Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Toms River council advances multiple first-readings, faces heated debate over MUA dissolution
Summary
At its Jan. 10 meeting, the Toms River Township Council held first readings on several ordinances — including a soccer-field lease, speed limit changes and a proposed dissolution of the Municipal Utilities Authority — triggering heated public and council exchanges over alleged patronage and fiscal impacts.
Toms River Township Council on Jan. 10 held first readings on a slate of ordinances and recorded several roll-call motions while a contentious debate unfolded over whether to dissolve the township’s Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA).
The council approved first readings for a 10-year lease (with a possible 10-year renewal) with the Toms River Soccer Association for township land at Block 298, Lot 5, and for a reduction in the speed limit on Adams Avenue Zone 2 from 30 to 25 miles per hour between Vaughn Avenue and Bowie Place. Council members said the Adams Avenue change was prompted by a history of collisions and a desire to improve pedestrian safety; Council President Lamb said additional traffic-control devices will likely be needed.
Several administrative and personnel-related ordinances also advanced as first readings, including revisions to claims approval procedures, agenda processes, limits on deputy municipal clerks, a new title and salary-range adjustments for confidential employees, and a proposal to create a wastewater collection services utility.
Item 16, a first reading to dissolve the Toms River Township Municipal Utilities Authority under state statute, prompted the meeting’s most heated exchanges. A speaker from the public called the MUA a “patronage pit” and criticized alleged insurance and contracting costs, saying that dissolution could save taxpayers money. In turn, council members asked for details on liabilities and procedural steps. One council member raised questions about outstanding tax liens and judgments tied to a separate property acquisition and abstained on that item pending more information.
Council President Lamb repeatedly said he opposed several governance changes while he prepares to leave office in seven weeks, arguing that proposals altering advice-and-consent and appointing authority require fuller deliberation. Several votes recorded mixed results (yes, no and abstentions) on personnel- and governance-related first readings; where roll-call results were recorded, the council proceeded with first readings rather than final enactment.
No final ordinance adoptions occurred at the meeting; the matters that had only a first reading will return for subsequent hearings before any final approvals. Several council members and members of the public said they expect additional information or negotiation before final votes. The council also directed follow-up on questions about liens and the contractual approach to property acquisition discussed during the meeting.
The council moved the consent agenda with roll calls on items j, k, u and y; some members abstained from votes on specific bills citing conflicts of interest. Several speakers in the gallery sharply criticized the council’s handling of authorities and appointments before public comment moved on to other agenda items.
The council is expected to revisit the first-reading ordinances, including the MUA dissolution measure, at future meetings once additional information and procedural steps are completed.
