TOMS RIVER – A divided Township Council postponed action on a $9 million bond ordinance after questions arose about the absence of specific projects tied to the proposed financing.
The council voted 4-3 at its August 12 meeting to table the ordinance rather than take a final vote on its adoption. The action leaves the measure pending and allows it to return for consideration at a future meeting.
Councilman Clinton Bradley made the motion to table the ordinance, seconded by Council Vice President Thomas Nivison. Bradley, Nivison, Robert Bianchini and Council President David Ciccozzi supported the motion. Council members Craig Coleman, Harry Aber and Lynne O’Toole opposed tabling it. Although these are all Republicans, they are two different sides of Republicans, and they have been voting along these lines for important issues.
Introduced July 8, the measure is titled: a bond ordinance “providing for paving and various other capital improvements and equipment, appropriating $9,000,000 therefor and authorizing the issuance of $8,550,000 bonds and notes to finance a portion of the costs thereof.” The remaining $450,000 would serve as the township’s down payment, as required under state law.
The ordinance classifies the work as general improvements to be undertaken by the township, with no portion of the cost specially assessed against properties that benefit. It does not identify particular streets, projects or equipment purchases. Section 3 says the improvements “consist of paving and various other capital improvements and equipment,” referring to “contracts, plans, specifications or requisitions therefor on file with or through the Township Clerk, as finally approved by the governing body of the Township.”
Questions Raised About Proposed Spending
The absence of a detailed project list became the central issue during the public hearing. Resident Janet Laing said she went to the Township Clerk’s Office before the meeting seeking the documents referenced in the ordinance but was unable to obtain a breakdown of how the proposed borrowing would be used. She also questioned how the ordinance arrived at an average useful life of 18.333 years for the improvements without identifying the underlying projects or purchases.
An “average useful life” is the length of time an item can be used before maintenance gets too much and it needs to be replaced. It’s a term used a lot when a town is looking to buy something.
“If I were sitting up there, I would never vote to spend $8.55 million on anything I didn’t know was needed,” Laing said.
Township Chief Financial Officer Dorothy Gallagher was called forward to explain the proposed financing.
“There are no specific paving plans. There are no specific plans, and it’s left very broad so that the town can do what is needed,” Gallagher said. “As we go through and projects come up, they will be brought to the council for approval.”
Gallagher also said the proposal was a capital fund ordinance rather than part of the township’s operating budget. Asked what would happen if the full authorization were not used this year, she described it as an allocation that would remain available.
“It’s an open allocation, and a bond ordinance is not like the budget; it doesn’t lapse at year’s end,” Gallagher said. “It stays open until it’s either canceled by a governing body or spent.”
Township Attorney Peter Pascarelli added that adopting the ordinance would not mean the township was immediately borrowing the entire amount or placing $8.55 million into its operating account. Rather, it would establish the township’s authority to borrow for eligible capital needs.
“The town’s not actually, at this point, encumbering $8.5 million of debt,” Pascarelli said. “It’s just giving us the ability to bond.”
Pascarelli said the authorization would enable the township to act more quickly if an unforeseen capital need arose because the process required to authorize bonds takes time. He also emphasized that the ordinance covered more than paving and included other capital improvements.
“I think kind of everyone’s envisioning that the township is going to have $8.5 million in its general operating account,” Pascarelli said. “That’s not what this is.”
Council Majority Wants Projects Identified
Bianchini said he was uncomfortable granting the authorization without knowing what the administration anticipated funding. Although Gallagher and Pascarelli said projects would return to the council for approval, Bianchini said the ordinance would remain open beyond 2026 if the money were not spent or the authorization canceled.
“We’re giving you a blank check for $8.5 million, and then you’re going to come to us and ask us if we want to do it, maybe 2027 or whatever,” Bianchini said. He suggested that the township first identify paving projects, obtain engineering estimates and then return to the council with financing based on the anticipated costs.
“Why don’t we get an RFP (request for proposal) for the paving projects, put the streets together, get an engineer’s estimate, and then we can come back as the council, decide on it and do it that way?” Bianchini asked.
Before casting his vote to table, Ciccozzi said the administration could return to the council when it had a particular project or emergency requiring financing. “They could spell it out in detail from A to Z, ‘this is what we need it for and this is what’s going to happen,’ and then we could vote on it,” Ciccozzi said.
Township Business Administrator Jonathan Salonis disputed the council majority’s understanding of the process after the vote. He told the members they should “read up on the processes by which municipal governments run” and said they were “making stuff up.” The exchange then shifted into a dispute over training completed by council members before Ciccozzi ended the discussion and moved to the next ordinance.
Mayor Criticizes Delay
Mayor Daniel Rodrick, who was not at the meeting, did not respond to inquiries about this particular issue before press time. However, Shore News Network reported that the mayor accused the council majority of playing “reckless political games” and described the measure as a routine annual ordinance intended to provide financing for paving, infrastructure work and public works equipment.
“This is a public safety measure, paving roads, our parks, and repairing and replacing equipment,” Rodrick was quoted as saying. “That’s what they’re voting against? Who does that?”
Rodrick also reportedly warned that the delay could make it more difficult for the township to respond when equipment breaks down or winter weather creates an unexpected need for road salt or other materials. Gallagher and Pascarelli similarly said the broader authorization was intended to give the township flexibility to address capital needs as they arose.
The dispute centered on when the council should authorize the financing. Administration officials maintained that adopting the ordinance in advance would allow the township to respond more efficiently to future needs, while the four members who supported tabling it said they wanted more information about the anticipated uses before granting that authority.
No date was announced for the ordinance to return to the agenda. Because it was tabled rather than defeated, the council may resume consideration at a future meeting.
