NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0653-14T2

IN THE MATTER OF DECEMBER 9, 2014 

SPECIAL SCHOOL ELECTION.

_______________________________________

Argued February 11, 2015 - Decided

Before Judges Waugh, Maven, and Carroll.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, L463-14.

Brett E.J. Gorman argued the cause for 

appellant Board of Education of the Lower 

Cape May Regional School District, Cape May 

County (Parker McCay P.A., attorneys; Mr. 

Gorman, on the brief).

James B. Arsenault, Jr., Acting County 

Counsel, argued the cause for respondent 

County of Cape May.

Francis J. Campbell argued the cause for 

respondent Township of Lower (Campbell & 

Pruchnik LLC, attorneys; Mr. Campbell, on 

the brief). 

Frank L. Corrado argued the cause for 

respondent Borough of West Cape May (Barry, 

Corrado & Grassi, P.C., attorneys, join in 

the brief of respondent Township of Lower).

Kerri A. Wright argued the cause for 

respondent City of Cape May (Porzio, 

Bromberg & Newman, attorneys; Vito A. 

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

March 4, 2015

APPELLATE DIVISION

March 4, 2015
2 A-0653-14T2

Gagliardi, Jr., of counsel and on the brief; 

Ms. Wright and Okechi C. Ogbuokiri, on the 

brief).

 The opinion of the court was delivered by 

CARROLL, J.A.D. 

In this case of first impression, we are called upon to 

determine which entity must bear the cost of a special school 

election held pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 when a municipality 

seeks to withdraw from a limited purpose regional school 

district. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that such 

cost must be borne by the school district and not the 

municipality that initiates the withdrawal request. 

I.

 The Lower Cape May School District (the District) is a 

limited purpose school district educating students in grades 

seven through twelve who reside in the Borough of West Cape May 

(West Cape May), the City of Cape May (Cape May), and the 

Township of Lower (Lower). On April 2, 2014, Cape May filed a 

petition seeking authorization from the Commissioner of 

Education to conduct a referendum to consider Cape May's request 

to withdraw from the District. On April 9, Lower filed an 

answer in which it did not oppose the requested referendum. On 

April 15, the District filed an answer in which it noted the 

negative impact Cape May's withdrawal would have, but ultimately 
3 A-0653-14T2

agreed that the matter should be submitted to the voters in the 

school district. West Cape May did not file an answer to the 

petition.

On July 18, the New Jersey Department of Education's State 

Board of Review held a public hearing and verbally approved Cape 

May's petition. On October 22, the Board issued a written 

decision, noting that "the legal voters of Cape May and the 

constituent districts will have the opportunity, at a special 

school election, to vote on whether Cape May shall be permitted 

to withdraw from the limited purpose regional school district." 

Meanwhile, on July 24, Rita Fulginiti, the Cape May County 

Clerk, sent a letter to Cape May requesting payment for the cost 

of the special school election. On July 31, Cape May responded 

that the District was responsible for the cost, citing New 

Jersey's statutory scheme and past precedent. 

On August 29, the Cape May Executive County Superintendent, 

following consultation with the constituent districts, scheduled 

the special school election for December 9. However, Cape May 

and the District remained unable to agree on who would be 

responsible for the cost of the special election. Consequently, 

on September 19, the County of Cape May (the County) filed a 

declaratory judgment action, requesting that the court determine 

the issue. 
4 A-0653-14T2

The parties appeared for oral argument on September 25. 

The following day the judge issued a comprehensive written 

opinion, concluding that the District should bear the cost of 

the special election and directing it to make payment to the 

County. 

II.

 On appeal, the parties reiterate the arguments they 

advanced before the trial court. The District, Lower, and West 

Cape May all contend that because the special election was 

initiated by Cape May's petition, and only Cape May stood to 

benefit from the election, it alone should bear the cost. They 

argue that "[i]n every circumstance the Legislature's guiding 

principle is that the party seeking the election is responsible 

for its costs." As examples, they cite N.J.S.A. 19:45-2, 

obligating the State of New Jersey to be financially responsible 

for election costs incurred on its behalf; N.J.S.A. 19:45-4, 

obligating counties to pay for costs for elections held on their 

behalf; and, with respect to municipalities, N.J.S.A. 19:45-5, 

which provides: 

All costs, charges and expenses 

incurred by the municipal clerk or any other 

officer or official of a municipality in 

carrying out the provisions of this title 

shall be paid by such municipality except as 

herein otherwise provided.
5 A-0653-14T2

 Where any election is held in and for a 

municipality only, all costs, charges and 

expenses, including the compensation of the 

members of the district boards of the 

municipality and the compensation and 

expenses of the county board and the clerk 

thereof, for such elections, shall be paid 

by the municipality. 

Additionally, the District argues that public policy dictates 

that educational funds be used for the benefit of its students, 

rather than to fund elections. 

Cape May argues in opposition that, pursuant to N.J.S.A.

18A:13-57, a special school election is required as part of the 

withdrawal process, and is designed to protect the interests of 

all the constituent municipalities of a regional school 

district. Cape May contends that N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 specifically 

obligates a school district to pay the cost of such a special 

school election, as the trial court correctly determined. 

III.

An appellate court reviews a question of statutory 

interpretation de novo. Maeker v. Ross, 219 N.J. 565, 574-75 

(2014). The primary goal of statutory analysis is to glean the 

Legislature's intent. State v. Rangel, 213 N.J. 500, 508 

(2013); State v. Gelman, 195 N.J. 475, 482 (2008). When 

determining legislative intent, we begin by looking to the plain 

language of the statute, "giving words 'their ordinary meaning 

and significance.'" Rangel, supra, 213 N.J. at 509 (quoting
6 A-0653-14T2

DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)). "We do not view

words and phrases in isolation but rather in their proper 

context and in relationship to other parts of a statute, so that 

meaning can be given to the whole of an enactment." Ibid. 

Furthermore, statutory analysis is conducted under the 

presumption that the Legislature created a logical scheme that 

should be interpreted to avoid contradictions. See State v.

Hudson, 209 N.J. 513, 542 (2012). If a statute's plain language 

is not sufficient to determine legislative intent, then other 

extrinsic aids, such as legislative history, can be used in 

analysis. See Gelman, supra, 195 N.J. at 482. 

N.J.S.A. 18A:13-51 to -81 articulates the process to be 

followed when a municipality seeks to withdraw from a limited 

purpose regional school district. The process is initiated when 

a constituent municipality, "by resolution, appl[ies] to the 

county superintendent of schools to make an investigation as to 

the advisability of [such] withdrawal." N.J.S.A. 18A:13-51.

The executive county superintendent must then issue a report 

"discussing the educational and financial effect of the 

withdrawal." N.J.S.A. 18A:13-52. Prior to issuing this report,

the county superintendent may require the constituent 

municipalities, school districts, and the regional district to 
7 A-0653-14T2

submit a feasibility study addressing the impact of the proposed 

withdrawal. Ibid.

Within thirty days of the filing of the county 

superintendent's report, the municipal governing body or the 

board of education of the withdrawing district may then petition 

the Commissioner of Education for permission to submit the issue 

to the voters of the withdrawing district and the remaining

districts within the regional district. N.J.S.A. 18A:13-54.

After the filing of any answers to the petition, the 

Commissioner then submits the matter to a board of review, which 

is similarly tasked with determining "the effect of the proposed 

withdrawal . . . upon the educational and financial condition of 

the withdrawing and the remaining districts." N.J.S.A. 18A:13-

56. 

If three of the four members who comprise the board of 

review vote to approve the application, then:

[T]he county superintendent shall, after 

conferring with the boards of education of 

the constituent districts, fix a day and a 

time on said day for holding a special 

school election, at which time the question 

whether or not the withdrawing school 

district shall withdraw from the regional 

district . . . shall be submitted to the 

legal voters of the withdrawing district and 

to the legal voters within the remainder of 

the regional district . . . . 

[N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 (emphasis added).] 
8 A-0653-14T2

While the statute is silent as to who bears the expense of 

the special school election, we determine that resolution of the 

cost issue is governed by N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 (emphasis added), 

which provides in relevant part that:

All costs, charges and expenses, including 

the compensation of the members of the 

district boards and the compensation and 

expenses of the county board of elections, 

the county superintendent of elections, the 

clerk of the county, and the municipal 

clerks for any school election held at a 

time other than the time of the general 

election shall be paid by the board of 

education of the school district. 

"'School election' means any annual or special election to be 

held in and for a local or regional school district established 

pursuant to chapter 8 or chapter 13 of Title 18A of the New 

Jersey Statutes." N.J.S.A. 19:1-1 (emphasis added). A "special 

election" is further defined as "an election which is not 

provided for by law to be held at stated intervals." Ibid.

In the present case, the election is not one provided for 

by law to be held at stated intervals. Rather, it is a special 

school election held at a time other than the time of the 

general election, thus bringing it within the ambit of N.J.S.A.

19:60-12. Accordingly, when read together, N.J.S.A. 19:60-12, 

N.J.S.A. 19:1-1, and N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 clearly obligate the

District to bear the cost of the special election to determine 

Cape May's right to withdraw from the District.
9 A-0653-14T2

Even though resort to legislative history is unnecessary, 

we nonetheless find it enlightening. The statutory procedure 

for withdrawal from a limited purpose regional school district, 

including N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57, became effective in 1976. L.

1975, c. 360. Although the statutory framework was subsequently 

amended to also provide a mechanism for dissolution, L. 1993, c.

255, §§ 1-6, the term "special school election" has appeared in 

N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 since 1976. 

N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 was later enacted in 1995. L. 1995, c.

278, § 12. As enacted, the provision read:

All costs, charges and expenses, including 

the compensation of the members of the 

district boards and the compensation and 

expenses of the county board of elections, 

the county superintendent of elections and 

the clerk [] of the county for any school 

election shall be paid by the board of 

education of the school district. All 

costs, charges and expenses submitted to the 

board of education for payment shall be 

itemized and shall include the separate 

identification of costs to prepare, print 

and distribute sample ballots. 

[L. 1995, c. 278, § 12 (emphasis added).] 

In the next section, the bill added the definition for "school 

election," in the same form as currently contained in N.J.S.A.

19:1-1. L. 1995, c. 278, § 13. The stated purpose of these 

enactments was to

transfer[] the jurisdiction of conducting 

school board elections from the local boards 
10 A-0653-14T2

of education to the county boards of 

election. The bill requires school 

districts to continue to pay the costs of 

conducting district elections, which 

includes compensating poll workers and 

reimbursing the county board and county 

clerk for expenses incurred to conduct such 

elections. 

[Legislative Fiscal Estimate to A. 1705

(July 20, 1995).]

Based on the order in which these statutes were enacted, it 

is presumed that the Legislature was aware of the existence of a 

special election for withdrawal under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 when it 

enacted N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 and amended N.J.S.A. 19:1-1. "'The 

Legislature is presumed to be familiar with its own enactments 

. . . .'" In re Petition for Referendum on Trenton Ordinance 

09-02, 201 N.J. 349, 359 (2010) (quoting State v. Federanko, 26 

N.J. 119, 129 (1958)). A review of this legislative history 

strengthens our conclusion that the District is required to pay 

the cost of the election to determine Cape May's proposed 

withdrawal from the regional school district. 

Affirmed.