Emergency Funding Request Tabled As Toms River Council Questions Go Unanswered

TOMS RIVER, NJ — The power struggle that defines Toms River Township in 2026 continued Tuesday night as the Township Council rejected a request for emergency funding to pay a court settlement and tax appeals.

The council tabled a resolution on Tuesday that would have paid out $250,000 for what council members said was an unspecified settlement along with $1.4 million in tax appeal refunds after they couldn't get an answer from the township's chief financial officer on why the emergency funding was needed.

"I'm sorry Council, I'm not authorized to answer any questions," Dorothy S. Gallagher, Toms River's chief financial officer, said in response to questions from the Township Council about the resolution on the matter.

The resolution title in the agenda published on the township website gave no details: "RESOLUTION Of The Township Council Of The Township Of Toms River, Ocean County, New Jersey, Authorizating An Emergency Appropriation Required To Fund Tax Appeal Refunds In Accordance With N.J.S.A. 40A:4-48 -Tax Appeal Refunds And To Fund A Settlement".

The full resolution was not available to the public Tuesday night, but Councilman Robert Bianchini read the amounts out loud from the copy of the resolution distributed to the council. It apparently did not specify who was receiving the settlement.

The bill list for the Nov. 10 meeting that the council needed to approve included a $250,000 settlement to Ashland Construction.

Court records show Ashland filed a lawsuit in June against Toms River over the township's bidding requirements — specifically issues with the project labor agreement portion of the bid specifications — in connection with the town's plans to pave multiple streets.

That information was not provided to the council on Tuesday night, however. By that point in the meeting Mayor Daniel Rodrick and business administrator Jonathan Salonis were no longer present, as they had left after presenting resolutions to student essay winners and the Veterans Day parade grand marshal.

It was the second time Gallagher told the council she could not answer their questions.

As the council first began discussing the resolution, Council Vice President Tom Nivison asked Gallagher how much money the town has in its surplus.

"I'm not authorized to answer any questions," Gallagher said. Her response drew gasps from the audience, and Nivison replied, "Then why are you here?"

A minute later he asked Gallagher, "Who's getting the settlement?" and she replied again that she wasn't authorized to answer.

"Since we can't get any answers, I make a motion to table this," Nivison said. "We have all this money in surplus. Why does he need extra money to pay these bills?"

There have been questions raised about the township's surplus funds and how much was being used to fund the township's budget. According to the 2026 adopted budget on the township's website, the township had a surplus of more than $64 million as of Dec. 31, 2025, and was using $17 million in the 2026 budget.

As the council moved to table the vote on the resolution, Gallagher said she had received a text message giving her permission to answer.

"It's too late," Council President David Ciccozzi said, and moved forward with the vote to table it.

Battle over money

It is not the first time the council majority has pushed back on spending requests from Rodrick. In August, the council majority — Ciccozzi, Nivison, Bianchini and Clinton Bradley — voted to reject an $8.55 million bond ordinance that Rodrick had sought because the bond ordinance did not have specifics on what the bonds were to pay for.

At the time, Ciccozzi objected to the ordinance, calling it a "blank check" for $8 million to be spent in five months. Gallagher insisted the bond ordinance was needed to avoid delays in funding projects down the line.

At the time Gallagher promised the council it would be given specifics on projects for the council to then decide, but the council majority refused to allow the bond ordinance to move forward. (You can watch the exchange on the council's YouTube channel, about 25 minutes into the recording.)

Livestream pre-empted again

Tuesday night's meeting also continued the fight over the livestream of the council meetings. For the second straight meeting, Rodrick pre-empted the livestream to put out a message. This time, Rodrick's pre-recorded statement addressed the ongoing fight over Toms River's affordable housing plan.

In his statement, Rodrick says the council's refusal to approve his plans to meet the affordable housing mandate are risking opening Toms River up to the potential for 8,000 apartments to satisfy the state's original demand for more than 1,000 units of affordable housing. He also alleges the council is dragging its feet to allow the return of the Meridia 40 project downtown that first was proposed as two 10-story towers but later shortened to six stories.

"I believe they are deliberately trying to force them on us, along with thousands of other units to benefit their developer friends," Rodrick said.

Stopping the Meridia 40 project was a key issue that Rodrick campaigned on and that won him the primary against former mayor Maurice Hill. The towers project was halted in the summer of 2024, and the redevelopment plan for downtown Toms River was scrapped. In addition, Toms River turned away $5 million in funding that was earmarked for reconstructing the roads downtown to address persistent flooding that happens during heavy rains and storms.

Capodagli Property Group, the developer, has since sued Toms River over the cancellation of the Meridia 40 project and the repealing of the downtown redevelopment plan. In February Superior Court Judge Sean D. Gertner — the judge who is supervising the affordable housing plan negotiations — struck down the ordinance that repealed it.

Capodagli is one of the developers that filed a challenge to the affordable housing plan in August 2025 when Toms River first presented its plans to the state to meet the affordable housing obligations spelled out by the Department of Community Affairs.

Members of the council majority have criticized a portion of Rodrick's plan that would have taken 10 acres of property that Toms River purchased in 2016 for open space (though the town did not put it on its open space inventory at the time) and sold it at a minimal cost in exchange for 100 percent affordable housing on the property, which sits along Route 9.

Ciccozzi in particular has said his objection to that plan is that it allows a private developer to then build out on property they own separately, contributing to the overdevelopment that has been decried by residents and town officials alike for more than 10 years, because two parcels (or more) would be built on instead of one.

The last two council meetings had been very heated. After a clip of comments Rodrick made telling resident Dana Tormollan to "get a job" at the Oct. 19 council meeting reached national media outlets, the council majority approved a "no confidence" resolution at the Oct. 28 meeting and censured Rodrick for the comments.

Both meetings were the first ones where public comment was included in the livestream after Superior Court Judge ruled in early October that Rodrick could no longer stop the livestream when public comment began. Rodrick, through township attorney Jonathan Penney, has appealed that ruling. But both meetings were filled with heated exchanges between Rodrick and the council and Rodrick and residents. Penney, too, had heated exchanges with the council, and with residents.

After Rodrick's pre-recorded message played, the council meeting got underway with the honoring of the students and the Veterans Day parade grand marshal, but immediately after those honors, Rodrick and Salonis left.

Penney stayed through the business portion, attempting to comment once or twice but his attempts were rejected by Ciccozzi. Penney left the meeting shortly after public comment began.