Tuition Agreement Angers Central Regional, Berkeley Officials

Don't get Denise Pavone-Wilson started.

Wilson, a longtime member of the Central Regional Board of Education, was not happy to hear that Toms River Regional school board members have set a .

"They know they are our kids," Pavone-Wilson said. "I don't know why one district is trying to hurt another. I'm quite fed up with it. We all are. They are not trying to work with us at all. They are our kids."

Toms River school board members approved the tuition price set by the state Department of Education at the July 19 board meeting.

It's the latest chapter in a several-years long legal battle and a failed referendum for the Seaside Park students, who by state law are part of the Central Regional school district.

"The fact is, the borough of Seaside Park is a constituent community of the Central Regional school district," said attorney Francis J. Campell, special counsel for Berkeley Township.

The Toms River Regional school district under then-Superintendent Michael J. Ritacco had a tuition-free agreement back in 2008 that allowed a handful of Seaside Park students to attend Toms River schools for free.

"How it was conjured up, you'll have to ask Mike Ritacco," Campbell said.

The details of the agreement have always been murky. Ritacco, who lives in Seaside Park, is now awaiting trial on federal corruption charges. His trial is set to get under way in October.

Seaside Park Business Administrator Robert Martucci could not be reached for comment today. When asked recently who would pay for Seaside Park students to attend Toms River, Martucci declined to discuss who would be picking up the tab.

"Our children will continue to go to Toms River," Martucci said then. "These children will get paid for. These children will have their tuition paid.

Just who will pay for the tuition is a major factor in this complicated case, said Campbell.

"My question is, where is the money coming from?" Campbell said. "It really depends on where the money comes from."

State law allows parents in any school district to opt to send their children to private, parochial or other public schools, as long as the parents pay the tuition,  Campbell said.

But if the parents of the Seaside Park students won't be paying the tuition and the borough is, that changes the picture entirely, Campbell said.

Berkeley Township Council members passed a resolution at the Feb. 22 meeting asking the New Jersey Commissioner of Education to approve a "special circumstances" request made by Central Regional Business Administrator Kevin O'Shea that the nine Seaside Park students currently attending Toms River schools be included in the Oct. 15, 2010, Application for State School Aid (ASSA) count for Central Regional.

Not including the nine students in Central's ASSA count would increase Central Regional's tax levy on the taxpayers of the four other sending towns beginning July 1, Berkeley Township Council President Karen Davis has said.

The Central Regional district has five sending towns — Berkeley Township, Ocean Gate, Island Heights, Seaside Heights and Seaside Park.

Seaside Park has been a sending district of the Central Regional school district since Central Regional was formed back in 1954. Prior to that, Seaside Park students went to Toms River schools. But the Toms River district grew so quickly, there was no longer any room for Seaside Park students, so they ended up going to Central Regional.

Seaside Park paid Central Regional through the "turnstile" method, or per capita, until 1976, just like the other four towns in the district.

But things changed in 1976, after the state Legislature changed the tuition payment method for regional school districts from head counts to a formula based on an individual town's property values.

The tuition payment change was gradually phased in over a five-year period. Seaside Park's property assessments are the highest of the five towns.

Seaside Park later filed suit against Central Regional in 2007, claiming that the tuition method was unconstitutional. But a judge later ruled against Seaside Park and dismissed the case. Thirteen individual Seaside Park residents appealed the ruling in October 2010. The matter is still pending.