Toms River council repeals shelter lease after heated public comment; legal fight and reopening timeline remain unclear

TOMS RIVER — The Toms River Township Council on Aug. 29 voted to repeal an ordinance authorizing a lease of municipal property to the Ocean County Board of Health for the township animal shelter, a move that drew sustained public comment, accusations of procedural missteps and warnings of pending litigation.

Mayor Roderick told residents the repeal implements what petitioners asked for and said a shared-services agreement with Ocean County — previously approved by the council — remains in place to allow the county to operate the shelter. “We voted on a shared services agreement and approved it at the last council meeting,” the mayor said, adding, “We’re repealing the lease.”

Why it matters: The repeal comes after residents and volunteers told the council the shelter has been closed since June and warned of diminished animal-control staffing, delayed response times and animals driven to other county facilities. Speakers said those changes have public-safety implications and that a certified petition opposing the lease had gathered thousands of signatures.

During public comment, resident Julie Adamek told the council that “the certified animal shelter petition had 4,000 plus signatures that have been ignored by the mayor” and described a drop in municipal animal-control officers from four to one, which she said forced police to handle more animal calls. Phil Brilliant, a resident who identified himself as a petitioner, said he had filed a lawsuit and argued the petition process under state law required a referendum after certification; he warned a court could deem the council’s action invalid.

Council debate centered on competing priorities. Supporters of repeal framed the vote as complying with the petition and said handing operations to the county would save the township money and address long‑standing facility issues such as mold and lack of on‑site veterinary services. Opponents and some residents said the problem was not the lease but the shelter remaining closed and urged reopening under township management or at least clarity on the county’s timeline for upgrades and staffing.

Action taken: The motion to repeal the lease was made by Councilman Lamb and seconded by Council Vice President O’Toole. Several council members publicly stated their vote on the record; one council member said they would abstain because they lacked full information. The council president announced the meeting would move on to the consent agenda after the vote. (See Actions section for the motion text, mover/second and recorded positions.)

Legal and next steps: Multiple speakers urged the council to heed pending court filings. Phil Brilliant said he would proceed to a court hearing scheduled the following Friday and expects to argue that the petition’s referendum requirement was not honored. Another speaker, representing a consulting group, said the township currently has an active lawsuit that may bear on the ordinance and suggested the council consider tabling the vote pending litigation.

What residents want: Volunteers and local nonprofit representatives urged transparency about where donated funds and the township’s resources would be used, asked whether county-run operations would prioritize Toms River animals, and sought clear timelines for reopening and rehiring shelter staff. One resident warned that transferring the facility without guarantees could leave Toms River taxpayers paying for facility upgrades while county residents would primarily benefit.

What the council said it will do: Officials urged patience while court processes and the shared-services agreement play out, and several council members asked the administration to invite county representatives to a future meeting to present a concrete timeline for renovations, staffing and when the facility might reopen to accept animals.

The immediate procedural outcome is that the lease ordinance was repealed; the legal contest and the operational logistics for reopening the shelter remain unresolved. Council members and multiple residents said they expect litigation and follow‑up briefings; the council did not set a reopened‑shelter date at the meeting.

Ending: The council moved on to its consent agenda after the repeal vote. The petitioners’ lawsuit and county plans for the facility are expected to determine how quickly the shelter can again accept animals.