Middletown BOE rejects LRFP major amendment after 5–4 vote; reconsideration attempt collapses in late procedural dispute

The Middletown Township Board of Education voted 5–4 Tuesday, April 28, against approving a “Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) Major Amendment Update,” then spent the end of the meeting arguing over whether — and how — that vote could be reconsidered.

In the end, the board president said the reconsideration would be withdrawn and that the original 5–4 rejection would stand.

On April 29, district leaders sent a post-meeting letter to the community — signed by Jessica Alfone and Chris Aveta — stating that, as a result of the board’s failure to adopt the LRFP, the district is now recommending holding off on the planned school closures and consolidations for the 2026–2027 school year.

---

District letter: leadership now recommends holding off on 2026–2027 closures

In the April 29 letter, Alfone and Aveta tied the board’s LRFP action to the district’s ability to carry out the closure timeline.

“As a direct result of the Board’s failure to adopt the Long-Range Facilities Plan at last night’s meeting, we simply do not have enough time to properly plan and effectuate the school closings for the 2026-2027 school year. We are recommending that the Middletown Township School District not implement the planned school closings and consolidations scheduled for the 2026-2027 school year.”

The letter followed a meeting in which administrators and speakers repeatedly discussed the LRFP amendment as part of the submission process connected to the district’s broader facilities and reorganization plans.

What an LRFP amendment is — and what speakers said it would affect

An LRFP is the district’s long-range facilities document — essentially an inventory and capacity plan showing how school buildings are used and how many students can be housed under state formulas. On the April 28 agenda, the item appeared under the Business Office consent agenda as “Long Range Facilities Plan Amendment,” with the recommended action: “Approve LRFP Major Amendment Update.”¹

During the meeting, administrators described the LRFP amendment as a document they wanted approved so it could be submitted for review. In the public discussion, one administrator said: “The amendment to the long-range facilities is on the agenda tonight for approval by the board so that way that amendment can be submitted to the state.”²

Multiple speakers and board members linked the LRFP vote to the district’s closure and consolidation plans — but the record of the meeting reflects disagreement about how “dependent” the processes are.

• During the budget portion, one board member asked whether “this vote tonight does not affect the school closures,” and an administrator responded that the budget resolution and a closure resolution were “two separate situations,” adding that the savings in the budget were “predicated on school closures,” and that the two matters were “attached … but not dependent.”³
• Later, during the LRFP discussion, a board member described the approvals process as “two-pronged,” saying the district needs a recommendation from the Executive County Superintendent before an application to the state’s Division of Finance and Administration can be made.⁴ (The district’s agenda materials provided to Public Record NJ did not include state or county guidance documents spelling out the required steps.)

The concerns raised about capacity assumptions and missing details

The LRFP consent item drew extended public comment focused on the plan’s assumptions and the level of detail provided.

Residents and some board members questioned the underlying capacity calculations — including the use of 25 students per classroom — and argued that the plan did not reflect what one speaker called “the art of the programming,” meaning the scheduling and program needs (including special education and support services) that can complicate classroom-by-classroom capacity claims.⁵

During the facilities discussion, speakers pressed for details they said were missing, including:

• cost estimates for projects referenced in the LRFP
• transportation impacts and safety considerations
• what would happen to buildings discussed in connection with closures

One speaker told the board it had “made major facility decisions first and [was] working to align your compliance next.”⁶

Administrators and the district’s consultant/architect referenced state formulas and said the capacity calculations are “formulaic,” with classroom size assumptions tied to square footage and other factors.⁷

The LRFP vote and reconsideration dispute — a step-by-step chronology

Based on the agenda packet and the meeting transcript excerpts reviewed by Public Record NJ, the LRFP item proceeded as follows:

1. Agenda placement: The LRFP action appeared on the April 28 agenda as item “E. Long Range Facilities Plan Amendment” within the Business Office consent agenda, with recommended action “Approve LRFP Major Amendment Update.”¹
2. Initial roll-call vote on the LRFP amendment: The board voted 5–4 against approving the LRFP major amendment update. (The available excerpted records reviewed do not include a complete board clerk roll call listing every member’s vote from this first LRFP vote.)
3. Late motion to reconsider: Near the end of the meeting, members discussed making a motion to reconsider the LRFP vote. In the discussion, one speaker said only members who voted “no” could make the motion to reconsider, and a board member then asked whether anyone “in the majority on the LRFP” wanted to reconsider.⁸
4. Reconsideration vote and renewed dispute: The transcript reflects that the board treated the matter as being back on the agenda for a new vote and proceeded to another roll call on the LRFP item, but the excerpt provided is incomplete and cuts off before the full tally is clear.⁹
5. End-of-meeting outcome announced: The board president ultimately announced that the reconsideration would be withdrawn and that the original 5–4 rejection would stand.

What the procedural disagreement was about

The late-night procedural fight centered on whether motions could be made — and votes reopened — after certain parts of the agenda and public-comment periods had already concluded, and whether the public was entitled to another opportunity to comment if the board effectively took up the LRFP question again.

In one exchange, a board member argued that “no motions [are] allowed after new business” under Robert’s Rules, while another participant argued that certain actions could proceed because of the way the chair had handled other motions earlier in the meeting.¹⁰

About the “meeting summary” referenced in the earlier draft

A separate, unofficial “meeting summary” document provided in the records reviewed by Public Record NJ described the reconsideration as initially passing and stated that board member Caterina Skalaski changed her vote during the reconsideration sequence. However, the excerpted official agenda packet and transcript segments provided do not include a complete, official roll call sufficient to independently verify each individual vote in the reconsideration sequence.

What this meant for school-closure timelines — as described at the meeting

Several speakers framed the LRFP amendment as a prerequisite for county and state review of a closure plan. In one exchange, a board member said: “So we can’t submit the long range facilities plan as amendment to the Executive County Superintendent for approval,” adding that the timeline was “thrown off” without the vote.¹¹

Another speaker said that “in absence of the long range facilities plan being approved, there is no chance that the county will approve the school closure plan,” while also raising concerns about staffing decisions being made within days.¹²

Separately, administrators said staffing assignments connected to consolidation planning would be communicated to affected staff within days, while noting that many assignments were “caveated” as subject to change.¹³

Budget adopted; administrators cited 3.07% tax levy increase and health benefits adjustment

The same meeting included adoption of the district’s final 2026–2027 budget.

In the budget presentation, an administrator said the district’s tax levy increase was 3.07% and “includes the use of” a health insurance adjustment.¹⁴ The budget resolution in the agenda packet states the district “includes in the final budget the adjustment for increased costs of health benefits in the amount of $1,892,995,” and includes “$500,000 for deposit” into the district’s capital reserve account.¹⁵

The public record also reflects debate over whether school-closure savings were necessary to balance the budget. During the meeting, an administrator described the budget as “balanced” in the sense that revenues and expenditures match, but said that removing consolidation-related reductions would require identifying other cuts or revenues.¹⁶

The agenda packet shows the district’s total projected 2026–2027 general fund budget at $201,445,922.¹⁷

Attorney cautioned against detailed closure discussion; litigation not specified in public remarks

Board attorney Michael Burns warned board members against discussing closures in detail, citing “active litigation.”

“I would again remind the board on the advice of both myself and litigation counsel to really refrain from comments with respect to school closures as there is active litigation in anything that this board may say may negatively impact that litigation.”¹⁸

Burns did not identify the case by name or describe the subject of the litigation in the excerpts reviewed.

Other actions: interim superintendent appointment

The board also approved a resolution appointing Kevin Cullen as Acting/Interim Superintendent effective July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027 (or until a permanent superintendent is appointed), at $120 per diem “in addition to Mr. Cullen’s current salary,” conditioned on outside approval as stated in the resolution.¹⁹

What happens next

The next regular board meeting is scheduled for May 13.²⁰ During the April 28 meeting, board members and speakers repeatedly referenced May 13 as the next opportunity for board action — including as it relates to the LRFP amendment and the district’s stated submission timeline.²¹

The records reviewed for this story did not include approved minutes for the April 28 meeting documenting the final disposition of the reconsideration sequence.

Notes

1. Middletown Township Public Schools Board of Education, “Board of Education Voting Meeting — April 28, 2026” agenda packet, item 11(E) “Long Range Facilities Plan Amendment” (LRFP Major Amendment Update).
2. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, remarks describing submission of LRFP amendment for state review.
3. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, exchange distinguishing budget vote from closure resolution.
4. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, remarks describing county superintendent recommendation and state Division of Finance and Administration review.
5. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, public comment describing 25-student assumption and “art of the programming.”
6. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, public comment describing “align your compliance next.”
7. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, exchange describing class-size/capacity calculation as “formulaic.”
8. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, late-meeting discussion about who may move reconsideration.
9. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, excerpted late-meeting roll call on the LRFP item (excerpt incomplete).
10. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, Robert’s Rules dispute over motions after new business/public comment.
11. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, exchange referencing submission to the Executive County Superintendent.
12. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, public comment about staffing timeline and county approval.
13. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, administrators describing Thursday staffing assignment conversations.
14. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, budget presentation stating 3.07% tax levy increase and health insurance adjustment.
15. Middletown Township Public Schools Board of Education, “Board of Education Voting Meeting — April 28, 2026” agenda packet, final budget resolution text referencing $1,892,995 health benefits adjustment and $500,000 capital reserve deposit.
16. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, explanation of “balanced” budget and impact of removing consolidation reductions.
17. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, budget presentation stating the total projected 2026–2027 general fund budget of $201,445,922.
18. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, remarks by board attorney Michael Burns regarding “active litigation.”
19. Middletown Township Public Schools Board of Education, “Board of Education Voting Meeting — April 28, 2026” agenda packet, item 10(A) “Appointment of Acting/Interim Superintendent.”
20. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, references to the next board meeting date of May 13.
21. Middletown Township Public Schools BOE meeting transcript, April 28, 2026, discussion about whether LRFP action could occur at the May 13 meeting and related timing.