Board of Education of the City of Vineland, Cumberland County v. Cumberland County Board of Vocational Education, Cumberland County, 8/21/2023, (#249-23)

249-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the City of Vineland
Cumberland County,
Petitioner,
v.
Cumberland County Board of Vocational Education,
Cumberland County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
The petitioner, Board of Education of the City of Vineland (Vineland), sought reimbursement from the
respondent, Cumberland County Board of Vocational Education (CCTEC), for alleged overpayment of tuition for
the 2020-2021 school year. Vineland contends that CCTEC’s proposed 50% adjustment to the overpayment
amount of $1,185,655.00 would result in Vineland being charged more than the school district’s actual cost per
pupil, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(c). Vineland filed a motion for summary decision, which was opposed
by CCTEC.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	there are no material facts at issue, and the matter is ripe for summary
decision; the issue for determination in this case was whether the respondent can charge the petitioner more
than the certified tuition rate for the 2020-2021 school year; Vineland filed a motion based on there being no
factual dispute that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(c), CCTEC cannot charge petitioner more than the State
certified tuition rate for the education of Vineland students at CCTEC; 	respondent’s opposition to the
petitioner’s motion for summary decision on the grounds that the parties had a ten-year history of abiding by a
50% reciprocal provision which allowed CCTEC to pay or give a credit of half the total amount owed to
Vineland is without merit, as this 50% provision contravenes N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(c) and is unenforceable as it
has resulted in Vineland being forced to pay CCTEC more than the actual cost per pupil cost. 	The ALJ
concluded that the 50% adjustment applied to the 2020-2021 tuition agreement is unenforceable as a matter
of law and because no agreement existed between the parties. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted Vineland’s
motion for summary decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion, and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. 	Accordingly, the Commissioner granted
petitioner’s motion for summary decision. Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement or a credit from respondent
in the amount of the full tuition overpayment of $1,185,665.00 for the 2020-2021 school year.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither
reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. 02861-22
Agency Dkt. No. 56-3/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the City of Vineland,
Cumberland County,
Petitioner,
v.
Cumberland County Board of Vocational
Education, Cumberland County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law have been
reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that N.J.S.A. 18A:54-
20.1(c) precludes a county vocational school from charging a sending district more than the actual State
certified per pupil rate. Petitioner is therefore entitled to reimbursement or a credit from respondent in
the amount of the full tuition overpayment of $1,185,665.00 for the 2020-2021 school year.
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for summary decision is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 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.
249-23
August 21, 2023
August 23, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
GRANTING SUMMARY
DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 56-3/22
CITY OF VINELAND BOARD OF
EDUCATION, CUMBERLAND
COUNTY,
Petitioner,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY VOCATIONAL
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Respondent.
Robert A. De Santo, Esq., for petitioner (Gruccio, Pepper, De Santo & Ruth, P.A.,
attorneys)
Kerri A. Wright, Esq., for respondent (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C.,
attorneys)
Record Closed: April 11, 2023 Decided: July 10, 20231
1 Due to a voluminous caseload, the Initial Decision was delayed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
2
BEFORE KIM C. BELIN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Board of Education of the City of Vineland School District, Cumberland County
(Petitioner/VBE) seeks reimbursement from Cumberland County Board of Vocational
Education (Respondent/CCTEC) for alleged overpayment of tuition for the 2020-21
school year.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a petition, dated March 21, 2022, seeking reimbursement of alleged
tuition overcharges paid to the respondent for the 2020 through 2021 school year.2 The
respondent filed its answer, dated April 11, 2022. The matter was transmitted as a
contested case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where it was filed on April 12,
2022. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
Petitioner filed a motion for summary decision, dated January 9, 2023. On January
19, 2023, the respondent requested a two-week extension which was granted. However,
instead of filing a response to the petitioner’s motion for summary decision, the
respondent submitted a motion to consolidate dated February 13, 2023. This motion was
denied by the undersigned on April 10, 2023. On March 29, 2023, the respondent was
directed to clarify whether it intended to respond to the petitioner’s motion for summary
decision by April 10, 2023. On April 10, 2023, the respondent filed its opposition to the
petitioner’s motion for summary decision. Petitioner filed its reply on April 11, 2023. The
record closed on that date.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The following FACTS are undisputed and I, therefore FIND:
2 Petitioner filed two other petitions seeking tuition reimbursement of tuition overcharges for school years
2012 through 2019. These petitions were consolidated on December 10, 2021 and are pending
adjudication.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
3
1. Petitioner oversees the operation of the City of Vineland School District
Type II School District. (Petitioner’s Br. in Supp. of Motion for Summary
Decision (MSD) at 3.)
2. Respondent oversees the operation of the Cumberland County Vocational
School District and its vocational school known as CCTEC. (Ibid.)
3. Petitioner pays tuition for student residents of the City of Vineland who
attend CCTEC. (Ibid.)
4. From 2011 through 2020, petitioner and CCTEC entered into successive
one-year contracts using a template and pre-printed text promulgated by
the New Jersey Department of Education providing for tuition rates and
adjustments. (Exhibit A, Respondent’s Opposition to Petitioner’s MSD,
CCTEC00010 through CCTEC000020.)
5. The tuition contract for the 2020-21 school year is only signed by the
respondent’s representatives. (Exhibit 1, Petitioner’s Certification of
Counsel.)
6. In a letter dated February 7, 2022, the respondent’s business administrator
notified the petitioner’s business administrator of a tuition adjustment for the
2020-2021 school year. Specifically, the letter stated that a tuition
overpayment of $1,185,665.00 would be reduced by 50% on the petitioner’s
September 2022 tuition invoice. (Exhibit A, Petitioner’s Br. In Supp. of
MSD.)
7. In an email dated November 9, 2020, petitioner’s counsel notified
respondent’s counsel questioning the adjustment and requesting revisions
to the contract language. (Exhibit 2, Petitioner’s Certification of Counsel.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
4
8. Counsel for petitioner and respondent exchanged emails from November 9,
2020 through November 23, 2020, discussing revising the 2020-21
contracts. (Exhibit 3, Petitioner’s Certification of Counsel.)
9. In emails dated January 11, 2021 and January 20, 2021, petitioner’s
counsel requested revisions to four tuition contracts but at a minimum three
contracts, which included a regular education contract, Strive and Strive
ESY contracts for the 2020-21 school year. (Ibid.)
10. On January 26, 2021, petitioner’s counsel emailed respondent’s counsel
seeking a response. Respondent’s counsel promised to follow up with his
client. (Ibid.)
11. In emails dated February 8, 2021 and February 23, 2021, petitioner’s
counsel sought a response from the respondent. (Ibid.)
12. On June 7, 2021, petitioner’s counsel proposed that the tuition contracts be
revised to change the reimbursement to 100% instead of 50% for any
overpayment or underpayment. Respondent’s counsel stated that he would
check with his client on the same date, however, as of June 24, 2021, there
was no answer to the proposal. (Ibid.)
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A motion for summary decision (Motion) may be granted if the papers and
discovery presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the
application, show that there is no genuine issue of material facts, and the moving party is
entitled to prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). If the motion is sufficiently
supported, the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine
issue of fact which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, to prevail in such
an application. (Ibid.) These provisions mirror the summary judgment language of R.
4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
5
The motion judge must “consider whether competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . are
sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of American, 142 N.J.
520, 523 (1995). And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence,
this forum must grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving
party] must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536.
The issue presented is whether the respondent can charge more than the certified
tuition rate to the petitioner for the 2020-21 school year. Based upon the evidence
presented, this case is ripe for summary decision.
The petitioner herein filed a Motion on the basis that there is no factual dispute that
the respondent cannot charge more than the State certified tuition rate. Petitioner relies
upon N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(c) which provides in relevant part:
The board of education of a county vocational school district
shall receive such funds as may be appropriated by the county
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:54-29.2 and shall be entitled to
collect and receive from the sending districts in which each
pupil attending the vocational school resides, for the tuition of
that pupil, . . . a sum not to exceed the actual cost per pupil as
determined for each vocational program classification,
according to rules prescribed by the commissioner and
approved by the State board.
(Emphasis added.)
The “actual cost per student” is defined at N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-17.1(b) as “the local
cost per student in average daily enrollment, based upon audited expenditures for that
year for the purpose for which the tuition rate is being determined and consistent with the
grade/program categories in N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-50 and 18A:7F-55 . . .” This cost is
determined by the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and is based upon the:
a. Revenues, expenditures, and fund balances reflected in
the [county vocational school district] CVSD’s annual
independent audit; and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
6
b. Average daily enrollment data by category submitted by
the CVSD on a form prescribed by the Commissioner.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-17.4(b).]
Once the Department of Education determines the actual cost per student, the
receiving district is required to return the excess to the sending district or at the option of
the sending district to credit the sending district the excess amount in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 6A:23-17.1(f)(6) which provides:
If the Commissioner later determines that the tentative tuition
charge established by written contractual agreement, except
for a contractual agreement for a student enrolled in a special
education class, was greater than the actual cost per student
during the school year multiplied by the actual ADE [average
daily enrollment] received, the receiving district board of
education shall return to the sending district board of
education in the second school year following the contract
year the amount by which the tentative charge exceeded the
actual charge as determined above, or, at the option of the
receiving district board of education, shall credit the sending
district board of education with the excess amount. The
receiving district board of education shall make such
adjustment for a contractual agreement for a student enrolled
in a special education class no later than the end of the
second school year following the contract year.
The receiving district may charge for a shortfall after the tuition calculation has
been made pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:23-17.1(f)(7) which provides:
If the Commissioner later determines that the tentative charge
established by written contractual agreement, except for a
contractual agreement for a student enrolled in a special
education class, was less than the actual cost per student
during the school year multiplied by the actual average daily
enrollment received, the receiving district board of education
may charge the sending district board of education all or part
of the amount owed by the sending district board of education,
to be paid during the second school year following the school
year for which the tentative charge was paid. Such
adjustment for a contractual agreement for a student enrolled
in a special education class shall be made no later than the
end of the second school year following the contract year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
7
(Emphasis added.)
The tuition contract between the parties for the 2020–2021 school year is a pre-
printed template agreement provided by the New Jersey Department of Education.
Paragraph 4a of regular education tuition agreement provided that if the VBE overpaid
tuition, the CCTEC had the option of paying the excess or providing a credit to the VBE
in accordance with a schedule to which the parties agreed. The parties set the
reconciliation date as June 30 of the third year following the base year and added “50%.”
It is uncontested that this means CCTEC would only reimburse or give a credit of half of
the total amount owed by or to the VBE.
Petitioner contends that this 50% adjustment results in the VBE being charged
more than the actual cost per pupil in violation of the law. Moreover, petitioner asserts
that the parties never finalized the tuition agreement for the 2020-21 school year and
thus, the respondent’s action in reducing the amount owed to the petitioner is
unenforceable.
The respondent opposes the petitioner’s MSD on grounds that the parties had a
ten-year history of abiding by the 50% reciprocal provision which allowed CCTEC to pay
or give a credit of half of total amount owed to the VBE. Moreover, the CCTEC contends
that the parties’ failure to fully execute the 2020-21 agreement was irrelevant and did not
negate the ten-year precedent. I am not so persuaded.
If the VBE is owed a reimbursement because it paid more than the actual per pupil
cost, then receiving only half of that reimbursement results in the VBE paying more than
the actual per pupil cost and that contravenes N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(c). In an Order dated
January 5, 2023, involving the same parties, the undersigned determined that the 50%
reciprocal provision was unenforceable in fully executed contracts dating from 2012
through 2020 because the 50% reciprocal provision resulted in forcing the VBE to pay
more than the actual per pupil cost which contravened N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(c).
“The most important aspect of a contract is the intent of the parties.” Bd. of Ed. of
Twp. of Waterford v. Bd. of Ed. of Twp. of Hammonton, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 69. Here,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
8
the partially signed agreement as well as the numerous emails spanning from November
2020 to June 2021, evinces that there was no agreement between the parties for the
2020-21 school year. Petitioner’s counsel expressly opposed the 50% provision and
attempted to revise the contact language and respondent’s counsel never received
approval from his client. Thus, there was no agreement for the CCTEC to adjustment the
amount owed to the VBE and the VBE was entitled to the full reimbursement in
accordance with the statute and regulations cited herein. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that
the 50% adjustment as applied to the 2020-21 tuition agreement is unenforceable as a
matter of law and because there was no agreement between the parties.
Having carefully reviewed the record, I FIND there are no material facts in dispute
and the petitioner is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. The record reflects that N.J.S.A.
18A:54-20.1(c) precludes a county vocational school from charging more than the actual
State certified per pupil rate. For the 2020-21 school year there was a tuition overpayment
of $1,185,655 owed to the VBE. The CCTEC did not reimburse the full amount but chose
to provide a 50% credit to the VBE despite the lack of a fully executed agreement. This
resulted in the VBE paying more than the State certified actual cost per student which
violates N.J.A.C. 18A:54-20.1(c). Viewing these facts as I must, in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, I CONCLUDE there is no factual dispute sufficient to
justify an evidentiary hearing and summary decision in favor of the petitioner is
appropriate.
ORDER
Based upon the reasons stated above, petitioner’s Motion for Summary Decision
is hereby GRANTED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
9
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 COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
July 10, 2023
DATE KIM C. BELIN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KCB/am/lam

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02861-22
10
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
• Motion for Summary Decision with certification and exhibits, dated January 9,
2023
• Petitioner’s Reply Letter to Respondent’s Opposition, dated April 11, 2023
For respondent
• Letter Brief in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Decision, dated
April 12, 2023