SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5393-13T3

IN RE PETITION FOR EQUITABLE 

MODIFICATION OF THE COST

APPORTIONMENTS FOR THE RIVER

DELL REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,

BERGEN COUNTY.

______________________________

Argued April 5, 2017 – Decided June 21, 2018

Before Judges Fuentes, Simonelli and Gooden 

Brown. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Commissioner of 

Education, Docket No. 12-1/12.

Vito A. Gagliardi, Jr. and Kerri A. Wright 

argued the cause for appellant Borough of 

Oradell (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, PC, 

attorneys; Vito A. Gagliardi, Jr., of counsel 

and on the brief; Kerri A. Wright and Phillip 

C. Bauknight, on the briefs).

Francis J. Campbell argued the cause for 

respondent Borough of River Edge (Campbell & 

Pruchnik, LLC, attorneys; Francis J. Campbell, 

of counsel and on the brief; Roslynne G. 

Novack, on the brief).

Geoffrey N. Stark, Deputy Attorney General, 

argued the cause for respondent New Jersey 

Commissioner of Education (Christopher S. 

Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-5393-13T3

Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, 

of counsel; Geoffrey N. Stark, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

In In re Petition for Authorization to Conduct a Referendum 

on the Withdrawal of the Borough of Oradell from the River Dell 

Reg'l Sch. Dist., 406 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 2009), this court 

upheld the Board of Review's decision to deny the Borough of 

Oradell's (Oradell) petition for authorization to conduct a 

referendum to withdraw from the River Dell Regional School District

(River Dell). We held:

The Board's determination was primarily 

informed by its finding that dissolution of 

the District would produce an excessive debt 

burden for the constituent school districts. 

Petitioner appeals, and we affirm 

substantially for the reasons expressed by the 

Board. In doing so, we conclude that a school 

district's excessive debt burden may be 

determined by factors in addition to a 

district's borrowing margin.

[Id. at 201 (emphasis added).]

In April 2011, two years after this court affirmed the Board's 

decision and the Commissioner of Education Lucille Davy denied 

Oradell's reapportionment request, Oradell held a referendum on 

the tax contribution formula. The referendum failed because,

although Oradell's voters approved the measure, River Edge's 

voters rejected it.
3 A-5393-13T3

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Petition for 

Authorization to Conduct a Referendum on Withdrawal of N. Haledon 

Sch. Dist. from the Passaic Cty. Manchester Reg'l High Sch. Dist., 

181 N.J. 161 (2004), five months after the voters rejected the 

referendum, Oradell filed a petition seeking to have the 

Commissioner of Education reapportion the costs for supporting 

River Dell. On January 24, 2012, Acting Commissioner Christopher 

Cerf transmitted Oradell's request to the Office of Administrative 

Law as an uncontested case in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-21.1, 

asking an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to

make recommendations concerning whether 

Oradell has established that its situation is 

substantially similar to North Haledon's in

[North Haledon] so as to entitle it to the 

extraordinary relief directed by the Supreme 

Court in that case, and if so, to recommend 

what would be an equitable funding formula for 

the River Dell Regional District.

The "extraordinary relief" the Court granted North Haledon 

was to remand the matter to the Commissioner "to develop, in 

consultation with the constituent municipalities, an equitable 

cost apportionment scheme for the Regional District." N. Haledon,

181 N.J. at 186. The Court did not declare that the Commissioner 

had the legal authority to unilaterally reapportion the funding 

schemes between participating municipalities. 
4 A-5393-13T3

Two years later, the ALJ issued a Report and Recommendation 

to the Commissioner, recommending that the Commissioner modify 

River Dell's tax contribution formula and suggesting that the 

formula use the following ratio: one-fifth based on property 

valuation and the rest based on the per-pupil cost. On June 2, 

2014, then-Commissioner David C. Hespe rejected the ALJ's report, 

finding his office did not have the legal authority to grant 

Oradell the extraordinary relief it sought. The Commissioner 

advised Oradell to "follow the prescribed legal procedure for 

gaining relief from statutory mandates, i.e.[,] urge the 

Legislature to amend the law." The Commissioner provided five 

reasons for his decision.

First, the present case is factually distinguishable from 

North Haledon. Before our Supreme Court decided North Haledon and 

ordered the Manchester Regional School District to devise a new 

tax contribution formula, North Haledon's per-pupil cost had risen 

to $18,400, while Haledon and Prospect Park's costs had dropped 

to $5400 and $3400, respectively. N. Haledon, 181 N.J. at 168. 

The "$5000-$6000 disparity between the per-pupil costs of Oradell 

and River Edge is far less severe than . . . the differences of 

$15,000 and $13,000[,] which existed between North Haledon and the 

other constituents of Manchester Regional."
5 A-5393-13T3

Second, Oradell differs procedurally from North Haledon 

because North Haledon met the threshold requirements for 

withdrawing from its regional district when the voters authorized 

its withdrawal via a referendum organized under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-

58. N. Haledon, 181 N.J. at 172. By contrast, the voters here 

rejected Oradell's proposal.

Third, Oradell's present petition involves "an exercise of 

simple ministerial prudence and common sense" rather than a 

constitutional problem worthy of extraordinary action. Although 

all issues related to education contain a constitutional element, 

"the Commissioner [did] not find that the dispute over the 

advisability of the proposed breakup of River Dell, in and of 

itself, pose[d] a direct constitutional question" under North 

Haledon.

Even if Oradell's petition involved constitutional issues, 

Oradell would be responsible for inspiring such concerns because 

our State's Constitution and related statutory scheme bar Oradell 

from splitting a high-performing school district into two smaller 

districts, neither of which could survive on its own, just to save 

itself some money. Unlike the situation in North Haledon, nothing

suggests that Oradell's withdrawal implicates a "constitutional 

issue [that] arose by way of a demographic circumstance beyond the 

control of [the departing municipality], which . . . would have 
6 A-5393-13T3

created racial imbalance in . . . [River Dell]." (Emphasis added).

See also N. Haledon, 181 N.J. at 184.

Fourth, the ALJ's report in support of Oradell's position 

suffered from significant legal and factual defects. The report 

failed to consider the jurisprudence developed by our Supreme 

Court that described property valuation, rather than per-capita 

counts, as the most equitable way of funding schools. See 

Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473 (1973). The Report also failed 

to closely analyze the parties' property values and median incomes 

before recommending a contribution plan based upon a 1:5 propertyto-pupil ratio.

Finally, Oradell acted unreasonably when it relied on 

unofficial advice contained in a letter to the Commissioner from 

his counsel, i.e., the Office of the Attorney General, Department 

of Law and Public Safety, Law Division. This letter did not 

legally bind the Commissioner nor did it hold any precedential 

value. See Bd. of Educ. of W. Windsor-Plainsboro Reg'l Sch. 

Dist., Mercer Cty. v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Delran, Burlington 

Cty., 361 N.J. Super. 488, 493-94 (App. Div. 2003).

Oradell now appeals from the Commissioner's decision arguing 

it was arbitrary, capricious and inconsistent with the Supreme 

Court's decision in North Haledon. Our standard of review of a 

final agency decision is well-settled:
7 A-5393-13T3

[A]n appellate court will not upset an 

agency's ultimate determination unless the 

agency's decision is shown to have been 

arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [] 

not supported by substantial credible evidence 

in the record as a whole. That standard is 

applicable on appellate review of an 

administrative agency's actions regardless of 

whether that action followed a quasiadjudicative hearing or . . . an assessment 

of the relevant submissions and standards by 

an administrative head. 

[Barrick v. State, 218 N.J. 247, 259 (2014)

(alteration in original) (citations 

omitted).]

We discern no legal basis to disturb the Commissioner's 

decision. The Commissioner's decision not to reapportion the 

funding formula of this regional district was consistent with the 

Court's reasoning in North Haledon. Oradell did not demonstrate 

that it was compelled to remain a member of the River Dell School 

District because of a constitutional defect. Oradell does not 

suffer from an inequitable tax burden. This case is substantially 

different from the salient facts in North Haledon.

Affirmed.