Elizabeth Forward School Board Discusses RACP and Development Incentives at Workshop Meeting

The Elizabeth Forward School Board opened its monthly Committee of the Whole meeting Wednesday Feb. 12, 2026 with the superintendent’s report, recognition of several student athletic teams and a presentation from Elizabeth Township Vice President of Commissioners Adam Musisko outlining a potential Phase II Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program proposal.

The meeting also marked the first attended by the board’s new solicitor, Megan Turnbull of Weiss Burkardt Kramer LLC.

Musisko presented estimated costs and projections tied to a possible RACP partnership between the township and the school district. He emphasized that all figures discussed were hypothetical and dependent on a formal agreement between the two entities.

An example projection of $3 million was used during the presentation as a potential baseline cost for a proposed athletic complex. Musisko said that if a RACP grant were secured, the district’s $3 million contribution could potentially be matched, creating a $6 million project without increasing the district’s current financial commitment.

“It is important to bring this up again because, with my math, it’s potentially $3 million to $6 million,” Musisko said. “Everything I say tonight is hypothetical. We do not have a grant. We do not have the money given to us. We have no intention of taking taxpayer dollars and building more fields.”

Musisko addressed what he described as a public misconception stemming from a previous presentation. He said the proposal is not intended to expand athletic facilities but rather to consolidate them.

“There is a serious misconception that ‘Adam Musisko wants to build more fields.’ It’s the opposite. I want to build fewer fields,” he said.

According to Musisko, the district’s planned Phase II project already includes four fields. The township’s proposal would reorganize and centralize facilities into a campus-style complex, reducing the spread of fields throughout the local area.

“This board is already building a Phase II that has these four fields in it,” Musisko said. “If we wanted to build something down in Boston to make it a complex, it’s going to cost us $3 million to do it. We are at zero.”

He added that the township has experienced success in securing grants by applying for more targeted funding opportunities. However, he cautioned that RACP grants must be used strictly for their approved purpose.

“The one I am going to mention tonight is not eligible for sewage or roads. It just doesn’t work that way,” Musisko said. “You have to say what you’re going to use it for. If you pick a solar farm, you’re only building a solar farm. You can’t say, ‘I changed my mind.’”

Musisko reiterated multiple times that the proposal does not involve constructing additional athletic fields beyond what is already included in the district’s Phase II plans. Instead, he said the goal is to prevent further expansion by consolidating facilities into a single complex and expanding the new multipurpose field if grant funding becomes available.

Following the presentation, Vice President Rick Cummings asked whether the proposal would create roadblocks in the construction timeline. Project manager Dave Macioce said changes could affect the timeline for the fields but would not alter the completion schedule for the high school building project, including the addition of an education wing. He emphasized that the proposal would not disrupt students’ education.

The board also discussed the potential for a Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance (LERTA) program in the area, though no formal action was taken. Turnbull explained that LERTA programs are typically initiated by municipalities that designate specific geographic areas for tax incentives.

“It is typically driven initially by municipalities who have looked at different geographic areas and designate different LERTA opportunities,” Turnbull said.

She said the programs are most commonly used for commercial or industrial development but are not necessarily limited to those areas. Municipal authorities generally lead the process, she said, with the county serving as a potential third-party participant.

“LERTAs can be configured in different ways. They can be three years, five years or 10 years,” Turnbull said. “They can be based in real estate taxes on improvements. The land itself — and if you are improving its structure — all of its taxing bodies will continue to generate tax revenue on whatever it is that exists right now.”

She explained that the incentive period would apply to new value added to a property if a developer invests in improvements.

“Taxing bodies want to be really thoughtful about their approach to those programs and making sure that they’re right-sized for your needs,” Turnbull said. “It does make the most sense to have it mirror your municipal partner and the county as well if you can get them onboard.”

Superintendent Konyk concluded his report by informing the public that the district will be sending home information regarding Act 44.

“Act 44 is a new requirement that went into effect in January that requires schools to inform parents anytime there is a weapon found in school, on school property and at school-related events,” Konyk said.

He said he is working with Turnbull to produce documentation outlining the new requirements. Konyk also announced that the district received a $1 million grant from the state Department of Community and Economic Development.

A recording of the meeting will be linked to the online version of this article once it is made publicly available, allowing readers to watch Musisko’s full presentation.

Public comment opened with resident Eric Piper, who thanked the board for its work on the potential LERTA program. He also raised a question regarding experiences he’s heard of senior residents and affording to pay bills.

“One concerned citizen talked about instead of getting his bill in just one lump sum, if he could pay in installments,” Piper said.

Director of Finance Ragan said the district already offers installment payment options. Piper suggested expanding the number of installments, if possible, from the current three to four or six payments.

Board member Megan Ferraro responded by raising concerns about the impact of a residential LERTA program on longtime residents, particularly seniors who have consistently paid taxes in the community.

“To have a group of people or a specific housing plan that’s trying to get launched and telling people coming into the district, but have never lived here before, and to give those people discounts — I feel it’s just hugely disrespectful to the people that have resided here all their life and the people that are buying existing homes and being reassessed by the school district because these are things we have to do. We need these taxes,” Ferraro said.

She added that she would be open to considering a business LERTA but does not support a residential tax abatement.

Piper responded that he understood her concerns but explained that attracting new development could strengthen the district’s tax base over time.

“If you can get those residents in and you can get that assessed value added to your portfolio, that will help you adjust your millage down or keep it at a sustainable level, that you’ll be able to not increase the millage as much in future years and keep those seniors in their houses,” Piper said.

He described the issue as “a double-edged sword,” saying that while there may be upfront concessions, he believes the long-term benefits could outweigh the initial costs.

Commissioner Josh Walls, president of the Elizabeth Township Board of Commissioners, also urged the board to support the proposed LERTA program during public comment.

“Since I have been on our board, we’ve demolished 50 or 60 houses and have more demolished than have been built. We are at a net negative on homes in the township,” Walls said.

“I’m one of those people. I pay my taxes every year, and I’m very happy to do so while supporting this program,” he said. “The reason is because, in my opinion, long term, you’re growing your tax base forever.”

Walls said the township’s solicitor drafted a seven-year LERTA program. After that period, any new development, investment or improvement would be fully taxed.

“After those seven years, any new development, any new investment, any new improvement is taxed 100%, and it’s the school and local municipalities that benefit,” he said.

“Your tax base does not decrease. It improves. There is a temporary period of an abatement,” Walls added. “We’re just hoping to encourage development in our community, and we’d like to have your help to do so. We believe housing and commercial is the way to go.”

Resident John Straub questioned the legality of decisions made by the board regarding the district’s construction project.

“When we get five votes as a board, does that bypass any laws, regulations, rules that we need to follow?” Straub asked.

“This board voted on a contract with our architect that was for $22.5 million,” he said. “The next thing we saw was bids coming back at $74.9 million.”

Straub said that figure did not include architect fees, clerk of works fees and geotechnical fees. “So we’re pushing probably $90 million,” he said.

Konyk disputed that claim.

“The idea that Phase One is $90 million and that those fees are not included is absolutely incorrect,” Konyk said.

Ragan clarified the breakdown.

“Phase One was roughly $75 million, and of that $75 million about $60 million is the contracts,” she said. “There’s a 5% contingency, which is roughly $4 million, and soft costs — which include the architect, all the different engineers, the geotech — are almost $11 million.”

“I just think it’s very important to be clear that it’s not $90 million. That is false information,” Konyk added.

Following public comment, the board reviewed agenda items 5.1 through 5.4, including a tax revenue analysis, a state funding analysis, WAN proposals and a quote for graphic design work in the gymnasium.

Under agenda items 6.1 through 6.12, members discussed educational updates and a collaborative program with the Baldwin-Whitehall School District. Konyk said the districts are working together to create new code for a badge system used in Elizabeth Forward’s kindergarten classrooms. He also emphasized that only code is being shared, and no student data or login credentials are exchanged.

Konyk also clarified the graduation date. While June 11 had previously been discussed, agenda item 6.2 lists graduation — if approved — for Wednesday, June 10, 2026.

With the completion of the new gymnasium, the district anticipates it will no longer need a rain date. The facility can accommodate approximately 1,200 spectators in the stands, allowing a graduating class of about 190 students to invite up to seven guests each if weather is inclement. The date remains contingent on any necessary make-up days due to snow or other cancellations.

Under agenda items 7.1 through 7.3, project manager Macioce and architect McLean provided a construction update. Macioce presented photos showing progress in the auditorium and outlined upcoming work, including swim pool roof work, drywall installation, completion of the gymnasium targeted for March, arrival of weight room flooring on Feb. 20, plumbing installation in the locker rooms and early preparations for Phase II.

The board later reviewed agenda items 11.1 through 12.2 and voted to approve items 13.1 through 13.3. Turnbull stated the board was permitted to do so, having followed all Sunshine Act requirements.