening its doors.[7]  (Id.). This would leave only $2,851,719 of available borrowing capacity in the event of construction cost overruns or emergencies. 

            In analyzing Liberty’s Feasibility Study, Vincent Yaniro of VDY Consulting, LLC reached an even more dire conclusion regarding Liberty’s potential borrowing capacity.  In his study Mr. Yaniro concluded as follows.

 

 

 

 

The total debt a school district can assume is limited by its borrowing margin as determined by state statute.  The borrowing margin is the average of the community’s equalized valuations over the past three years multiplied by 3% (since a K – 8 district).

 

Liberty Township’s borrowing margin is as follows:

 

2006                                                $ 341,250,484

2005                                  309,698,685

2004                                  270,374,011

Total                               $ 921,323,180

÷ 3                                     307,107,727

X 3%                              $     9,213,232

 

            Liberty Township’s outstanding debt will be:

 

                        Addition                                   $    5,268,700

                        Regional Debt Assumed                  2,332,800 (27% of $8,640,000)

                        Total                                        $    7,601,500

 

            Thus Liberty Township is close to its borrowing margin, which limits its borrowing capacity in the future. 

 

If Liberty Township withdraws, it will need office space for a new central office staff, i.e. superintendent, business administrator, secretaries, etc.  The SF [Statistical Forecasting] report does not mention this need.  This report assumes there will be adequate space in the Liberty Township elementary school.  However, if this is not the case, there will be a significant financial impact on Liberty, either through construction or rental.

 

(Emphasis added).  (Gratt Cert. at ¶ 2, Exh. A).  This study reveals that Liberty’s available borrowing margin would be only $1,611,732 – which is significantly less than its own calculations of $2.8 million. 

            It is also important to note that these figures were based upon the assumption that the School Construction Corporation would assist Liberty in providing aid for any addition to the Liberty School necessitated by the proposed dissolution.  However, it is well known that this Corporation no longer has any such funds to give.  As a result, it is submitted that Liberty’s proposed expansion may no longer even be feasible given its extremely limited borrowing capacity.[8]

            Added to this is the fact that Liberty’s present sewage treatment plant is currently 34 years old, and in need of repairs/replacement.  According to recent effluent flow meter results, if the existing system needs to be replaced another treatment plant rather than a septic system may have to be installed.  The costs to update, or if necessary, to replace the existing system could range from $50,000 to $500,000, or more.  This is precisely the type of “unexpected” project that might be jeopardized by Liberty’s limited borrowing capacity.

            In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that Liberty will incur an excessive debt burden if it were to withdraw from the Great Meadows’ Regional School District.  As a result, Liberty’s Petition does not meet the constitutionally mandated standards of N.J.S.A. 18A:13-56, and should, therefore, be dismissed.

B.        Liberty’s Proposed Withdrawal From The Great Meadows Regional School District Will Cause Independence To Suffer An Undue Financial Hardship In Attempting To Educate Its Children.                                                            

 

            As Great Meadows’ response to Liberty’s Feasibility Study indicates, any dissolution of the District will cause Independence’s tax burden to increase exponentially, thereby making it unreasonably expensive for Independence to continue to educate its resident children.  The Courts of this jurisdiction have held that the “any other reasons” ground contained in N.J.S.A. 18A:13-56 must be of the same character as the other three factors that justify the denial of a petition seeking the withdrawal from a regional school district.  This is due to the fact that each factor implicates New Jersey’s constitutional obligation for the maintenance of a “thorough and efficient system of free public schools.”  In the Matter of North Haledon, 363 N.J. Super. at 138 – 39.  “Any less weighty reason would be an inadequate ground for compelling constituent local school districts and municipalities to preserve a regional school district against the will of a majority of the voters in a majority of its districts.”  Id. at 139.

            In analyzing the feasibility of Liberty’s proposed withdrawal from the District, Vincent Yaniro of VDY Consulting, LLC concluded that if Liberty’s Petition was granted, and the District was ultimately dissolved, the citizen’s of Independence would incur a significant increase in the costs of educating its children – almost two million dollars per year.  (Gratt Cert. at ¶ 2, Exh. A).[9] 

Despite its contentions to the contrary, this increase, however, would not be offset by any great tax savings to the citizens of Liberty.  In fact, when assuming the expected change to the current state funding formula, the increase in Independence’s costs would be offset by a tax savings to the citizen’s Liberty of merely $376,595.25 per year.  (Id.).  

Clearly, such a minimal change does not warrant the extreme result that Liberty seeks through its Petition.  In fact, the dissolution of the District may harm the one undeniable benefit that Great Meadows has bestowed upon the citizen’s of Liberty and Independence – an excellent education for their kindergarten through eighth grade children.  By any measure the students of Great Meadows exceed their peers in the academic setting.  It is submitted that Liberty now seeks to jeopardize this, all for a “savings” of $376,595.25 per year. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Liberty’s request for authorization to conduct a referendum on the dissolution of the Great Meadows Regional School District should be denied.

II.        SINCE LIBERTY’S FEASIBILITY STUDY IS FLAWED AT ITS BASE, THE RELIEF SUGGESTED THEREIN SHOULD BE DENIED.                                                                                                           

 

            In support of its Petition Liberty has submitted a Feasibility Study prepared by Statistical Forecasting, LLC.  A review of this Feasibility Study, however, reveals that it contains numerous flawed assumptions.  As a result, this Board should disregard the conclusions and recommendations contained therein, and the Petition should be denied in its entirety.

A.        Liberty’s Allegations That The Proposed Dissolution Will Actually Benefit The Taxpayers Is Based Upon Incomplete Assumptions.                                            

 

            In its Petition Liberty asserts that the proposed dissolution will result in an estimated tax savings to the residents of Liberty of approximately 1.6 million dollars.[10]  It is respectfully submitted, however, that such a savings fails to take into account several vital factors.

            As it was indicated in Point I, supra, the Feasibility Study fails to fully account for certain additional expenses that Liberty will be faced with in the event of a dissolution.  Notable among these expenses are:

1.                  An increase in staff costs of $1,338,480;

 

2.                  A loss in state aid to offset construction costs to the Liberty School.  This loss will cost Liberty an additional $733,402 in debt servicing per year; and

 

3.                  The cost of four portable classrooms that will need to be rented by Liberty while construction is occurring at the Liberty School.  These classrooms will cost an estimated $300,000 per year, for at least two years.

 

(Gratt Cert. at ¶ 2, Exh. A). 

 

            Additionally, the formula utilized by Liberty in reaching it conclusion that it will receive additional state aid in the event of a dissolution may very well be changed in the immediate future.[11]  In fact, the New Jersey Department of Education’s own web page states “Governor Corzine and his administration continue to work on a new and improved school funding formula.”  See “2007 – 2008 State Aid Summaries,” http://www.state.nj.us/njded/stateaid/0708.[12]

            Moreover, Governor Corzine, in an apparent attempt to eliminate some of the present inequalities in state aid, has, for the first time in five years, increased aid to Non-Abbott Districts by more than $300 million.  See “State Releases Aid Numbers,” New Jersey School Board’s Association, http://www.njsba.org/press_release/state-releases-aid-numbers.html.[13]  According to another report, Commissioner Davey has indicated that this increase in aid “reflect[s] the direction that a new [funding] formula will take.”  “Funding Formula Delayed,” New Jersey School Board’s Association, http://www.njsba.org/press_release/funding-delayed.html.[14] 

            The study prepared by VDY Consulting, LLC in opposition to Liberty’s Petition also makes mention of the upcoming change to the state funding formula.   

The petition states on a number of occasions that “withdrawal would result in a decrease in the school tax levy for Liberty Township of approximately $1.6 annually which is based in large part on the increase in state aid”.  These conclusions are based on the assumption that had state aid not been frozen over the past five years, that funding formula would have remained in place, despite the fact that the state could not fund it.  It also assumes over this period of time that the state would have not developed a different formula since the 2001-2002 formula is considered flawed and does not provide an equitable distribution as evidenced by the fact that a new formula is being developed.

 

(Gratt Cert. at ¶ 2, Exh. A).   Mr. Yaniro continues by stating that a new state aid formula may actually distribute aid to Liberty and Independence on a 50/50 basis.  (Id.).  

            When one takes these additional costs – which were ignored by Liberty – into account, the actual “savings” that Liberty would gain in the event of a dissolution would be only $376,595.25 annually.  (Id.).  This is a far cry from the $1.6 million in annual savings claimed in the Feasibility Study.

B.        Liberty’s Attempt To De-Regionalize Great Meadows Is Contrary to New Jersey’s Encouragement of Regionalization.                                                 

 

            As it was discussed above, through its Petition Liberty seeks to take a district that contains less than 1,000 students and break it into two separate and distinct school districts – one of which will only have 400 students.  Not only is this an inefficient and gross waste of local resources (two boards of education, two superintendents, two school business administrators, two sets of office staff, two sets of bus contracts, two Child Study Teams, two sets of middle school foreign language teachers, two sets of middle school elective teachers, etc.), but it is also contrary to New Jersey’s recent encouragement of the formation of regional school districts.

            The 1999 Report from the Assembly Task Force on School District Regionalization commented that from a financial standpoint, regionalization presented the following possible advantages:  shared staffing promotes efficiency while shared programming promotes student interest, savings in central administration for staff and other costs may accrue, an increased fiscal borrowing power results from a larger tax base, the costs for needed facility improvements are spread over a larger tax base, the sale of property could offset addition or renovation costs, possible savings may result from regionalized transportation services, lower pupil costs may be possible through centralization, stabilization of taxes will occur once the district is regionalized, and a better bond rating may be achieved.  “Findings and Recommendations of the Assembly Task Force on School District Regionalization.”  February 25, 1999 (p. 19).

            Regarding the potential educational benefits, the Task Force commented that in the regional setting, special education and basic skills programs are easier to coordinate and administer, there is less variance in class size and desirable curricular and extra-curricular programs can be maintained due to increased enrollment.  Id.  “By combining a school system into a larger regional structure you have more resources.  You can save money and put the money into where the programs will benefit the children’s education a lot better.”  Id. at 18, comments of Michael C. Bibb, Esq.

            In light of these benefits, the New Jersey School Board’s Association has indicated, “when districts determine after thorough study that regionalization would provide educational and/or financial benefits to the districts involved, they should be encouraged to regionalize.”  “Positions and Policies on Education – Governance – 9300,”  New Jersey School Board’s Association.[15]

III.       THROUGH ITS PETITION LIBERTY ATTEMPTS TO IMPROPERLY UTILIZE THE PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A. 18A:13-51, et seq. TO CIRCUMVENT THE MANDATES OF N.J.S.A. 18A:13-23.                                                                                                  

 

            N.J.S.A. 18A:13-23 provides three methods under which a regional school district may apportion its appropriations.  This statute provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The annual or special appropriations for regional districts, including the amounts to be raised for interest upon, and the redemption of, bonds payable by the district, shall be apportioned among the municipalities included within the regional district, as may be approved by the voters of each municipality at the annual school election or a special school election, upon the basis of:

 

a.         the portion of each municipalities equalized valuation allocated to the regional district…

 

b.         the proportional number of pupils enrolled from each municipality on the 15th day of October of the prebudget year in the same manner as would apply if each municipality comprised separate constituent school districts;[16] or

 

c.         any combination of apportionment based upon equalized valuations pursuant to subsection a. of this section or pupil enrollments pursuant to subsection b. of this section.

 

N.J.S.A. 18A:13-23.  Pursuant to this statute, if there is a desire to change the appropriations formula that is utilized by a regional school district, such a desire must be approved by the citizens of the constituent municipalities that comprise that particular district.

            Liberty’s feasibility study makes it abundantly clear that the main reason for its request to withdraw from the Great Meadows Regional School District is its perceived inequality in the appropriations formula between it and Independence.  However, this, in and of itself, is not an appropriate justification for the dissolution of a regional school district.

            Rather, it is respectfully submitted that if Liberty feels that it is paying a disproportionate share of the necessary appropriations for Great Meadows, the proper avenue for relief would be for it to petition for a vote to change the current funding formula, which, it must be noted, it has never attempted to accomplish.  Simply stated, Liberty cannot attempt to hold the students of Great Meadows and the citizens of Independence hostage in an effort to seek the change that it desires to the current funding formula for the District.

            As are result, it is respectfully submitted that the Petition seeks improper relief from this Board, and should, therefore, be dismissed in its entirety.

 


CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent, the Great Meadows Regional Board of Education, respectfully requests that the Board of Review deny the Petitioner’s request for Authorization to Conduct a Referendum on the Dissolution of the Great Meadows Regional School District.

                                                            Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                            COURTER, KOBERT & COHEN, P.C.

                                                            Attorneys for Respondent,

                                                            The Great Meadows Regional Board of

                                                                        Education

 

 

                                                                                   

                                                            By:_________________________________

                                                                                  Michael S. Selvaggi                 

 

Dated:  April 11, 2007

 

 

 

 

 



[1]Gratt Cert.” refers to the April 10, 2007 Certification of Jason P. Gratt.

[2] A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit C to the April 10, 2007 Certification of Jason P. Gratt.

[3] Great Meadows does have one pre-kindergarten disabled classroom.                                                     

[4] For this budget year, Great Meadows’ cost-per-pupil were $9,695. 

[5] It is assumed that one of these teachers will need to be hired to run a Gifted and Talented Program for those Liberty Students currently receiving such educational programming in the District. 

[6] Although these figures are for a “worst-case scenario,” it is Great Meadow’s position that it would be irresponsible not to consider them when undertaking the drastic step of potentially dissolving a regional school district.

[7] The Feasibility Study states that this debt will be comprised as follows:  $2,561,695 in old debt for the construction of the Great Meadows Middle School, and $3,161,220 in new debt (assuming the receipt of state aid from the School Construction Corporation) for construction costs associated with expanding the Liberty School.

[8] It is submitted that Liberty cannot now argue that it can simply enter into a sending-receiving relationship with another district in the event of a dissolution.  To date, not only has such an option not been proposed, but also, the feasibility of such a relationship has likewise not been examined.

[9] In fact, this figure is even more drastic when one looks at what the impact will be to Independence if the District is dissolved under the “status-quo.”  If this were to occur, the tax increase to Independence residents would be $3,009,893, or $1,406 for the average assessed home, per year.  (Id. at ¶ 2, Exh. A).  

[10] It must be noted that even this number is incorrect.  In its own feasibility study it is stated that such savings will be reduced to 1.3 million dollars when the debt serving costs associated with the proposed expansion of the Liberty School are taken into account.  (See Exhibit A to Liberty’s Petition).

[11] It is interesting to note that Liberty admits that while state aid to its students would increase in the event of a dissolution, the aid to the students of Independence would actually decrease. 

[12] A copy of this article is attached as Exhibit M to the April 10, 2007 Certification of Jason P. Gratt.

[13] A copy of this article is attached as Exhibit N to the April 10, 2007 Certification of Jason P. Gratt.

[14] A copy of this article is attached as Exhibit O to the April 10, 2007 Certification of Jason P. Gratt.

[15] A copy of this document is attached as Exhibit P to the April 10, 2007 Certification of Jason P. Gratt.

[16] Great Meadows currently utilizes this form of apportionment between Liberty and Independence.