Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Failure of The Commissioner of Education

August 20, 2008


On appeal from the State Board of Education.

Per curiam.


Submitted April 21, 2008

Before Judges S. L. Reisner and Gilroy.

This appeal arises under the proposed "Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act" (EFCFA), N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-1 to -48. Appellant, the Elizabeth Board of Education (Board), appeals from the alleged failure and refusal of respondent, the New Jersey Department of Education (Department), to act on and to approve an amendment to the Board's previously submitted pre-development application, to change the proposed site for the construction of a new vocational-technical high school (the School). We remand the matter to the Department for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Elizabeth School District is an SDA district,*fn1 formally designated as an Abbott District.*fn2 N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-4 requires each school district to submit to the Commissioner of Education by December 15, 2000, and by October 1, 2005, and every five years thereafter, a long-range facilities plan (LRFP) "that details the district's school facilities needs and the district's plan to address those needs for the ensuing five years." N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-4a. The LRFP shall include among other matters, "an educational adequacy inventory of all existing school facilities in the district including . . . the identification of all deficiencies in the district's current inventory of school facilities . . . and the district's proposed plan for future construction and renovation." N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-4e. However, a district is not required to designate in the LRFP the site of a proposed, new school facility. Ibid.; N.J.A.C. 6A:26-2.2.

The Commissioner is required to advise the district whether the LRFP is "fully and accurately" complete within ninety days of its receipt, and if so, to approve or reject the plan within sixty days thereafter. N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-4i. "An amendment to the [LRFP] may be submitted at any time to the [C]commissioner for review and determination of the approval or disapproval of the amendment." N.J.S.A. 28A:7G-4c. A district's application for a school facilities project,*fn3 N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5, cannot be approved "unless the district has filed a [LRFP] that is consistent with the application and the plan has been approved by the [C]commissioner." N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-4b.

N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5 governs the financing and construction of school facilities projects. Because Elizabeth is an SDA district, the New Jersey School Development Authority (NJSDA) "shall undertake" and the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA) "shall finance" the district's school facilities projects. N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5a. An SDA district, seeking to initiate a school facilities project, must apply to the Commissioner for approval. N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5.

The district must first submit to the Department's Division of Finance (Division) a pre-development application, "setting forth all pre-development activities,*fn4 including feasibility studies, remediation, site development, demolition . . . and acquisition of land, which need to be undertaken prior to submission of a school facilities project application." N.J.A.C. 6A:26-3.9(c)(1). On receipt of a pre-development application, the Division is required to review it for consistency with the approved LRFP, and if found consistent, approve the application and forward it to the NJSDA to undertake the pre-development activities for the proposed project. Ibid. The NJSDA will retain professionals to perform and provide the funding for the pre-development costs. N.J.A.C. 6A:26-3.9(c)(2).

On completion of the pre-development activities, the district next submits its school facilities project application pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5. The application must contain certain statutory information, including schematic drawings, preliminary plans, and specifications. N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5d(1). The Commissioner is required to review the proposed project to determine whether it is consistent with the district's LRFP. N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5e. The Commissioner is also required to approve or reject the project within ninety days after determining the application complete, unless the Commissioner notifies the district that she is going to take an additional sixty days to review the facilities project. Ibid. If the decision is not made within that time frame, then the project is deemed approved. Ibid.

The Board's 2000-2005 LRFP was approved by the Department on April 3, 2001. The LRFP included the School as a proposed project. On April 23, 2002, the Board submitted a pre-development application for the School on property known as the "Johnson Machinery" site. On July 29, 2002, the Department approved the pre-development application for the School. The Department permitted the New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation (SCC) to award contracts for the design of the School and other feasibility studies of the site.*fn5 The site proved to be unsuitable for development for the School because a high-pressure gas line traversed the property.

On May 22, 2003, the Board: 1) adopted a resolution proposing that the School be constructed on a site located at East Grand/Reid Avenue; and 2) submitted an amendment to its prior pre-development application to change the site of the proposed School accordingly. Although the amended pre-development application was approved by the Department, the site was later rejected during the feasibility analysis because of an objection from the Mayor's Office regarding its suitability. On September 27, 2004, the Board submitted another revised pre-development application to construct the School at a site on Jefferson Avenue. That site was also rejected after the Department received an objection from the Mayor's Office because the construction of the School would have caused a closure of a manufacturing plant employing more than 200 people.

On October 20, 2005, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a further amendment to its pre-development application, changing the location of the construction of the School to properties known as Block 7, Lot 66 (the United Gunnite site), and Block 8, Lot 1123 (the New Jersey Transit (NJT) site). In early February 2006, the Board submitted the amended application to the Department. On February 14, 2006, the Department requested additional information and documentation. Although the Board complied with the Department's request within several days, it did not receive a response from the Department approving or denying the amended pre-development application.

After the Board followed up on the submission through letters dated March 14, 2006, and March 31, 2006, the Department forwarded an e-mail to the Board on May 30, 2006, advising that, although it had received the Board's completed amendment to the pre-development application for the change of the proposed School site on March 3, 2006, it had not approved or denied it because the SCC did not have any funds to acquire the site. Because the Board did not receive the Department's determination, approving or denying the pre-development request for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.