Woodbridge council opens hearing on ordinance to dissolve Kaysby Fire District No. 4; residents and firefighters push back

The Woodbridge Township Council opened a public hearing after an administration presentation based on a Department of Community Affairs assessment that offered two paths for Kaysby Fire District No. 4: hire additional career personnel and create formal recruitment/retention plans, or dissolve and transfer services into Fire District No. 7.

The presenter, a consultant engaged by the township public safety committee, told the council the assessment found declining volunteer ranks, an overreliance on shared services and overtime staffing, no permanent supervisors in career staffing, and gaps in formal strategic planning. The presenter said the department’s weekend staffing historically relied on volunteers supplemented by short-term shared-service agreements, and that in-district responses had fallen to roughly 10–12 per month. The report referenced industry standards — including NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720 — and warned of potential deployment-act compliance issues; it recommended consolidation as a long-term option while noting hiring more career staff would raise taxes and operating costs.

Why it matters: the ordinance under consideration would dissolve Kaysby (Fire District No. 4) and expand Fire District No. 7 to provide protection in that area. That change could affect the volunteer Kaysby Fire Company, staff employment arrangements and the local tax base, and it could open eligibility for grant programs such as LEAP through the Department of Community Affairs.

The hearing drew strong opposition from people who said they were not consulted and who disputed the report’s conclusions. Howard Pashman, an attorney representing Fire District No. 4, said he had submitted a written letter for the record and told the council, “Much of what you just heard is not factually accurate.” He criticized the pace of the council’s action, saying the township never discussed the alternative of phased operational reforms with the district and that the council appeared to be moving quickly after the DCA report’s release on 06/24/2026.

John Manna, chief of the Kaysby Fire Department, said the ordinance would effectively end the volunteer company that has served the community for more than a century. “We urge the town council to reconsider this measure,” Manna said, adding that volunteers and career staff have been integrated through joint training and mutual aid. He and others said the mayor’s outreach letter and the presentation contained inaccuracies; the chief asked the council to include the fire company in further discussions.

Representing career firefighters, David Hines, president of IFF local 2 90, said the union supports reforms focused on operational evidence and safety but insisted that any consolidation must include legally enforceable protections for firefighters, including no layoffs, preservation of seniority and continuation of existing collective-bargaining terms. “Public safety must always come first,” Hines said, urging transparent, enforceable transition protections rather than promises of projected savings alone.

Robert Powell, a Kaysby fire commissioner, told the council that an ISO inspection conducted by a senior field specialist found the district in full compliance on manpower, apparatus and equipment; he said a Middlesex Water Company report on water-main sizes and pressure testing was pending and could take two to three months.

A data analyst in the audience, Iren Say Ortega, asked the administration and presenters for the underlying numerical analysis and benchmarks that led to the consultant’s conclusions. “I see the output of the analysis, but I’m not seeing the analysis itself,” Ortega said, asking for numbers the public can evaluate against other firehouses.

The administration acknowledged receipt of the law firm’s letter and said it would confer with state officers and respond through the township attorney. Council members voted to open the public hearing, heard public comment, closed the public-comment portion and then voted to continue the meeting until Aug. 12, 2026, at 6 p.m. No final vote was taken on the ordinance at this session.

The council’s next procedural step is the continued meeting on 08/12/2026, when council members indicated they will reconvene to consider the ordinance and any administrative responses submitted in the interim.