Let’s start simple: if a New Jersey town wants to lease public land, it’s supposed to pass an ordinance.

Ordinances take time—public notice, two readings, a hearing—and they give residents the right to petition for a referendum.

A resolution is quick, one-meeting business. No hearing. No referendum. That difference matters.

What the Township did

Back in March, the Township passed what it publicly called a lease agreement with the Board of Education—right down to using “lease agreement” on the ballot. Only when the legality of approving it by resolution was challenged did the language pivot to “shared services.” Laura broke down the shared services argument in her last article on this. Meanwhile, the actual lease document—which didn’t even include the turf field people thought they were getting—only surfaced right before the BOE meeting.

Why that’s a big deal

By using a resolution instead of an ordinance, the Township shut the door on residents’ referendum rights and skipped the slower, more transparent process that comes with leases.

This isn’t a word game; it’s about public power and due process.

Board member Natasha Joly said out loud what many were thinking:

“Is the lease agreement that was entered to in March a lease or something else ‘stylized’ as a lease? And if it is a lease, what are the applicable regulations? … An actual lease for a 25-year term was required … Not something ‘stylized’ as a lease.”

“Ask our lawyer” loop

Our questions were to the folks who actually voted for this — the people who went door to door asking you to vote for them and trying to convince you why they were the right choice for office.

Yet the only individual who wrote more than a sentence was the Town’s attorney. We presented his position in the last article (courts care about substance, not labels, the deal functions as shared services, Council could “cure” any defect later by re-ratifying).

That response dodges the core problem — process.

Residents were sold a “lease,” and asked to vote on a non-binding ballot before the details were public, and then the Council approved it by resolution. When we asked the electeds to explain, they pointed back to counsel — or stayed quiet — while the attorney took over the discussion.

The attorney doesn’t cast votes.

The Council does.

Back to the Sequence

• Early, non-binding ballot — before full details were released.
• Public messaging pushed the “lease” hard.
• The actual lease appears without the turf field just before the BOE meeting.
• Council approves it by resolution.
• After we question legality, the framing shifts to “shared services.”

If this ever goes to court, it sets up the “we already had a referendum.” argument. What won’t be mentioned: voters lacked the information an ordinance process would have forced into daylight.

With flooding issues blowing up all over town and given where this turf is going to land, neighbors should be looking closely at their options.

Until the Council explains — on the record — why it didn’t use an ordinance and how residents’ rights were preserved, skepticism is more than fair. It’s responsible.

One More Thing…Why So Quiet?

It wasn’t long ago that officials were aggressively pushing this deal. They even barred GL students from using the courts to create urgency and forced the issue into the BOE budget meeting.

Now, all that momentum has vanished.

At the last meeting, the Mayor and Council weren’t able to answer basic questions or provide any update about the project.

The Recreation Department hasn’t said a word since its last presentation — and you’d need an archaeologist to even find that one. I emailed them for an update two days ago. Still no response.

BOE Members have no issue responding to questions on this matter. In addition to Joly, we heard back from Foregger and Dillon. The former stating he believed it was a lease and the latter pointing back to the agenda where it says “Lease Agreement”

Start Showing Up, Maybe?

As we saw here and with the 3.5 million dollar bond process, important decisions are often wrapped in noise and theatre- yet when you peel back the photographs and multi-paragraph press releases you find blocked access to meetings, 11th hour releases of important information and a lot of money being spent in very questionable ways.

By the way – that 3.5 million dollar bond that the township promises to use wisely that you now need to pay for – does it even mention the 07/14/2025 flood event as a criteria for repairs? Why not?

Maybe for the same reasons the word “turf field” isn’t anywhere on the lease agreement.

I would much rather that my money go to meeting real needs for families struggling in our community or in other communities -a turf field or less than perfect driveways on a dead end street is not what I wake up worried about.

If you think these decisions with your money are a better investment, then by all means write the Mayor and Council a thank you note.

If you think locking kids out of tennis courts, blocked zoom Access and 11th hour document reveals are a sign of competent government, then you have nothing more you need to do.

If you think a reasonable response to every question is “nothing nefarious is going on” or endless word games then you found your home sweet home in Berkeley Heights.

But if you think there is something wrong with all of this – if you think your local government ought to look different and something with what is going on does not feel right -it might be time to get involved.

If you think we should be doing a better job at meeting real needs, then it might be time to stop relying on nameless press releases and start showing up.

Updated Email Chain

As a non-commercial and ad-free, free platform, we rely on you to help us grow. If you value independent coverage of local government, please consider helping us out.

Read More About the CMS Lease Agreement

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free

Our Commitment to Ethical Journalism