Toms River council approves county shared‑services agreement to operate animal shelter amid petition dispute

TOMS RIVER, N.J. — The Toms River Township Council on July 24 approved a shared‑services agreement with Ocean County for operation of the township animal shelter and advanced a related ordinance on first reading, drawing criticism from residents who insisted a citizen petition required the matter to go to referendum.

Councilman Lamb moved to approve the resolution authorizing a shared‑services agreement with the Ocean County Board of Health; Council Vice President O'Toole seconded the motion and the measure passed 4–3. The council then advanced an ordinance on first reading to repeal prior lease‑authorizing provisions and authorize a lease under NJSA 48:12‑14b, with the same split of votes.

Opponents at the meeting and several public commenters said a petition to repeal the shelter lease — certified by the former clerk and bearing more than 3,000 signatures — triggered statutory timing that would have placed the issue before voters. “Passing a repeal at this point in time, you missed the deadline,” a petitioner told the council during public comment, citing statutory timelines for referendum petitions. The petitioners said the petition should have forced a public vote rather than the council moving forward with county management.

Mayor Dan Roderick said the council had repealed the lease and is now turning operation over to Ocean County so the shelter would remain open under county management. The mayor described contractual defaults by a downtown developer in a separate exchange about redevelopment but told residents the county would run the animal shelter “for free,” adding the action was intended to ensure animals continued to be cared for while renovations and administration were resolved.

At the meeting several residents and an outside operator (Brian of B2 Consulting Group) urged the council to consider alternative operators that, they said, would provide low‑cost vaccine clinics, spay/neuter programs and community cat programs without additional cost to the township. Brian also cited state statute provisions on appointment and authority for animal control officers and said he would forward supporting police reports and invoices to the council.

Council members opposing the measures raised procedural and legal concerns; one argued the council was “putting the horse before the cart” by approving the shared‑services step before resolving the repeal/referendum question. Supporters said the resolution to authorize the county agreement and the ordinance repeal were legally distinct actions and were necessary to keep the shelter open and resolve operational problems.

The council’s formal action on the resolution and the ordinance reflects the recorded votes taken in the meeting; the township clerk will publish the ordinance for subsequent readings as required by local law. Petitioners and other residents signaled they will pursue follow‑up questions with township counsel and, if needed, legal remedies.

What happens next: The ordinance is at first reading and the shared‑services agreement with Ocean County will be finalized and implemented according to the terms approved; petitioners say they will press for the referendum or further legal review.