Board of Education of the Henry Hudson Regional School District, Monmouth County; Board of Education of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands, Monmouth County; and Board of Education of the Borough of Highlands, Atlantic County v. Dr. Secil Onat, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Finance and Business Services, New Jersey Department of Education, 8/12/25 (#402-25)

402-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09873-24
Agency Dkt. No. 164-5/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Henry 	Hudson
Regional School District, Monmouth County;
Board of Education of the Borough of Atlantic
Highlands, Monmouth County, and Board of
Education 	of 	the 	Borough 	of 	Highlands,
Monmouth County,
Petitioners,
v.
Dr. Secil Onat, Assistant Commissioner, Division
of Finance and Business Services, New Jersey
Department of Education,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the petitioners pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto filed
by respondent New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioners in this matter are boards of education that consolidated to form the Henry
Hudson Regional School District (Henry Hudson), an all-purpose K-12 regional school district.
Petitioners challenge the DOE’s determinations that Henry Hudson is ineligible (1) under N.J.S.A.
18A:13-47.6 for reimbursement for the costs of a voter referendum to establish the regional
school district and (2) under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) for certain State aid incentives for regional
school districts, including a slower reduction in State school aid.

2
The financial incentives petitioners seek are available under the School Regionalization
and Efficiency Program (SREP), which is codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.1 to -47.11 and in other
statutory provisions, including N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4). 	The purpose of SREP is to provide for
reimbursement of eligible costs associated with conducting feasibility studies to form or expand
regional school districts. N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.2. In addition, through SREP, grant funds are made
available to boards of education of two or more school districts which have conducted a
feasibility study within two years prior to the enactment of P.L. 2021, c.402 (C. 18A:13-47.1 et
al.)1 for which no prior reimbursement was made. 	Ibid. 	Boards of education of two or more
school districts seeking to form a regional district and seeking funding under the SREP grant
program must submit a joint application to the Department of Community Affairs, Division of
Local Government Services (DLGS) for approval. N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.3(a). Petitioners have not
alleged that they applied for or received a SREP grant established under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.1 to -
47.11.
Prior to 2024, Henry Hudson was a limited-purpose school district serving grades 7-12
from Atlantic Highlands and Highlands. 	On April 22, 2021, DLGS awarded Henry Hudson a
$65,000 Local Efficiency 	Achievement Program 	(LEAP) grant to study the feasibility of
consolidating 	the 	following 	school 	districts: 	Highlands 	Elementary, 	Atlantic 	Highlands
Elementary, Henry Hudson Regional (then-limited purpose), and Sea Bright.2 	Petitioners
subsequently commissioned studies for regionalization.
1 P.L. 2021, c. 402 was enacted on January 18, 2022, and established SREP.
2 Petitioners ultimately moved forward with regionalization without Sea Bright.

3
On March 17, 2023, petitioners filed an amended petition to create an all-purpose preK-
12 regional school district consisting of the boroughs of Highlands and Atlantic Highlands. See
N.J.S.A. 18A:13-34. On July 21, 2023, the Commissioner of Education approved the petition. On
September 23, 2023, a voter referendum was held pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-35, whereby the
people of Highlands and Atlantic Highlands approved of the Henry Hudson preK-12 regional
school district. As of July 1, 2024, Henry Hudson has operated as an all-purpose regional school
district comprised of the boroughs of Highlands and Atlantic Highlands, serving grades PreK-12.
On February 29, 2024, Henry Hudson received a State aid notice for the 2024-2025 school
year from the DOE. 	Henry Hudson’s superintendent, Dr. Tara Beams, contested the notice,
arguing that as a LEAP grant recipient, the district was entitled to certain state aid incentives set
forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68. 	Dr. Beams also contested that the amount of State aid was
significantly less than expected. On March 28, 2024, the DOE informed Beams that Henry Hudson
did not qualify for a slower reduction in State school aid pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4)
because petitioners did not receive a grant for a regionalization study pursuant to SREP. Instead,
the DOE noted that Henry Hudson received a LEAP grant, which is ineligible for a slower State
school aid reduction schedule under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4). Secondly, the DOE determined that
Henry Hudson was ineligible for the slower reduction under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) because the
district did not have a positive State aid differential for the 2024-2025 school year.
In addition to a slower reduction in State school aid, petitioners sought from the DOE
reimbursement for the costs of the voter referendum. On May 2, 2024, the DOE determined that
Henry Hudson was ineligible for reimbursement under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 because the district
had not received a SREP grant pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.1 to -47.11. Petitioners appealed

4
the DOE’s determinations to the Commissioner of Education. In response, the DOE filed a motion
to dismiss. Petitioners then filed a cross motion for summary decision.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the DOE’s motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; consequently, the ALJ deemed it unnecessary to
address petitioners’ cross motion for summary decision. In reaching her determination, the ALJ
deemed admitted all facts alleged in the petition of appeal for the purposes of the DOE’s motion.
The ALJ then concluded that a plain reading of the relevant statutes shows that only school
districts that applied for and received a SREP grant (and not a LEAP grant) are eligible for the
regionalization benefits available under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 and N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4). 	In
doing so, the ALJ rejected petitioners’ arguments that the DOE’s determinations were based on
its misinterpretation of the relevant provisions of P.L. 2021, c. 402. The ALJ noted that although
Henry Hudson had received a LEAP grant, the district had not alleged it applied for or received a
SREP grant; thus, the ALJ concluded that N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 and N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) do not
apply to petitioners.
Next, the ALJ rejected petitioners’ argument that the Legislature intended N.J.S.A.
18A:13-47.2, which permits districts to receive funds for feasibility studies conducted within two
years prior to the enactment of SREP, to apply to a district like Henry Hudson. 	Upon a plain
language review of the statute, the ALJ noted that the funds under this provision are only
available for a feasibility study for which no prior reimbursement was made. Since petitioners
had already received funds for its feasibility study through the LEAP grant, the ALJ deemed
N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.2 inapplicable. 	The ALJ also dismissed petitioners’ argument that certain
sponsors of the bill that later became the SREP bill, such a Senator Vin Gopal, “undoubtedly

5
intended” Henry Hudson to benefit from the new law. The ALJ noted that subsequent legislation
introduced 	by 	Senator 	Gopal 	contradicts 	petitioners’ 	claim 	regarding 	legislative 	intent.
Specifically, the ALJ referenced S2048, which expands eligibility for the benefits conferred under
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) and N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.2 but does not include a district that received a
LEAP grant within its coverage.
In their exceptions, petitioners argue that “the unique circumstances surrounding the
implementation of P.L. 2021, c. 402, warranted a careful consideration by the court as the
legislative history compels a liberal construction.” 	(Petitioners’ Exceptions at 4). 	Specifically,
petitioners contend that the ALJ should have considered the totality of circumstances, including
the genesis and drafting of the bill, as well as their claim that P.L. 2021, c. 402 evolved from LEAP.
Petitioners further contend that during the bill’s promotion, various legislative and executive
branch members told school districts that the bill’s incentives would be applied to them
retroactively since the legislation was written to refine the LEAP guidelines, not create a new
grant program. 	Petitioners allege they have suffered consequences due to their detrimental
reliance on the representations of said legislative and executive branch members and contend
that the ALJ should have addressed this in her analysis.
Secondly, petitioners contend that the ALJ erred in failing to consider that petitioners’
regionalization proposals,3 which stated petitioners’ expectation that they would be afforded the
financial benefits under P.L. 2021, c. 402, had been approved by the DOE; therefore, petitioners
contend that the DOE knew or should have known that petitioners did not have a SREP grant but
were seeking the financial benefits offered under P.L. 2021, c. 402. Petitioners further contend
3 Required pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-34.

6
that by virtue of its review, the DOE had condoned all of petitioners’ ensuing approvals. 	In
addition, petitioners take exception to the ALJ’s interpretation of 18A:13-47.1 et seq. Ultimately,
petitioners argue that when granted all favorable inferences from the facts in their pleadings and
certifications, the DOE’s motion to dismiss must be denied.
In response, the DOE contends that the ALJ appropriately granted the motion to dismiss.
The DOE further contends that when parties have a dispute regarding statutory interpretation, a
court must first look at the statute’s plain language to determine legislative intent. 	The DOE
asserts that upon a reading of the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 and N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-
68(c)(4), the ALJ correctly determined that a SREP grant and a LEAP grant are not the same and
are pursuant to two different statutory schemes. 	In addition, the DOE argues that the plain
language of N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.2 excludes Henry Hudson from receiving funding from a SREP
grant. 	The DOE maintains that since receipt of an SREP grant is a prerequisite for receiving
reimbursement of election costs under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6, petitioners are ineligible for this
benefit.
The DOE also argues that petitioners have failed to cite any legal authority that supports
their claim that the application of the plain language of a statute can be altered due to a party’s
alleged detrimental reliance during the legislative process. 	Lastly, the DOE contends that the
Commissioner’s approval of petitioners’ application for regionalization should not lead any
reasonable person to believe that a district automatically qualifies for a SREP grant without ever
undergoing the SREP application process.
Upon review, and for the reasons thoroughly detailed in the Initial Decision, the
Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that a plain reading of the relevant laws shows that only

7
districts that applied for and received a SREP grant (not a LEAP grant) are eligible for the benefits
under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 and N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4). The Commissioner further concurs with
the ALJ that it is appropriate to grant the DOE’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted under the aforementioned statutes because those laws do not apply
to Henry Hudson.
The 	ALJ’s 	conclusion 	that 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:13-47.6 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:7F-68(c)(4) 	are
inapplicable to districts who have neither applied for or received a SREP grant is supported by
the statutes’ plain language. “There is no more persuasive evidence of legislative intent than the
words by which the Legislature undertook to express its purpose . . . .” Perez v. Zagami, LLC, 218
N.J. 202, 209-10 (2014). 	When a statute’s “plain language leads to a clear and unambiguous
result, then our interpretive process is over.” Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Fireman’s Ret.
Sys., 192 N.J. 189, 195 (2007). As noted by the ALJ, N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) requires a district to
have received a grant “under subsection b. of section 4 of P.L. 2021, c. 402 (C. 18A:13-47.1).”
Additionally, the ALJ cited N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6, which provides reimbursement to a district for
election costs provided that “the decision to establish or enlarge a . . . regional district stems from
the completion of a feasibility study conducted in connection with the grant program established
pursuant to section 2 of P.L. 2021, c. 402 (C. 18A:13-47. 2).”
The Commissioner is not persuaded by petitioners’ exceptions. Petitioners maintain that
the SREP bill evolved from LEAP and that the ALJ did not consider the unique circumstances
regarding the creation of the SREP statutory scheme. However, the plain language of N.J.S.A.
18A:13-47.1 et seq. does not support petitioners’ contention. LEAP and SREP are separate grant
programs. The process to obtain a LEAP grant is detailed under N.J.S.A. 40A:65-1 et seq., and the

8
LEAP grant remains available for districts to utilize even after the enactment of SREP.
Furthermore, petitioners acknowledge that the Legislature removed any reference to the LEAP
grant program from the bill that would eventually become P.L. 2021, c. 402. 	This omission
indicates the Legislature’s intent to create a grant program separate from LEAP. Furthermore,
petitioners have failed to cite any authority supporting their claim that the plain reading of a
statute can be altered due to a party’s alleged detrimental reliance on information provided
during the legislative process.
Petitioners acknowledge that they received a LEAP grant. Petitioners also acknowledge
that they neither applied for nor received a SREP grant. As such, petitioners are not entitled to
the benefits conferred under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 and N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4).
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION5
Date of Decision: 	August 12, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	August 13, 2025
4 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.
5 Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:4-34, this matter has been designated to Assistant Commissioner Kathleen
Ehling.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 164-5/24
HENRY HUDSON REGIONAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
MONMOUTH COUNTY; BOROUGH OF
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS BOARD OF
EDUCATION, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND
BOROUGH OF HIGHLANDS BOARD OF
EDUCATION, ATLANTIC COUNTY,
Petitioners,
v.
DR. SECIL ONAT/ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF
FINANCE AND BUSINESS SERVICES,
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Respondent.
Jonathan M. Busch, Esq., and Nicholas Celso III, Esq., for petitioners (The
Busch Law Group, attorneys)
Vijayasri G. Aryama, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J.
Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
2
Record Closed: April 8, 2025 Decided: May 14, 2025
BEFORE MARY ANN BOGAN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner Henry Hudson Regional School District Board of Education (Henry
Hudson) appeals from respondent Department of Education’s (DOE) determination that
Henry Hudson, which began operating as a regional school district at the start of the
2024–2025 school year, is ineligible (1) under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 for reimbursement
for the costs of a voter referendum to establish the regional district and (2) under N.J.S.A.
18A:7F-68(c)(4) for certain State aid incentives for regional school districts. The DOE
reached this conclusion because, prior to the enactment of those laws, Henry Hudson
received a Local Efficiency Achievement Program (LEAP) grant under N.J.S.A. 40A:65-
30 to support its efforts to regionalize, and neither applied for nor received what is known
as a School Regionalization Efficiency Program (SREP) grant for which the financial
incentives under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 and N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) are available. By
way of appeal, Henry Hudson seeks an order from the Commissioner “directing the
revision of State aid to include all incentives and benefits” and “directing payment of
election reimbursement costs” due to Henry Hudson under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 and
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4).
In response to Henry Hudson’s petition of appeal, the DOE filed a motion to dismiss
in lieu of an answer under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g) and N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10. The DOE
reiterates that Henry Hudson is not entitled to State aid under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4)
or reimbursement under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 because the district did not apply for or
receive an SREP grant under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.1 to -47.11. The Commissioner of the
DOE transmitted Henry Hudson’s petition of appeal and the DOE’s motion to the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL), where on July 17, 2024, the matter was filed as a contested
case under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act
establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
3
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6. Henry Hudson opposes the
DOE’s motion and has filed a “Cross Motion for Summary Decision.”
For the following reasons, the DOE’s motion must be granted.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
For purposes of the DOE’s motion, all the facts alleged by Henry Hudson in July
17, 2024, petition of appeal are deemed admitted. On April 22, 2021, the Department of
Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services (DLGS), awarded Henry
Hudson a $65,000 LEAP grant to study the feasibility of consolidating three school
districts: Highlands, Atlantic Highlands, and Sea Bright. Petition of Appeal, Ex. A.
One of the feasibility studies commissioned by Henry Hudson concluded in May
2022 that “[t]he tax savings created through regionalization . . . stem [from] the cost
savings due to consolidation of duplicative services in the all-purpose regional [school
district] and the additional [S]tate aid gained from the alternative [S]tate-aid formula for
regionalized districts in Senate Bill S3488, P.L. 2021, c. 402,” which Governor Murphy
signed into law on January 18, 2022, and is codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.1 to -47.11
and various other statutory provisions, including N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4). Petition of
Appeal, ¶¶ 37, 50. Eventually, Henry Hudson moved forward with regionalization without
Sea Bright, and on July 21, 2023, the DOE approved Henry Hudson’s regionalization
proposal. Id. at ¶¶ 54, 59. Upon a voter referendum held on September 23, 2023, the
people of Highlands and Atlantic Highlands approved of the regional school district. Id.
at ¶ 5.
On February 24, 2024, Henry Hudson received a State aid notice from the DOE.
Id. at ¶ 61. According to Henry Hudson, “[t]he subject [S]tate aid notice did not contain
the expected [S]tate aid benefits promised by P.L. 2021, c. 402.” Id. at ¶ 62. Thereafter,
Henry Hudson’s superintendent wrote to the DOE about the agency’s “Failure to Award
State Aid Incentives” and “Henry Hudson Regionalization Election Costs
Reimbursement.” Id. at Ex. C and Ex. E.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
4
The superintendent contended that “[a]s a LEAP Grant recipient, certain state aid
incentives [under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68] are due to a district that is successful in completing
the regionalization process.” Id. at Ex. C. The superintendent explained that “[t]he
financial analysis conducted for the feasibility study indicates that we should have
received” an additional $229,060 in [S]tate aid for FY 2024 and FY 2025 and that if the
DOE “continues to fail to comply with the statutorily guaranteed incentives,” Henry
Hudson would also be shortchanged several hundreds of thousands of dollars in State
aid in future years. Ibid.
On March 28, 2024, the DOE responded to Henry Hudson’s superintendent:
Upon review of the relevant statutes and the information
provided by the school district, Henry Hudson . . . does not
qualify for a slower reduction in State school aid pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4). First, . . . the school districts
involved in the consolidation did not receive a grant for a
regionalization study pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.2 or 47.4
[SREP][.] Second, the newly constituted district does not
have a positive State aid differential; it is not subject to a
reduction under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c) (district has a negative
State-aid differential of $56,527 [for the 2024–2025 school
year].
[Id. at Ex. D.]
On May 2, 2024, the DOE informed the Henry Hudson superintendent that the
district was ineligible for reimbursement of election costs under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 for
the same reason Henry Hudson was not entitled to State-aid incentives under N.J.S.A.
18A:7F-68(c), i.e., Henry Hudson received a LEAP grant, and not an SREP grant under
N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.1 to -47.11. Id. at Ex. E.
Henry Hudson alleges that the DOE’s determinations are “based on the mistaken
interpretation of P.L. 2021, c. 402” and that the district has “been financially harmed [due
to its] good faith reliance on the provisions of P.L. 2021, c. 402, clearly articulated
legislative intent and SREP.” Petition of Appeal, ¶¶ IV and V.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
5
According to Henry Hudson, Senator Vin Gopal, a sponsor of S3488, which
became L. 2021, c. 402, “undoubtedly intended [Henry Hudson] to benefit from” the new
law. Id. at ¶ 19. Henry Hudson further alleges that “[e]arly drafts of S3488 specifically
referenced the existing LEAP Grant Program, but because the legislative intent was to
ensure [that] grants for school regionalization studies would be available permanently,
[the statutory] reference to the grant program [is] generic in case future administrations
wanted to rename it.” Id. at ¶ 22. Henry Hudson also alleges that “[t]he legislation was
written with the intent of refining the guidelines for an existing grant program already being
administered by the DGLS, not creating a new one.” Ibid.
Standards for a Motion to Dismiss
Under the procedural rules governing petitions of appeal filed with the
Commissioner of Education, a respondent can move to dismiss in lieu of an answer for
various reasons, including “on the grounds that the petitioner has advanced no cause of
action even if the petitioner’s factual allegations are accepted as true . . . .” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.10; N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g). Such a motion is assessed under the same standards as a
motion to dismiss for a complainant’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under New Jersey Court Rule 4:6-2(e).
Under those standards, “the test for determining the adequacy of [the] pleading [is]
whether a cause of action is ‘suggested’ by the facts,” such that the “inquiry is limited to
examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint.” Printing
Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989) (citing R. 4:6-2(e);
Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988); Rieder v. Dep’t of Transp.,
221 N.J. Super. 547, 552 (App. Div. 1987)).
Importantly, for purposes of the motion, it does not matter whether a petitioner can
ultimately “prove the allegation contained in the complaint” because “all facts alleged in
the complaint and the legitimate inferences drawn therefrom are deemed admitted.” Ibid.
(citing Somers Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Educ., 198 F. Supp. 732, 734 (D.N.J. 1961)); Smith
v. City of Newark, 136 N.J. Super. 107, 112 (App. Div. 1975) (citing Heavner v. Uniroyal,
Inc., 63 N.J. 130, 133 (1973); J.H. Becker, Inc. v. Marlboro Twp., 82 N.J. Super. 519, 524

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
6
(App. Div. 1964)). While “[a] complaint should not be dismissed . . . where a cause of
action is suggested by the facts,” “a dismissal is mandated where the factual allegations
are palpably insufficient to support a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Rieder,
221 N.J. Super. at 552.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The DOE is entitled to prevail on its motion to dismiss because Henry Hudson has
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4)
or N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6. In opposition to the DOE’s motion, Henry Hudson incorrectly
maintains that the agency has misinterpreted the statutory provisions emanating from
P.L. 2021, c. 402, and that the Legislature intended to reward a newly formed regional
district like Henry Huson with the financial benefits under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6. Simply put, those laws do not apply to Henry Hudson.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.2, the DLGS “shall establish a grant program, . . . the
purpose of which shall be to provide for the reimbursement of eligible costs associated
with conducting feasibility studies . . . to form or expand regional school districts.” That
provision further provides:
In addition to funds being made available to boards of
education . . . seeking to conduct feasibility studies after the
date of enactment of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.1 et al.),
funds under the grant program shall be made available to:
a. the boards of education . . . of two or more
school districts which have conducted within two years
prior to the enactment of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-
47.1 et al.) a feasibility study for which no prior
reimbursement was made . . . .
N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.3(a) directs that “[t]he boards of education . . . of two or more
school districts seeking to form a . . . regional district and that wish to apply for funding
under the grant program established pursuant to section 2 of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-
47.2) shall jointly submit an application to the [DLGS].”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
7
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.4(a), the DLGS “shall review all applications submitted
pursuant to section 3 of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.3) and shall only approve
applications that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection b. of section 3 of
P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.3) and that are certified by the [Commissioner of
Education] pursuant to subsection c. of section 3 of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.3).”
Further, under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.4(e):
[b]oards of education . . . receiving application approval
pursuant to subsection a. of this section, which have
conducted within two years prior to the enactment of
P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.1 et al.) a feasibility study for
which no prior reimbursement was made, shall be eligible for
reimbursement up to an amount or percentage to be
determined by the division of any costs associated with
conducting the study upon execution of the regionalization
outlined in the boards’ . . . application.
Next, N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 states:
The Department of Education shall reimburse participating
districts for any costs incurred to hold an election to establish
or enlarge a limited purpose or all purpose regional district
provided that the decision to establish or enlarge a limited
purpose or all purpose regional district stems from the
completion of a feasibility study conducted in connection with
the grant program established pursuant to section 2 of
P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.2).
Finally, N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4), which was added as part of L. 2021, c. 402,
provides:
A school district that is a participating district under an
application that is approved for a grant pursuant to subsection
a. of section 4 of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.4) or a school
district that is a participating district under an application that
receives preliminary approval pursuant to subsection b. of
section 4 of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.4) and that has a
State aid differential that is positive may elect to receive State
school aid in an amount equal to the district’s State aid in the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
8
prior school year minus a percent of the State aid differential
according to the following schedule:
(a) 30 percent in the 2021–2022 school year;
(b) 37 percent in the 2022–2023 school year;
(c) 46 percent in the 2023–2024 school year;
(d) 55 percent in the 2024–2025 school year;
(e) 65.5 percent in the 2025–2026 school year;
(f) 76 percent in the 2026–2027 school year;
(g) 88 percent in the 2027–2028 school year; and
(h) 100 percent in the 2028–2029 school year.
Under a plain reading of these laws, Henry Hudson has no claim for relief under
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) or N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6. Although all Henry Hudson’s
allegations are deemed admitted for purposes of the DOE’s motion, Henry Hudson
received a LEAP grant on April 22, 2021, and has not alleged that the district applied for
or received an SREP grant established under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.1 to -47.11, which
became effective on January 18, 2022. This means Henry Hudson did not receive, as
required by N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4), “a grant pursuant to subsection a. of section 4 of
P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.4)” and, as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6, Henry
Hudson’s “decision to establish [an] all purpose regional district” did not “stem[] from the
completion of a feasibility study conducted in connection with the grant program
established pursuant to section 2 of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.2).”1
And to the extent that Henry Hudson relies on N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.2 for the
proposition that the Legislature intended to make funds available under the new grant
program to a regional district which, like Henry Hudson, “conducted within two years prior
to the enactment of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.1 et al.) a feasibility study,” that
provision only addresses funding for a feasibility study and specifically limits such funding
for “a feasibility study for which no prior reimbursement was made.” Contrary to this
provision, Henry Hudson received money for a feasibility study under its LEAP grant.
1 Even though Henry Hudson also disputes that it is not entitled to the incentives under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-
68(c)(4) because it, or its constituent districts, had a negative, and not a positive, State-aid differential, it is
unnecessary to address Henry Hudson’s allegation regarding the DOE’s State-aid calculations because
the fact that Henry Hudson did not receive an SREP grant is, alone, sufficient to conclude that N.J.S.A.
18A:7F-68(c)(4) does not apply to the district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
9
Moreover, N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.4(e) states that school boards “receiving application
approval pursuant to subsection a. of this section, which have conducted within two years
prior to the enactment of P.L.2021, c.402 (C.18A:13-47.1 et al.) a feasibility study for
which no prior reimbursement was made, shall be eligible for reimbursement up to an
amount or percentage to be determined by the division of any costs associated with
conducting the study upon execution of the regionalization outlined in the boards’ . . .
application.” Not only was Henry Hudson awarded a LEAP grant for its feasibility study,
i.e., “prior reimbursement,” the regional district did not apply for an SREP grant and, thus,
did not “receiv[e] application approval” under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.4(a).
Even though a plain reading of the relevant laws shows that only school districts
that applied for and received an SREP grant (and not a LEAP grant) are eligible for the
regionalization benefits conferred under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 and N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-
68(c)(4), Henry Hudson contends that certain sponsors of the bill that became L. 2021, c.
402, including Senator Vin Gopal, “undoubtedly intended [Henry Hudson] to benefit from”
the new law. Subsequent legislation proposed by Senator Gopal, however, contradicts
Henry Hudson’s supposition about legislative intent.
On January 9, 2024, Senator Gopal introduced S2048, which “[m]odifies provisions
of grant program that reimburses eligible costs for school district regionalization feasibility
studies.” According to the statement to S2048, the bill would amend N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-
68(c)(4) to “expand[] eligibility for this modified State aid schedule to a school district that
is a participating district under an application for which a lead district has successfully
completed a prior grant agreement with the DLGS for the purposes of completing a
feasibility study for school district regionalization” and would amend N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.2
to “expand[] eligibility for funding under the SREP to the boards of education or governing
bodies of two or more school districts that conducted a school district regionalization
feasibility study within two years prior to the enactment of P.L.2021, c.402, for which the
amount of a prior grant award disbursed by the [DLGS] is less than the total cost of the
study.”2 S2048, proposed by the same legislator who sponsored the bill that became
L. 2021, c. 402, shows that the Legislature did not include within the coverage of L. 2021,
2 The proposed law would not amend N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
10
c. 402, a regional school district which, like Henry Hudson, received an LEAP grant, i.e.,
“a prior grant agreement with the DLGS,” prior to the enactment of L. 2021, c. 402.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the DOE is entitled to prevail on its motion to dismiss
because Henry Hudson has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) or N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 because those laws do not apply to
Henry Hudson. As such, it is unnecessary to address Henry Hudson’s “Cross Motion for
Summary Decision.”
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the Department of Education’s motion is GRANTED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09873-24
11
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
May 14, 2025
DATE MARY ANN BOGAN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
MAB/nn