Bergen TV Exclusive:GARFIELD, N.J. — The Garfield Mayor and Council voted 5-0 on Tuesday, Oct. 27, to table Ordinance 3165, the license-plate reader law that would let city police put plate-reader cameras on private homes and businesses, just before its scheduled final vote. The same night, the council approved the $833,625 citywide reassessment appropriation it had to vote on a second time.
Deputy Mayor Kevin Kane Jr. moved to table the ordinance before the public hearing opened. He said the council wrote it to stop private companies from installing cameras on city poles, “and I already saw news articles where they’re saying we’re doing something wrong and police are putting things on private property.” He said “some of the wording needs to just be adjusted” (meeting video, 6:30–7:45). Mayor Everett E. Garnto Jr. seconded.
Bergen TV first reported on Oct. 19 that Section 5 of the ordinance allows the police department to place plate readers on private property by agreement with an owner, who then could not move, disable or remove the camera without written police permission. In written answers to Bergen TV on Oct. 20, Police Chief Joseph Delaney said the department already runs 26 plate readers (23 fixed and three roving, supplied by Packetalk), has none on private property, and has no model agreement or removal process for property owners.
Graphic: Bergen TV. Sources: City of Garfield Oct. 27, 2026 revised agenda and meeting video; Garfield PD Oct. 20 response; 2025 Annual Financial Statement. Background photo: Garfield City Hall — Mr. Matté / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.
Reassessment and audit pass without debate
The reassessment appropriation, renumbered R-525-26 on a revised agenda the city posted Tuesday night, passed on the consent agenda with no discussion. No member voiced a no vote on it. It spreads the cost of the Appraisal Systems Inc. contract over five years: $166,725 a year in the 2027 through 2031 budgets, outside the state budget cap. Bergen TV’s estimate, based on the city’s 2025 net taxable valuation of $2,162,427,800, is about $7.71 a year for every $100,000 of assessed value. As Bergen TV reported Tuesday morning, the vote was a do-over after the city auditor gave the council an “additional explanation.”
The council also approved the 2025 audit (R-522-26) and its corrective action plan. As of Wednesday morning, the city’s budgets and audits page still listed audits only through 2024.
A resolution asking members whether to keep pursuing two lots between Ray Street and Garwood Court East, appraised at $750,000, failed 2-3. Councilmen Richard Rigoglioso and Joseph Delaney and Deputy Mayor Tana Raymond voted no. Raymond cited a $9,000 legal bill already received from the planning attorney. Garnto, who brought the item back after a Sept. 22 defeat, said bonding $700,000 over 15 years at 4.5% would cost $976,975, or $8 to $9 a year on a home assessed at $284,000 (1:00:30–1:02:30). Bergen TV checked his math and got about $8.55.
The council adopted the $730,000 water-utility bond (Ord. 3166) for carbon filters, tank repairs and an inspection camera, and repealed the metered-parking law (Ord. 3168). It again voted down Passaic Valley Water Commission billing payments on the bills list.
Video: City of Garfield (motion to table Ordinance 3165, 6:30–7:50).
Bergen TV Exclusive:HACKENSACK, N.J. — An 8-page internal complaint spreadsheet released by the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (BCPO) under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) reveals that 49 unique defendants were charged across 139 indictable-case charge rows in 27 Bergen County municipalities and courts between Oct. 12 and Oct. 18, 2026—and 47 of the 49 defendants (95.9%) were never mentioned in any Prosecutor’s Office press release.
The unannounced cases on BCPO’s internal PROMIS/Gavel log include a 13-count Tenafly money laundering and forgery complaint, a 7-count Mahwah computer crime and data-disruption case, a Fort Lee extortion-by-threat and burglary warrant, a 6-count Garfield child-custody interference and assault-on-police warrant, a Hackensack drug distribution probe involving 100 or more doses of prescription legend drugs and heroin/cocaine near public property, a Ramsey unlawful handgun and large-capacity magazine case, and an Edgewater aggravated assault on police and motor-vehicle eluding case.
A criminal complaint is merely an accusation. Every defendant listed in public court and prosecutorial records is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
How BCPO Disclosed the 8-Page Internal PROMIS/Gavel Spreadsheet at $0 Fee
On Oct. 19, 2026, Bergen TV filed an OPRA request with the Prosecutor’s Office seeking any existing weekly report, intake log, or case-management export listing indictable criminal complaints (complaint-warrants and complaint-summonses) filed, received, or screened in Bergen County between Oct. 12 and Oct. 18, 2026, along with public arrest information under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(b).
In an Oct. 26, 2026 response letter (Ref. 10-19-26) signed by BCPO Assistant Records Custodian Maria Fagliarone under Prosecutor Mark Musella’s letterhead, the office stated that it did not possess the weekly arrest report maintained by the Administrative Office of the Courts, citing Williams v. Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office (GRC Complaint No. 2014-297). However, Fagliarone wrote that BCPO “do(es) possess an internal report bearing certain information related to complaints that I attach hereto,” and produced a 16-page PDF at $0.00 cost:
Pages 1–8: An 8-page landscape internal BCPO PROMIS/Gavel complaint spreadsheet (sorted reverse-alphabetically from Zotollo, Zachary M. to Almonte, Joshua R.) listing 49 unique defendants across 139 charge rows (20 rows on Page 1, 18 on Page 2, 19 on Page 3, 19 on Page 4, 16 on Page 5, 15 on Page 6, 17 on Page 7, and 15 on Page 8). Each row records the defendant’s name, municipality of residence, eCDR Complaint-Warrant (W-2026-...) or Complaint-Summons (S-2026-...) number, filing date, court/municipality, initial charge description and N.J.S.A. statute code, PROMIS GAVEL #, and local PD CASE #.
Pages 9–16: Four 2-page BCPO press releases. Only two of those releases covered defendants from the Oct. 12–18 spreadsheet—Emad E. Gerges, 66, of Upper Saddle River (W-2026-000394-0290, charged Oct. 16 in an alleged arson-for-hire plot at 18 Lake Road) and Rohweniven Bacani, 52, of Hackensack (W-2026-000391-0290, charged Oct. 14 with third-degree aggravated assault for allegedly poisoning an acquaintance’s tea at a Fort Lee restaurant). The other two attached releases covered Oct. 19–20 arrests in Paramus (the Route 17 fatal hit-and-run) and Teaneck (an armed robbery investigation).
Graphic: Bergen TV. Sources: Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Oct. 26, 2026 OPRA response (Ref. 10-19-26, Assistant Records Custodian Maria Fagliarone) and 16-page attachment. Background photo: Bergen County Courthouse, Hackensack (KForce / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0).
Seven Major Unannounced Indictable Cases on BCPO’s Oct. 12–18 Log
Among the 47 defendants on Pages 1–8 who were never announced in a Prosecutor’s Office press release, the internal PROMIS/Gavel spreadsheet documents the following major complaints across Bergen County municipalities:
Defendant:Nicholas G. Didio-Slaaen (Garfield, N.J.)
Complaint / Case IDs: Warrant W-2026-000036-0261, filed Oct. 15, 2026 in Tenafly Borough (PROMIS Gavel #26004687; Tenafly Police PD Case # C2024-154).
Initial Charges (13 rows on Pages 5–6): One count of Money Laundering — Manage/Direct Transaction (N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25c); three counts of Accomplice Liability for Theft by Deception (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6a); three counts of Accomplice Liability for Forgery — Uttering Forged Documents (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6a); two counts of Accomplice Liability for Forgery — False Authentication of a Writing (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6a); one count of Accomplice Liability for Forgery — Altering or Changing a Writing Without Authority (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6a); and three counts of Receiving Stolen Property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7a).
Complaint / Case IDs: Warrant W-2026-000223-0233, filed Oct. 13, 2026 in Mahwah Township (PROMIS Gavel #26004646; Mahwah Police PD Case # 2026-29788).
Initial Charges (7 rows on Page 2): Three separate Computer Crime counts—Accessing a Computer System With Purpose to Defraud or Steal (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-25c), Altering, Damaging, Destroying, or Disrupting Data or a Computer System (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-25b), and Taking or Copying Data, Programs, or Software (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-25e)—along with Credit Card Theft (N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6c(1)), Theft by Unlawful Taking of Moveable Property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a), Criminal Attempt (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a(1)), and Receiving Stolen Property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7a).
3. Fort Lee: Theft by Extortion (Threat of Harm) & Structure Burglary Warrant
Defendant:Jakub Cielemecki (Saddle Brook, N.J.)
Complaint / Case IDs: Warrant W-2026-000359-0219, filed Oct. 15, 2026 in Fort Lee Borough (PROMIS Gavel #26004685; Fort Lee Police PD Case # 2026-50498).
Initial Charges (2 rows on Page 7): Theft by Extortion — Threat to Inflict Harm on Another (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5g) and Burglary — Entering Structure (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2a(1)).
4. Garfield: Interference With Child Custody, Child Endangerment, Burglary & Assault on Police
Defendant:Derrick Norwood (Garfield, N.J.)
Complaint / Case IDs: Warrant W-2026-000382-0221, filed Oct. 16, 2026 in Garfield City (PROMIS Gavel #26004690; Garfield Police PD Case # 26-026561).
Initial Charges (6 rows on Pages 3–4): Interference With Custody — Taking or Concealing a Child (N.J.S.A. 2C:13-4a(1)), Endangering the Welfare of a Child — Abuse/Neglect (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a(2)), Residential Burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2), Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(a)), Resisting Arrest (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(1)), and Contempt of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9b(2)).
5. Hackensack: 100+ Doses of Prescription Legend Drugs & Heroin/Cocaine Near Public Property
Defendants:Edward L. Lynch and Estrella Alvarado (both of Hackensack, N.J.)
Complaint / Case IDs: Warrants W-2026-000609-0223 (Lynch) and W-2026-000607-0223 (Alvarado), both filed Oct. 15, 2026 in Hackensack City under shared PROMIS Gavel #26004692 and Hackensack Police PD Case # 26-089922.
Initial Charges (7 rows total on Pages 4 & 8): Lynch is charged with Distributing or Possessing 100 or More Doses of Prescription Legend Drugs (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10.5a(4)), Manufacturing/Distributing Heroin or Cocaine under 0.5 ounces (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3)), two counts of Possessing/Distributing CDS Within 500 Feet of Public Property (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1a), and Distributing Drug Paraphernalia (N.J.S.A. 2C:36-3). Alvarado is charged under the same case number with Hindering Apprehension by Hiding or Suppressing Evidence (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(1)) and Drug Paraphernalia Possession (N.J.S.A. 2C:36-2a).
6. Ramsey: Unlawful Handguns Without Permits & Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazines
Defendants:Seth D. Hoffman (East Orange, N.J.) and David Y. Awad (Bayonne, N.J.)
Complaint / Case IDs: Warrants W-2026-000111-0248 (Hoffman) and W-2026-000112-0248 (Awad), both filed Oct. 13, 2026 in Ramsey Borough under shared PROMIS Gavel #26004643 and Ramsey Police PD Case # 26-21508.
Initial Charges (10 rows total on Pages 4, 7 & 8): Both co-defendants are charged with Unlawful Possession of a Weapon — Handguns Without a Permit (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b(1)), Prohibited Weapons and Devices — Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3j), and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1)); Awad is additionally charged with Drug Paraphernalia Possession (N.J.S.A. 2C:36-2a) and Hindering by Giving False Information to Police (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3a(7)).
Edgewater Borough (W-2026-000199-0213 & W-2026-000200-0213, PD Case # 26-019718): Co-defendants Kalyl M. Richardson (filed Oct. 13, PROMIS Gavel #26004675) and James D. Rogers (filed Oct. 15, PROMIS Gavel #26004737), both of Hempstead, N.Y., are each charged with Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(a)), Eluding Police in a Motor Vehicle After Instruction to Stop (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b), and Shoplifting (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11b(1)).
Fair Lawn Borough (W-2026-000251-0217 & W-2026-000252-0217, filed Oct. 17, PROMIS Gavel #26004723, PD Case # 26-20225):Albana Ayvaz (Fair Lawn, N.J.) is charged with Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(a)), Aggravated Assault on a Domestic Violence Victim (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(13)), and Terroristic Threats (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3b).
Bergen County Central Court Witness Tampering (W-2026-000393-0290, filed Oct. 16, PROMIS Gavel #26004716, PD Case # 26000181):Nicholas F. Sanchez-Garcia (South Hackensack, N.J.) is charged with Witness Tampering — Withholding Testimony or Information (N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5a(2)) and Contempt (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9b(1)).
Municipality-by-Municipality Breakdown of All 49 Defendants (Oct. 12–18, 2026)
Across all eight pages of the Prosecutor’s Office spreadsheet, the 49 unique defendants and 139 charge rows break down across 27 Bergen County courts and municipalities as follows:
100+ doses legend drugs & heroin/cocaine distribution within 500 ft of public property (PROMIS #26004692, PD #26-089922); felony strangulation (W-2026-000606-0223).
Eluding in MV, resisting arrest with risk of injury, receiving stolen property & obstructing law (W-2026-000321-0260, PROMIS #26004712, PD #26-080422).
13 Other Municipalities (1 each)
13
26
0 of 13
Bergenfield (3 rows), Closter (3), Fair Lawn (3), Montvale (3), Bogota (2), Fairview (2), Maywood (2), Midland Park (2), Wallington (2), North Arlington (1), Palisades Park (1), Ridgefield Park (1), Rochelle Park (1).
TOTAL (Oct. 12–18, 2026 Log)
49
139
2 of 49 (4.1%)
47 of 49 defendants (95.9%) had zero BCPO press release.
Public Safety Budgets and Bergen County Taxpayer Accountability
The Oct. 26 OPRA production marks the second major law-enforcement records disclosure obtained by Bergen TV this week at zero cost to taxpayers, following the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office’s 1,294-page OPRA production on Oct. 26—released after the Sheriff’s Office dropped a $54,000 service-fee demand—which documented $188,016.55 in 2022 county jail food-contract overpayments.
County and municipal policing and court operations represent one of the largest components of local property tax bills across Bergen County’s 70 municipalities. Homeowners who want to see how much of their local tax bill goes to municipal and county government—or check whether their property assessment is fair—can run a free address lookup with the GardenState.ai Property Tax Appeal tool and check local home values at GardenState.ai.
Bergen TV asks: Should the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office publish its weekly indictable complaint log online for the public automatically? Share your take in the comments.
Bergen TV Exclusive:MAHWAH, N.J. — The Mahwah Township Council voted 6-0 on Monday, Oct. 26, to adopt Ordinance 2105, prohibiting high-density “hyperscale” data centers drawing more than 50 megawatts of electricity across every zoning district in the township while the Planning Board completes a master plan study due June 30, 2027.
Before the roll call, Council President Robert M. Ferguson III and Councilman Jonathan S. Wong stated on the record that the Planning Board’s attorney “misspoke” on Oct. 19 when he told residents that the 140-acre Crossroads redevelopment site at the Interstate 287 and Route 17 interchange was exempt from the ban. Wong cited Section 6.2A (page 19) of the Crossroads Redevelopment Plan, which incorporates Chapter 24’s zoning definitions by reference, and stated that hyperscale data centers of 50 megawatts and above are barred at Crossroads without requiring a separate redevelopment plan amendment.
Moments after adopting the data center ban, the council also voted 6-0 to adopt Bond Ordinance 2106, canceling $5,842,500 in authorized debt from October 2025 for a Department of Public Works garage, and Ordinance 2107, shifting $810,000 in capital improvements to the township’s Capital Fund Balance.
Video: Township of Mahwah / Mahwah Township Council, Oct. 26, 2026 (via Swagit). The Ordinance 2105 public hearing begins at 27:50; Council President Robert M. Ferguson III addresses the Planning Board’s Oct. 19 remarks at 59:55; Councilman Jonathan S. Wong cites Section 6.2A (page 19) of the Crossroads Redevelopment Plan at 1:05:04 and 1:10:02; the 6-0 adoption votes on Ordinances 2105–2108 run from 1:16:50 to 1:19:45. Watch on the township’s video page.
How Council Leaders Reversed the Oct. 19 Crossroads Statement
As Bergen TV first reported on Oct. 22, the Mahwah Planning Board’s attorney told residents during the board’s Oct. 19 master-plan consistency review (at 13:24 of the Oct. 19 Planning Board video) that “Crossroads is not subject to this ordinance, because Crossroads is subject to a redevelopment plan,” adding that the Crossroads plan permits “data centers” without specifying regular or hyperscale facilities. The board’s professional planner agreed at that meeting: “That is my understanding.”
During Monday night’s 31-minute public hearing on Ordinance 2105, nine speakers—including Mahwah residents and Mahwah High School students—questioned the electric grid impact on Rockland Electric Company (RECO) ratepayers, cooling water demand in the Ramapo River basin, backup diesel generators, and whether the 140-acre Crossroads tract remained open to a hyperscale facility.
When public comment closed, Ferguson addressed the Oct. 19 Planning Board exchange directly at 59:55 of the council broadcast:
“I do think the Planning Board misspoke when it presented last week. This ordinance, what it’s really doing is it’s breaking data centers into two categories. You have enterprise data centers, which are less than 50 megawatts, and you have hyperscale data centers, which is 50 megawatts and over. This ordinance is banning 50 megawatts and higher in all zones. So hyperscale data centers does not exist in the affordable housing settlement and in the redevelopment agreement. So they are banned in all zones.”
At 1:05:04, Wong—who served alongside Ferguson and Council Vice President George Ervin on the council’s Ordinance Committee—stated that the Crossroads Redevelopment Plan automatically pulls in the new zoning definitions:
“At the Crossroads site, a hyperscale data center is not permitted. And I agree with his point—we do believe that the Planning Board attorney misspoke on that. In fact, the redevelopment plan, which the council does have considerable discretion on amending and changing and making it stronger if necessary at a later time, however, as of right now, it incorporates all the definitions from the code into the plan. So once this ordinance is passed, a hyperscale data center will, by the preamble section of the definition section in the redevelopment plan, be incorporated by reference, and it will not be permitted because only data centers on that lower scale amount is permitted.”
During council discussion prior to the vote, Councilwoman Janet Ariemma asked (at 1:09:45) whether the governing body still needed to amend the wording of the Crossroads Redevelopment Plan so it explicitly states that data centers must remain below 50 megawatts. Wong replied at 1:10:02:
“No, you don’t, because you already have it by incorporation of the definition section of your zoning code by reference. A hyperscale data center will now be incorporated into the redevelopment plan by virtue of the preamble at 6.2A, which is page 19 of the redevelopment plan.”
Bergen TV verified that citation against the printed Crossroads Redevelopment Plan (dated Dec. 2, 2022, prepared by Colliers Engineering & Design). Under Section 6.2A (“Definitions,” pages 18–19), the plan reads: “Any term not defined herein shall rely upon the definitions within Chapter 24 Zoning, specifically §24-1.5b.” Because Ordinance 2105 amends §24-1.5 to define both “Data Center” and “Data Center, Hyperscale” (greater than 50 megawatts) and amends §24-3.8 to prohibit hyperscale data centers in all zone districts, council leaders stated the 50-megawatt ceiling now governs undefined “data center” references in the Crossroads plan as well.
Graphic: Bergen TV. Sources: Township of Mahwah Oct. 26, 2026 agenda packet (Ordinances 2105–2108 and Resolution 324-26), Oct. 26 Township Council video (#405074), and Crossroads Redevelopment Plan (Dec. 2, 2022).
Why the Council Kept the 50-Megawatt Line—and Protected the $2M-a-Year NYSE Facility
Several speakers at Monday’s hearing, along with Ariemma, asked whether the council should lower the threshold from 50 megawatts to 30 megawatts or enact a flat ban on new data centers while the Planning Board conducts its review.
Ferguson and Wong gave two reasons for keeping the 50-megawatt threshold in Ordinance 2105:
Preserving the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Data Center on MacArthur Boulevard: Ferguson noted at 1:01:20 that Mahwah already hosts two colocation data centers, the largest of which is the NYSE facility at 1700 MacArthur Boulevard in the ORP-200 zone. “Anyone who makes a stock transaction through the New York Stock Exchange, more than likely it goes through Mahwah,” Ferguson said. “It’s a huge ratable for town. It pays $2 million a year in taxes. It’s a fantastic corporate partner in town.” With expansion work currently underway at the site, Ferguson said the NYSE facility will “probably be in the 35 megawatt range when it’s all said and done,” and the council wanted to leave room under the 50-megawatt ceiling so the exchange does not become a nonconforming use.
Aligning With New York and New Jersey State Definitions: Ordinance 2105 cites New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s July 14, 2026 Executive Order No. 62, which paused new hyperscale data center permitting in New York State and created what the ordinance calls “a present and specific incentive for the redirection of such projects into the Township” just across the state border. Wong also cited New Jersey Senate Bill S-731, which defines a large-load data center at 50 megawatts or above for Board of Public Utilities (BPU) tariff and grid regulation, noting that using the state’s 50-megawatt definition avoids state preemption challenges while the Planning Board studies whether a lower local threshold or closed-loop water rules are warranted.
To prevent a developer from bypassing the 50-megawatt cap by splitting a campus into smaller buildings, Section 2 of Ordinance 2105 includes an Aggregation clause requiring the township to combine the total electric load of multiple buildings on the same lot, on contiguous lots (or lots separated only by a street, right-of-way, easement, or watercourse) that share electrical, cooling, water, or security infrastructure, or that form part of a phased “common scheme or plan of development.” The Planning Board must deliver its study and recommendations for permanent regulations to the council by June 30, 2027.
$5,842,500 DPW Garage Bond Canceled and Other Oct. 26 Financial Votes
Following the 6-0 vote on Ordinance 2105 (with Ferguson, Ervin, Ariemma, David May, Michelle Crowe Paz, and Wong voting yes, and Councilman Ward Donigian absent), the council unanimously adopted three additional ordinances and a major water infrastructure engineering contract:
Measure
Vote
Financial / Regulatory Impact
Key Details from Oct. 26, 2026 Agenda Packet
Ordinance 2105
6-0 Yes
>50 MW Prohibited
Amends Chapter 24 (§24-1.5 & §24-3.8) to ban hyperscale data centers (>50 MW total electric load) in all zoning districts; directs Planning Board study by June 30, 2027.
Ordinance 2106
6-0 Yes
-$5,842,500 Gross Debt
Cancels, revokes, and rescinds Bond Ordinance No. 2069 (adopted Oct. 20, 2025) for construction of a Department of Public Works garage; confirms zero bonds or notes were issued and directs the CFO to cut gross debt by $5,842,500.
Ordinance 2107
6-0 Yes
$810,000 Capital Shift
Amends Ordinance No. 2062 (adopted July 7, 2025) to fund $740,000 for a fire apparatus chassis and $70,000 for street safety lights and signage ($810,000 total) from Capital Fund Balance rather than Capital Improvement Fund.
Ordinance 2108
6-0 Yes
Up to $2,000 Fine
Repeals Police Regulations §3-2.10 and establishes uniform township-wide fire lane and fire zone rules under Traffic/Parking §7-3.9 so violations are enforced as traffic/parking offenses rather than criminal charges.
Resolution 324-26
6-0 Yes
$766,000 Not-to-Exceed
Awards H2M Associates, Inc. (Proposal #LP250605) full-time construction observation and administration for the 22-month replacement of ~8,500 water meters (~$10M NJIB loan project with up to $2M in principal forgiveness).
Resolution 325-26
6-0 Yes
$600,000 Grant Filing
Authorizes a 2027 NJDOT Safe Routes to School grant application for pedestrian safety beacons, ADA ramps, and sidewalk upgrades along East Ramapo Avenue, Island Road, and Ridge Road.
What It Means for Mahwah Property Taxpayers
Canceling the unissued $5,842,500 DPW garage bond ordinance removes nearly $5.84 million in authorized general capital debt from Mahwah’s books before any borrowing costs hit the municipal tax levy, while the $10 million water meter replacement program (including H2M’s $766,000 full-time inspection contract required by the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank) will be repaid over roughly 30 years through the water utility rather than the general property tax rate, Township Engineer Michael J. Kelly, P.E. and Business Administrator Benjamin Kezmarsky told the council during the work session.
Bergen TV asks: Should Mahwah keep the data center cap at 50 megawatts or lower it to 30 megawatts after the Planning Board completes its study? Share your take in the comments.
Editor’s Update (Oct. 28, 2026): The council approved the $833,625 reassessment appropriation and the 2025 audit on Oct. 27 and tabled Ordinance 3165. Read what happened.
Bergen TV Exclusive:GARFIELD, N.J. — The Garfield City Council will vote a second time Tuesday on the $833,625 special emergency appropriation that pays for the citywide property reassessment. The agenda says members want to “reconsider the matter and re-record their respective votes” after getting “additional explanation and clarification from the City Auditor.”
The same night, the council is scheduled to approve the city’s 2025 audit and a corrective action plan answering the audit’s findings. Neither document is in the posted agenda packet, and as of Tuesday morning, Oct. 27, the 2025 audit was not on the city’s Budgets & Audits page, which lists audit reports back to 2010.
The council meets with the city auditor at a special meeting at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 27, in the Council Conference Room at City Hall, 111 Outwater Lane. The notice says “formal action will not be taken.” The regular meeting starts at 6 p.m.
The reassessment, voted on again
Resolution R-526-26 would make the $833,625 special emergency appropriation for a “complete program of a reassessment of real property.” It also asks the state Division of Local Government Services to let the city keep $166,725 a year outside its state budget cap for five years, starting with the 2027 budget. The city could borrow the full amount through special emergency notes, with at least one-fifth paid off each year. The resolution needs a yes vote from at least two-thirds of the council’s members.
The council took up the same appropriation as R-487-26 on its Oct. 15 consent agenda. The new resolution doesn’t say how members voted that night or what the auditor clarified. Minutes of the Oct. 15 work session haven’t been posted.
The council has backed the reassessment before:
Ordinance 3134, which set the $833,625 special emergency, was introduced March 24 and adopted April 14, 4-0. Councilmember Raymond was absent, according to the minutes.
Aug. 3: the council voted 5-0 to hire Appraisal Systems Inc. of Glen Rock for the reassessment at a cost of up to $833,625.
Bergen TV infographic. Sources: Garfield Oct. 27 and Oct. 15, 2026 agendas; Ordinance 3134; Reports of Audit 2021–2024; 2025 Annual Financial Statement. Background photo: Garfield City Hall (Jan. 2025), Mr. Matté / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.
What it means for homeowners
A June letter from the city and Appraisal Systems says the Bergen County Board of Taxation and the state Division of Taxation directed Garfield to revalue all taxable property for the 2027 tax year. New values will be based on each property’s estimated market value as of Oct. 1, 2026. Owners will get their proposed values by mail and can question or contest them. Garfield is also on Bergen County’s published list of 2027 revaluations and reassessments.
A reassessment doesn’t change how much the city raises in taxes by itself, but it can shift who pays what. Garfield’s 2024 total tax rate was $3.337 per $100 of assessed value, according to the city’s 2024 audit.
The cost to taxpayers: By Bergen TV’s estimate, the $166,725-a-year charge works out to about $7.71 a year for every $100,000 of assessed value, for five years. That’s based on Garfield’s 2025 net taxable valuation of $2,162,427,800 from the city’s 2025 Annual Financial Statement. The 2026 budget shows another deferred charge ending this year: $125,000 for COVID costs, listed as “Year 5 of 5.”
Resolution R-523-26 would have the council certify that every member has reviewed at least the audit’s “General Comments and Recommendations” section. Under state Local Finance Board rules, the council has 45 days after receiving the audit to do that. Resolution R-524-26 would approve a corrective action plan that covers every 2025 finding. Under the resolution, each fix has to be in place within six months of the date of the audit report. The resolution says the plan is “attached,” but it isn’t in the posted packet. The Oct. 15 work session agenda listed “2025 Municipal Audit Review & Approval,” with City Auditor Dieter Lerch copied.
The city’s four previous audit reports made 25 recommendations in all, according to Bergen TV’s review:
2021: 9 recommendations. One repeated an earlier year’s (clearing old outstanding checks).
2022: 8 recommendations, including state contracts for vehicle purchases over the bid limit that the council never approved, and health-benefit contributions not in line with the state’s Chapter 78 law.
2023: 4 recommendations. The Chapter 78 health-benefit item was flagged again as a repeat.
2024: 4 recommendations, none repeats. Auditors found fire truck and bucket truck purchases made through national cooperative contracts without a council resolution. They also found capital projects that weren’t fully encumbered (money set aside) when contracts were awarded, payments approved without a signed receipt of goods, and a water utility consultant paid more than $600 who never got an IRS Form 1099.
Some issues came back in different forms. Unapproved cooperative or state-contract purchases were cited in both 2022 and 2024. Contract money not set aside when contracts were awarded was cited in 2021 and 2024.
$730,000 water bond
Ordinance 3166, up for a final vote, would spend $730,000 on the city’s water utility, with $695,100 in bonds and notes and a $34,900 down payment:
$667,000: replacing granular activated carbon filter media at various wells ($635,200 borrowed, 15-year useful life).
$45,000: repairs to various water tanks ($42,800 borrowed, 10 years).
$18,000: TV camera equipment for inspecting water lines ($17,100 borrowed, 5 years).
The total includes up to $10,000 for engineering, legal, accounting and other costs.
Plate readers and parking meters
The council also holds its final hearing on Ordinance 3165, which would let police put license-plate reader cameras on private homes and businesses whose owners agree. Owners couldn’t move, disable or remove them without written police approval. Bergen TV first reported the plan’s details Oct. 19.
Ordinance 3168 would repeal the city’s metered-parking law, Ordinance 3123, seven months after the council adopted it on March 10. As listed in the March 10 agenda packet, Ordinance 3123 set $1.20-an-hour meters, Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Passaic Street between MacArthur Avenue and River Drive, on Midland and Palisade avenues between Somerset and Passaic streets, and on the west side of Harrison Avenue between Charles and Frederick streets. The repeal gives no reason beyond the “best interest of the City.” It says outstanding parking tickets issued under the meter law will be handled “in accordance with applicable law.”
Also scheduled for a final vote is Ordinance 3167, which would let the council create residential permit-parking zones based on a written police recommendation instead of an engineering or traffic study.
What to watch Tuesday
What the auditor told the council about the reassessment appropriation, and how each member votes the second time.
What the 2025 audit found, how many findings repeat earlier years, and whether the report and corrective action plan are made public.
Why the city is dropping the parking meters, and what happens to tickets already issued.
Bergen TV Exclusive:HACKENSACK, N.J. — Sixty-four minutes after Bergen TV reported Monday morning that the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office had demanded an estimated $54,000.00 in officer overtime to pull jail meal-count records while county commissioners awarded food vendor Aramark Correctional Services a new five-year, $15,000,000 contract ceiling, the Sheriff’s Office reversed course and turned over 1,294 pages of 2021–2026 meal invoices, county purchase orders, and signed shift meal-count forms for $0.
A line-by-line audit of the newly released records—comprising 10 PDF volumes of 2021–2026 weekly Aramark invoices and liquidated Bergen County purchase orders (1,273 pages) shared via OneDrive at 10:44 a.m. EDT and 21 signed hard-copy “Chow Cart/Meal Accounting Forms” emailed at 11:10 a.m. EDT by Jail Administration Capt. Paul Allegretta—uncovered four major findings:
Internal PDF timestamps show the records were assembled in under 18 minutes—not the “500 hours” ($54,000) claimed: Document metadata embedded in the PDF files (`pdfinfo`) shows that the 21 signed Chow Cart forms for Oct. 28–Nov. 3, 2021 (`Author: CMAMO`) were scanned on a Sharp MX-M5071 copier on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026, at 9:15:37 a.m. EDT—literally one minute after a written notice narrowing the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request was emailed at 9:14 a.m.—and then held for six days while the $54,000 demand remained on the table. On Monday, Oct. 26, forty minutes after Bergen TV published its morning report at 9:40 a.m. EDT and tagged `@BergenCountySo` and `@BergenCoSheriff` on X, the Sheriff’s Office exported the 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2026 invoice PDFs in 17 minutes and 45 seconds (between 10:20:05 a.m. and 10:37:50 a.m. EDT) and released the entire cache free of charge at 10:44 a.m. EDT.
$188,016.55 in verified 2022 overpayments across 20 liquidated Bergen County purchase orders: Under Contract No. 2100360 (Resolution 859-21), Aramark’s sliding-scale price per inmate meal was $1.8350 ($1.84) when jail occupancy was below 775 inmates (fewer than 16,275 meals a week) and dropped to $1.3500 when occupancy exceeded 775 inmates (more than 16,275 meals a week). Between March 10 and Aug. 24, 2022, even though the jail’s inmate population averaged 879 to 985 inmates a day (18,459 to 20,677 meals a week), Aramark billed—and Bergen County approved and paid on 20 liquidated purchase orders—the higher $1.8350 below-775 rate instead of the $1.3500 contract rate. Across 387,663 inmate meals on those 20 weeks, Bergen County paid $711,361.60 instead of $523,345.05—an overpayment of $188,016.55 (+$0.485 per meal, or +35.9%). Handwritten black-ink strike-throughs on four July and August 2022 invoices (`000975`, `000976`, `000980`, and `000982`) and from Aug. 25, 2022 (`001000`) onward show a county reviewer crossing out `1.8350` and writing `1.35` by hand, proving officials caught the rate error on those weeks while leaving the other 20 weeks unadjusted.
Twenty-one signed Chow Cart sheets prove 3,024 “phantom” inmate meals were billed on retroactive Invoice `000865`: Every shift’s signed “Bergen County Jail – Chow Cart/Meal Accounting Form” for breakfast, lunch, and dinner from Oct. 28 through Nov. 3, 2021, shows the jail served 7,744 housing-unit trays (an average of 368.8 inmates per meal) plus 16 callbacks and intake sacks, totaling 7,760 inmate meals—matching regular Invoice `200332100-000855` ($13,409.28). Those 21 signed forms prove that when Aramark issued retroactive rate-adjustment Invoice `200332100-000865` on Nov. 17, 2021 (paid on County Purchase Order `220567`) and billed the +$0.107 rate hike on 10,784 inmate meals ($1,153.88), it billed Bergen County for 3,024 inmate meals that never existed (+39.0%).
Aramark’s internal cost sheet puts its base jail menu cost at $0.947 a meal—while 2025–2026 invoices confirm the county’s new $15 million cap has $1 million+ a year in excess headroom: An internal Aramark “Contingency Menu Cost Analysis” (`2023 Invoices – Meals.pdf`, ) submitted to justify $469,267.38 in kitchen-floor renovation surcharges states that Aramark’s base “Jail Menu Cost” was $0.947 per meal ($0.804 breakfast, $1.022 lunch, $1.014 dinner). Meanwhile, every regular weekly jail invoice from Sept. 1, 2022, through Sept. 30, 2026 (`Inv 001519`) billed inmate meals at $1.3500 (~885 to 940 inmates a day) alongside an unvarying flat charge for 1,400 officer/staff meals every single week at $3.48 ($4,872.00 a week, or $253,344 a year), for a total weekly run rate of roughly $31,800 to $32,500 (~$1.65 million to $1.69 million a year)—nearly half the new $3,000,000 annual ceiling.
Bergen TV infographic. Sources: Bergen County Sheriff’s Office Oct. 26, 2026 OPRA release (1,294 pages: 2021–2026 Meal Invoices, Liquidated County Purchase Orders, and Oct. 28–Nov. 3, 2021 Chow Cart/Meal Accounting Forms) and Bergen County OPRA B021799-100826. Photos: Bergen County Sheriff’s Office and Bergen County.
How a $54,000 OPRA demand evaporated in 64 minutes
As reported in Bergen TV’s morning investigation, when challenger Trinity Services Group asked Bergen County during the summer 2026 bidding process (`Addenda 2`, July 31, 2026) for copies of Aramark’s recent meal invoices and actual staff dining counts, the county replied: “Can be requested via OPRA.” Yet when those records were requested under OPRA from the Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 9, Capt. Paul Allegretta—one of the only three officials who scored the $15 million food contract RFP—initially sent 71 pages of third-party kitchen repair bills instead of 2022–2025 meal invoices on Oct. 14, and on Oct. 19 demanded an estimated $54,000.00 (“approximately five hundred hours” of officer overtime) to retrieve hard-copy shift meal-count forms.
On Tuesday, Oct. 20, at 9:14 a.m. EDT, formal written notice was emailed to Capt. Allegretta and Sheriff’s Office Counsel Daniel Zwillenberg declining the unitemized $54,000 charge under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c), demanding the unproduced 2022–2026 weekly Aramark meal invoices as immediate-access bills and vouchers under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(e), and narrowing the shift-form request to a single seven-day week—Oct. 28 through Nov. 3, 2021 (21 forms)—to test the 3,024-meal conflict between Invoices `000855` and `000865`. For six days, the Sheriff’s Office did not reply.
Then, on Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, at approximately 9:40 a.m. EDT, Bergen TV published its morning report on the $15 million jail food contract and $54,000 OPRA fee demand and tagged `@BergenCountySo`, `@BergenCoSheriff`, `@bergencountynj`, `@BergenExec`, and `@BergenDems` on X. Within 64 minutes, Capt. Allegretta emailed a Microsoft OneDrive link (`10:44:05 a.m. EDT`) followed by two messages copying Counsel Zwillenberg:
At 10:44:17 a.m. EDT:“Mr. Reynoso, please note that the requested invoices (2021-2026) and meal count sheets (10/28/21 – 11/3/21) have been shared with you via OneDrive due to the file size(s) of the attachments. Thank you. Captain Paul Allegretta, Bergen County Sheriff’s Office”
At 11:10:00 a.m. EDT (attaching `10-28-2021-11-03-2021 Meal Count Sheets.pdf`, 21 pages):“Please see the meal count sheets, I do not believe these documents were included in the OneDrive file. I believe that this includes all of the documents we possess in accordance with your request. Thank you. Captain Paul Allegretta”
Internal document metadata (`pdfinfo` and ZIP archive modification timestamps) inside the 11 PDF files reveals the exact sequence behind the scenes:
`10-28-2021-11-03-2021 Meal Count Sheets.pdf` (21 pages): Created Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026, at 9:15:37 a.m. EDT (`Author: CMAMO`, Producer: `Sharp MX-M5071`). The 21 shift forms were scanned one minute after the narrowed Oct. 20 email arrived—and then sat unreleased for six days until Bergen TV’s story went live.
`2025 Invoices – 2 – Meals.pdf` (70 pages) and `2025 Invoices – 1 – Meals.pdf` (49 pages): Archive timestamps show both files were compiled on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026, at 10:39:14 a.m. and 10:58:24 a.m. EDT, and likewise held for six days.
`2022 Invoices 1 – Meals.pdf` (79 pages): Created Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, at 10:20:05 a.m. EDT—40 minutes after Bergen TV’s morning report went live.
`2022 Invoices 2 – Meals.pdf` (111 pages): Created Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, at 10:23:00 a.m. EDT.
`2022 Invoices 3 – Meals.pdf` (91 pages): Created Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, at 10:25:14 a.m. EDT.
`2023 Invoices – Meals.pdf` (207 pages): Created Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, at 10:30:57 a.m. EDT.
`2024 Invoices – Meals.pdf` (162 pages): Created Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, at 10:35:32 a.m. EDT.
`2026 Invoices – Meals.pdf` (185 pages): Created Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, at 10:37:50 a.m. EDT—six minutes before Capt. Allegretta shared the OneDrive folder at 10:44:05 a.m. EDT.
Finding #1: How Bergen County overpaid Aramark $188,016.55 across 20 liquidated purchase orders in 2022
The 281 pages of 2022 records (`2022 Invoices 1`, `2`, and `3`) explain a question that had gone unanswered in county budget documents: why Bergen County’s food payments to Aramark spiked to $2,198,322.56 in 2022 before falling in 2023, 2024, and 2025.
Under the 2021–2026 contract (`Contract No. 2100360`, awarded by Resolution 859-21 on Oct. 6, 2021, and summarized in Resolution 1498-24), Aramark’s sliding-scale price per inmate meal was tied to a 775-inmate occupancy threshold (16,275 inmate meals per seven-day week at three meals a day):
When jail occupancy was below 775 inmates (<16,275 meals/week):$1.8350 ($1.84) per inmate meal.
When jail occupancy exceeded 775 inmates (>16,275 meals/week):$1.3500 per inmate meal.
In late January 2022 (`Inv 000898`, Jan. 27–Feb. 2, 2022), the jail served 14,954 inmate meals (~712 inmates a day) and was properly billed at $1.8350 ($27,440.59). The following week (`Inv 000901`, Feb. 3–9, 2022), after detainee transfers from neighboring counties pushed the jail’s population above 775 inmates to 17,581 meals (~837 inmates a day), Aramark properly lowered the rate to $1.3500 per meal ($23,734.35). Aramark continued billing the correct $1.3500 rate on `Inv 000903` (17,565 meals), `Inv 000906` (17,815 meals), `Inv 000909` (18,244 meals), and `Inv 000912` (11,394 meals for the four-day split period March 3–6, 2022, ~950 inmates a day).
However, on the three-day split invoice `Inv 000913` (March 7–9, 2022, 8,554 meals, ~950 inmates a day), Aramark’s billing system treated the three-day subtotal as if the weekly census were below 775 inmates and reverted to $1.8350 per meal. Then, starting on full-week Invoice `200332100-000916` (March 10–16, 2022, 19,945 inmate meals, or ~950 inmates a day), Aramark kept billing the $1.8350 below-775 rate week after week—even though the jail held between 879 and 985 inmates a day (18,459 to 20,677 meals a week)!
Even more remarkably, Bergen County officials approved, certified funds for, and paid (“PO LIQUIDATED“) 20 weekly purchase orders between March 10 and Aug. 24, 2022, at the erroneous $1.8350 rate (curiously, every one of those county purchase orders bears the department header `”SHERIFF – EYECARE VOUCHERS”` above the `”Jail – Food RFP # 21-006″` line items):
Aramark Inv. #
Service Week (2022)
Liquidated County PO #
Inmate Meals Billed
Avg. Inmates / Day (ADP)
Paid on PO (@ $1.8350)
Contract Cost (@ $1.3500)
Overpayment (+$0.485/Meal)
000916
03/10/22–03/16/22
PO 231080
19,945
949.8
$36,599.07
$26,925.75
+$9,673.32
000920
03/17/22–03/23/22
PO 231079
19,424
925.0
$35,643.04
$26,222.40
+$9,420.64
000924
03/24/22–03/30/22
PO 231078
19,681
937.2
$36,114.64
$26,569.35
+$9,545.29
000926
03/31/22–04/06/22
PO 233430
19,980
951.4
$36,663.30
$26,973.00
+$9,690.30
000929
04/07/22–04/13/22
PO 233431
19,643
935.4
$36,044.90
$26,518.05
+$9,526.85
000932
04/14/22–04/20/22
PO 233485
18,459
879.0
$33,872.27
$24,919.65
+$8,952.62
000934
04/21/22–04/27/22
PO 233486
19,148
911.8
$35,136.58
$25,849.80
+$9,286.78
000940
04/28/22–05/04/22
PO 234935
19,076
908.4
$35,004.46
$25,752.60
+$9,251.86
000944
05/05/22–05/11/22
PO 236165
19,028
906.1
$34,916.38
$25,687.80
+$9,228.58
000947
05/12/22–05/18/22
PO 236166
19,327
920.3
$35,465.04
$26,091.45
+$9,373.59
000950
05/19/22–05/25/22
PO 236167
19,308
919.4
$35,430.18
$26,065.80
+$9,364.38
000955
05/26/22–06/01/22
PO 236997
19,098
909.4
$35,044.83
$25,782.30
+$9,262.53
000957
06/02/22–06/08/22
PO 236998
18,945
902.1
$34,764.07
$25,575.75
+$9,188.32
000961
06/09/22–06/15/22
PO 236999
18,867
898.4
$34,620.95
$25,470.45
+$9,150.50
000965
06/16/22–06/22/22
PO 239434
18,664
888.8
$34,248.44
$25,196.40
+$9,052.04
000971
06/23/22–06/29/22
PO 239435
18,938
901.8
$34,751.23
$25,566.30
+$9,184.93
000973
06/30/22–07/06/22
PO 239436
19,329
920.4
$35,468.71
$26,094.15
+$9,374.56
000986
08/04/22–08/10/22
PO 241802
19,921
948.6
$36,555.03
$26,893.35
+$9,661.68
000990
08/11/22–08/17/22
PO 241803
20,205
962.1
$37,076.18
$27,276.75
+$9,799.43
000996
08/18/22–08/24/22
PO 241804
20,677
984.6
$37,942.30
$27,913.95
+$10,028.35
Total (20 Wks)
Mar. 10–Aug. 24, 2022
20 Liquidated POs
387,663
923.0
$711,361.60
$523,345.05
+$188,016.55
(Note: If the three-day split invoice `000913` for March 7–9, 2022—where 8,554 meals at ~950 inmates a day were also billed and liquidated on `PO 228945` at $1.8350 for $15,696.59 instead of $1.3500 for $11,547.90—is included, the 2022 rate overpayment reaches $192,165.24.)
What makes the 20 overpaid purchase orders indisputable is what appears on four July/August invoices (`Inv 000975`, `000976`, `000980`, and `000982` covering July 7 through Aug. 3, 2022, in `2022 Invoices 2`, pages 79–90) and on `Inv 001000` (covering Aug. 25–31, 2022, pages 109–110): on those invoices, Aramark printed `@ 1.8350`, and a county reviewer crossed out `1.8350` by hand in black ink, wrote `1.35` above it, crossed out the $35,745.80–$38,575.37 inmate meal charge, and wrote the recalculated $1.3500 total in the margin (for example, reducing `Inv 001000` from $43,447.37 to $33,251.70 on `PO 245893`, saving $10,195.67 on that single week). Yet on the three August weeks immediately preceding `Inv 001000` (`PO 241802`, `PO 241803`, and `PO 241804`, signed Sept. 8, 2022) and the 17 consecutive weeks from March 10 through July 6, 2022, no correction was made, and the county paid the full $1.8350 rate.
County vendor contracts are paid out of countywide property taxes. Bergen County homeowners can model how county, municipal, and school levies affect their annual tax bill with the free GardenState.ai Property Tax Calculator and test future budget scenarios with the GardenState.ai Tax Shock tool.
Finding #2: 21 signed Chow Cart sheets prove 3,024 “phantom” meals on retroactive Invoice `000865`
The 21-page PDF emailed by Capt. Allegretta at 11:10 a.m. EDT Monday (`10-28-2021-11-03-2021 Meal Count Sheets.pdf`) contains the daily `”BERGEN COUNTY JAIL – CHOW CART/MEAL ACCOUNTING FORM”` sheets for breakfast, lunch, and dinner from Thursday, Oct. 28, through Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021. Each form lists the exact tray count delivered to every housing unit (`C1` through `A5`) and bears three signatures: the Kitchen Security Officer (such as Officer N. Mamo `#1805`), the Aramark Supervisor, and the Sector Supervisor.
Adding the 21 signed forms day by day confirms that the jail’s actual physical meal count for that week was 7,744 housing-unit trays (an average of 368.8 inmates per meal) plus 16 callbacks and intake sacks recorded on Aramark’s weekly summary sheet (`2021 Invoices 2`, ), for a grand total of 7,760 inmate meals:
That 7,760-meal total matches regular Invoice `200332100-000855` (`2021 Invoices 2`, ), which billed Bergen County for 7,760 inmate meals at $1.7280 ($13,409.28). Yet two weeks later, on Nov. 17, 2021, when Aramark issued retroactive “price difference” Invoice `200332100-000865` (, paid on County Purchase Order `220567`) to collect the +$0.107 per-meal rate increase (`$1.728` to `$1.835`) for the exact same dates (`10/28/21–11/03/21`), Aramark billed the county for 10,784 inmate meals ($1,153.88)—charging Bergen County for 3,024 phantom inmate meals ($323.57) that the Sheriff’s Office’s own signed Chow Cart sheets prove were never served.
Finding #3: Aramark’s internal $0.947 base menu cost, $469,267 in kitchen-floor surcharges, and flat 1,400 weekly staff meals
The newly released 2023 and 2024 invoice volumes also show how Aramark billed Bergen County an extra $469,267.38 during two jail kitchen-floor replacement projects—and reveal Aramark’s own internal calculation of what a Bergen County Jail meal costs to produce:
Aramark’s internal $0.947 base menu cost (`2023 Invoices – Meals.pdf`, ): Attached behind Purchase Order `259184` and retroactive contingency Invoice `200332100-001039A` (dated Feb. 23, 2023, billing 407,981 inmate meals at +$0.702 = $286,402.66 for Oct. 3, 2022, through Feb. 19, 2023, under Resolution 472-23) is a one-page Aramark table titled “Bergen County — Contingency Menu Cost Analysis.” In that table, Aramark reports its internal “Jail Menu Cost” as $0.947 per meal ($0.804 for breakfast, $1.022 for lunch, and $1.014 for dinner) and its “Contingency Menu” cost as $1.649 per meal—a +$0.702 per-meal (+74.1%) increase itemized as: serving milk seven days a week instead of three (+$0.238/meal), juice cartons at lunch and dinner instead of bulk beverage coolers (+$0.142/meal), individually wrapped muffins instead of bulk sheet cake (+$0.101/meal), fresh fruit at lunch instead of baked dessert (+$0.093/meal), individual cereal bowls instead of bulk cereal (+$0.073/meal), and portion-control peanut butter and jelly packets instead of bulk containers (+$0.055/meal).
Second kitchen-floor surcharge jumped 50.7% to +$1.058 per meal (`2024 Invoices – Meals.pdf`, pages 96–131): When the jail replaced additional kitchen flooring between Aug. 22 and Oct. 20, 2024 (Resolution 1498-24, $182,864.72), Aramark did not charge the +$0.702 contingency surcharge used in 2022–2023. Instead, Aramark charged a +$1.0580 per-meal surcharge on top of the $1.3500 base rate—bringing the combined charge to $2.4080 per inmate meal (`Inv 001283` and `001285`, followed by split “Amendment Pricing / Price adjustment for kitchen reno” Invoices `001288`, `001297`, `001300`, `001301`, `001303`, `001304`, and `001306`).
Every regular week from Sept. 2022 through Sept. 30, 2026 billed $1.35 per inmate meal and a flat 1,400 staff meals ($4,872/week): Across all 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 regular weekly jail invoices through `Inv 200332100-001519` (Sept. 24–30, 2026, `2026 Invoices – Meals.pdf`, ), the jail’s inmate census remained above the 775-inmate threshold every single week (~885 to 940 inmates a day, or 18,600 to 19,800 meals a week), billed at $1.3500 per inmate meal (~$25,100 to $26,800 a week). Every single regular weekly invoice also billed an identical flat quota of 1,400 officer/staff meals at $3.4800 = $4,872.00 a week ($253,344 a year), regardless of how many officers ate in the staff dining room. Combined with county shelter meals ($1.8350 per meal, rising from ~315 meals/week in 2022 to ~980–1,120 meals/week in 2026), a typical 2025–2026 week totaled roughly $31,800 to $32,500 (~$1.65 million to $1.69 million a year)—confirming that the Board of Commissioners’ new $3,000,000-a-year ($15,000,000 five-year) contract cap embeds more than $1 million a year in excess spending headroom.
Missing weekly Meal Count Summary sheets after 2022: Notably, while the 2021 invoice PDFs attached all 53 weekly `”Bergen County Meal Count Summary”` spreadsheets behind the invoices, the 2022–2026 PDFs omit almost all weekly jail meal-count summary sheets (including only four jail summary sheets in early 2022 and zero in 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026), and the two 2025 PDFs (`49` and `70` pages) omit roughly 21 weeks of 2025 billing packets.
Bergen TV asks: Should Bergen County audit Aramark’s 2021–2026 jail invoices and seek a $188,340 refund for the 20 overbilled 2022 purchase orders and 3,024 phantom meals before signing the new $15 million contract? Share your take in the comments.
Sources
Bergen County Sheriff’s Office OPRA release (Oct. 26, 2026, Capt. Paul Allegretta, copying Counsel Daniel Zwillenberg): `2021-2026_Invoices_-_Meals.zip` (10 PDF files totaling 1,273 pages: `2021 Invoices 1 – Meals.pdf`, `2021 Invoices 2 – Meals.pdf`, `2022 Invoices 1 – Meals.pdf`, `2022 Invoices 2 – Meals.pdf`, `2022 Invoices 3 – Meals.pdf`, `2023 Invoices – Meals.pdf`, `2024 Invoices – Meals.pdf`, `2025 Invoices – 1 – Meals.pdf`, `2025 Invoices – 2 – Meals.pdf`, and `2026 Invoices – Meals.pdf`) and `10-28-2021-11-03-2021 Meal Count Sheets.pdf` (21 pages of signed Bergen County Jail Chow Cart/Meal Accounting Forms).
Bergen County OPRA Request B021799-100826 releases (Oct. 9, Oct. 15, and Oct. 19, 2026): Resolutions 1311-26, 859-21, 472-23, and 1498-24; Executed Contract No. 2100360; BC-RFP-26-003 specifications, Addenda 1–2, Bid Table BT-05EP, and Evaluation Scorecards; 2021–2026 County `VENHIST` and FAS vendor payment ledgers.
Bergen TV Exclusive:RIDGEWOOD, N.J. — Ridgewood Water is moving toward a 20-year, $6,980,926 public-private contract with Utility Service Co., Inc. (USCI), doing business as USG Water Solutions, to maintain 10 water storage tanks across Ridgewood, Glen Rock, Midland Park, and Wyckoff after receiving only a single proposal—and after posting a lawyer’s track-changes redline on its website that showed a hazardous-materials testing sentence struck out of the public hearing notice.
In written responses to Bergen TV on Oct. 19, Ridgewood Water Director of Operations Richard Calbi Jr. confirmed that only one proposal was received on Sept. 10, 2026, stated that the final contract still requires USG Water Solutions to test tank coatings and materials for hazardous content, and explained why the sentence was deleted from the public notice.
What the posted Litera Compare redline showed
Ahead of the Village Council’s Oct. 14 public hearing under the New Jersey Water Supply Public-Private Contracting Act (N.J.S.A. 58:26-19 et seq.), Ridgewood Water uploaded a PDF to its website titled “Litera Compare Redline – Ridgewood Water Tank Maintenance Contract 14 Day Notice of Public Hearing” (`4918-8533-4740-v1`, generated Sept. 29, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.). Instead of a clean legal notice, the PDF displayed four red strikethrough deletions and two blue insertions:
Hazardous-content testing sentence struck out: In the paragraph describing USG Water Solutions’ maintenance duties across the 10 storage tanks, the redline struck through the sentence: “The Service Provider will be responsible for testing the current materials in place on the tanks for hazardous content.”
Two 20-year price totals: The redline struck through an aggregate figure of $7,031,273 and replaced it with $6,980,926 over the 20-year term, noting that the total includes a $50,000 annual allowance ($1,000,000 over 20 years) for tank mixers if directed by Ridgewood Water.
Ratepayer cost added in blue: The redline inserted a final sentence stating: “The average cost to be paid for the Services by each water user in Ridgewood Water’s service area over the 20-year term of the Agreement is approximately $17 per year.”
Bergen TV infographic. Sources: Ridgewood Water Sept. 29, 2026 Litera Compare redline notice and Oct. 2026 v2 notice; Aug. 6–7, 2026 Notice of Intent and RFP; Oct. 14, 2026 Village Council hearing; written responses from Ridgewood Water Director Richard Calbi Jr. (Oct. 19, 2026). Background photo: Alexisrael / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.
How Ridgewood Water Director Rich Calbi Jr. explained the redline and single bid
Before publishing, Bergen TV sent five written questions to Calbi and Village Manager Keith Kazmark asking whether USG Water Solutions is still required to test tank coatings for hazardous materials such as lead paint, why the sentence was removed from the notice, why the Aug. 6 Notice of Intent and Aug. 7 Request for Proposals listed two different submission dates, how many firms bid, and what the $7,031,273 figure represented. Here is what Calbi told Bergen TV:
Does the final contract still require USG to test the tanks’ coatings and materials for hazardous content, such as lead paint? Calbi:“Yes.”
Why was that sentence removed from the public notice? Calbi:“The line was removed because RW undertook a major rehabilitation on all of the tanks starting ten years ago and removed any lead paint.”
How many proposals were received, and on what date? (The Aug. 6 Notice of Intent listed Sept. 14 at 4 p.m., while the Aug. 7 RFP listed Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.) Calbi:“One proposal was received on Sept. 10th.”
What did the struck $7,031,273 figure represent? Calbi:“An optional pricing proposal that evenly spread costs into two ten year, annual and equal installments.”
What is the deadline for written comments, and when is the next council action? Calbi:“The deadline for comments is October 21st.”
10 water storage tanks holding 14.37 million gallons across four Bergen towns
According to the Notice of Intent and RFP, the 20-year contract covers full-service asset management, engineering design, annual washouts and inspections, rehabilitation, repairs, and interior and exterior repainting across 10 ground storage tanks with a combined capacity of 14,370,000 gallons serving ratepayers in Ridgewood, Glen Rock, Midland Park, and Wyckoff:
Tank 1: 525,000-gallon welded steel ground storage tank
Tank 2A: 635,000-gallon riveted steel ground storage tank
Tank 2B: 635,000-gallon riveted steel ground storage tank
Tank 3: 1,080,000-gallon welded steel dual-stack ground storage tank
Tank 4: 2,000,000-gallon prestressed concrete ground storage tank
Tank 5: 2,000,000-gallon prestressed concrete ground storage tank
Tank 6: 2,250,000-gallon prestressed concrete ground storage tank
Tank 7: 2,000,000-gallon prestressed concrete ground storage tank
Tank 8: 1,250,000-gallon prestressed concrete ground storage tank
Tank 9: 2,000,000-gallon prestressed concrete ground storage tank
The notice states that USG Water Solutions will not pay any concession fee to Ridgewood Water. Over 20 years, the $6,980,926 aggregate cap averages $349,046.30 per year, or approximately $17 per year per water customer (~$340 over the 20-year life of the deal).
Contract kept in hard copy only at Village Hall; Nov. 9 & Dec. 9 votes ahead
During the Oct. 14 Village Council public hearing (`YouTube` video at `0:17:55` and `0:32:42`), residents pointed out that while the 14-day hearing notice was posted online, the actual proposed 20-year contract with USG Water Solutions was not posted on the village website and could only be inspected in hard copy at the Village Clerk’s office at 131 North Maple Ave. between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Village Manager Keith Kazmark replied at the hearing (`0:36:01`) that state law only requires the hearing notice to be published online.
Under the timeline outlined by Calbi at the Oct. 14 hearing (`0:25:48–0:26:20`), after the Oct. 21 written-comment deadline, the Village Council is scheduled to introduce the authorizing ordinance and Local Finance Board (LFB) application resolution on Monday, Nov. 9, submit the application to the state on Nov. 18, and hold the final ordinance vote on Wednesday, Dec. 9, alongside reviews by the state Local Finance Board, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Board of Public Utilities, and the Office of the State Comptroller.
Bergen TV asks: Should Ridgewood Water post the full 20-year, $6.98M USG Water Solutions contract online and rebid the project to attract more than one bidder before the Nov. 9 ordinance vote? Share your take in the comments.
Bergen TV Exclusive:HACKENSACK, N.J. — Thirty companies and professional firms awarded Bergen County contracts in 2026—along with their partners, executives, and employees—donated $571,583.34 in 2025 and 2026 to County Executive James J. Tedesco III’s campaign committee and the Democratic Committee of Bergen County while winning $25,800,903.11 in county contracts this year, a Bergen TV cross-check of New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJ ELEC) filings and Board of Commissioners resolutions shows.
Across the Oct. 7 and Oct. 20, 2026 Board of Commissioners meetings alone, the all-Democratic board approved $2,849,323.06 in contract awards, renewals, and ceiling increases for 10 of those donor firms—including three professional vendors whose contract caps were expanded or renewed just four to five weeks after they wrote September campaign checks to Tedesco.
Under New Jersey’s Elections Transparency Act, county political party committees can accept up to $37,000 per year from a single contributor, and contracts awarded through a “fair and open” advertised Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Qualifications (RFQ), state contract, or county cooperative purchasing system are exempt from local pay-to-play contribution bans. All contributions and contract awards documented in the records appear to comply with state campaign-finance and procurement statutes, and there is no allegation of illegality in the records reviewed.
What the primary filings show is the scale of the overlap between the vendors paid out of Bergen County’s budget and the donors funding county political campaigns:
$97,450.00 to Tedesco for County Executive: Reported across four 2025–2026 NJ ELEC Form R-1 filings (`DocIds 3878588`, `3895024`, `3934433`, and the 29-day pre-election report `3951230` filed Oct. 5, 2026).
$474,133.34 to the Democratic Committee of Bergen County (BCDO): Reported across seven 2025–2026 quarterly Form R-3 filings (`DocIds 3861608`, `3885261`, `3894581`, `3915616`, `3927699`, `3944773`, and the Q3 2026 report `3960605` filed Oct. 15, 2026).
$25,800,903.11 in 2026 Bergen County contracts: Awarded to those 30 donor-vendors across 148 Board of Commissioners resolutions adopted between Jan. 21 and Oct. 20, 2026.
Bergen TV infographic. Sources: NJ ELEC Form R-1 filings for Tedesco for County Executive (2025–2026) and Form R-3 filings for the Democratic Committee of Bergen County (2025–2026), cross-checked against 2026 Bergen County Board of Commissioners contract resolutions.
September checks, October contract expansions
Comparing Tedesco’s Oct. 5, 2026 pre-election report (`DocId 3951230`) and BCDO’s Oct. 15 quarterly report (`DocId 3960605`) against the Oct. 7 and Oct. 20 Board of Commissioners dockets reveals four immediate sequences:
Eric M. Bernstein & Associates, LLC ($58,025 donated; $300,000 in 2026 contracts): On Sept. 2, 2026, managing partner Eric M. Bernstein of Warren contributed $5,500 to Tedesco’s campaign (following $25 in 2025 and $52,500 to BCDO across 2025–2026, including $30,000 in 2026). Thirty-five days later, on Oct. 7, commissioners adopted Resolution 1316-26, adding another $30,000 to the firm’s 2026 county labor-counsel contract (`Contract #2600001`). That resolution—following an earlier $30,000 hike on Aug. 5 (`Res. 1010-26`)—tripled the contract’s original $30,000 cap (`Res. 142-26`) to $90,000. Across 14 separate legal-services resolutions in 2026 (representing the County, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Prosecutor’s Office), the firm’s 2026 authorizations total $300,000.
DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole & Giblin, LLP ($54,533.34 donated; $70,000 in 2026 contracts): On Sept. 9, 2026, the Teaneck-based law firm contributed $5,200 to Tedesco’s campaign. In addition, 22 individual DeCotiis attorneys made synchronized fractional contributions to BCDO—such as batches of $833.33 / $833.34 and $666.66 / $666.67 checks on the same dates—totaling $49,333.34 in 2025–2026 ($19,333.34 in 2026 and $30,000 in 2025). Twenty-eight days after the Sept. 9 check to Tedesco, commissioners adopted Resolution 1263-26 on Oct. 7, adding $30,000 (+75%) to the firm’s 2026 contract (`Contract #2600005`) as Co-General Counsel and Special Litigation Counsel for the Bergen County Clerk’s Office, raising its cap from $40,000 (`Res. 150-26`) to $70,000.
Giovatto Advertising Inc. ($7,000 donated; $297,900 in 2026 contracts): On Sept. 8, 2026, Paramus-based Giovatto Advertising Inc. contributed $3,000 to Tedesco’s campaign ($7,000 total across 2025–2026). Twenty-nine days later, on Oct. 7, commissioners approved Resolution 1247-26, awarding Giovatto an $80,000 renewal (`BC-RFP-23-016`, 2nd option) as Marketing Consultant for the Division of Economic Development—bringing Giovatto’s 2026 county awards to $297,900 (alongside $200,000 under `Res. 736-26` for county event marketing and $17,900 under `Res. 1035-26` for digital billboards).
Alaimo Group ($41,000 donated; $86,570 on Oct. 20): After Alaimo Group principals Richard A. Alaimo and Tod A. Alaimo and firm executives contributed $8,500 to Tedesco (including $3,500 on Aug. 25, 2026) and $32,500 to BCDO in 2025–2026, commissioners on Oct. 20 adopted Resolution 1373-26, awarding Alaimo Group $86,570.00 for engineering services on Rochelle Avenue improvements in Rochelle Park.
Big-ticket 2026 county contractors and their 2025–2026 political donations
Beyond the fall professional-services expansions, the largest dollar volume went to construction, IT, printing, janitorial, and furniture vendors:
Joseph M. Sanzari, Inc. ($4,693,502.85 across 26 resolutions in 2026; $4,000 to Tedesco): Hackensack-based Sanzari won 26 county drainage and bridge repair resolutions in 2026 under cooperative bid `BC-Bid-23-13` and emergency bridge RFPs—including three Oct. 20 resolutions totaling $388,205.49 (`Res. 1370-26` for $39,035.43 in Paramus; `Res. 1389-26` for $294,500.05 and `Res. 1390-26` for $54,670.01 in Ridgewood). Executive Joseph Sanzari and General Counsel Carissalla contributed $4,000 to Tedesco in July 2025.
SMBA Construction LLC ($2,564,000.00 in 2026; $3,000 to Tedesco): Awarded $2,564,000 on Jan. 28, 2026 (`Res. 137-26`, Bid `C-25-014`) for the Medical Examiner’s Office addition and renovations; contributed $3,000 to Tedesco in 2026.
Royal Printing Service ($1,968,589.10 across 13 resolutions in 2026; $15,000 to BCDO): West New York-based Royal Printing received 13 awards in 2026 to print Bergen County ballots, sample ballots, mail-in certificates, and the county directory, while donating $15,000 to BCDO ($5,000 in 2026; $10,000 in 2025).
JCT Solutions ($1,922,742.46 across 10 resolutions in 2026; $20,000 to BCDO): Awarded four contracts in October 2026 alone totaling $920,635.17 (`Res. 1346-26` on Oct. 20 for $336,460.70; `Res. 1248-26`, `1249-26`, and `1272-26` on Oct. 7 for $584,174.47) under cooperative bid `BC-Bid-24-38`. Donated $20,000 to BCDO ($10,000 in 2026; $10,000 in 2025).
Maverick Building Services, Inc. ($1,831,806.00 in 2026; $6,000 to Tedesco + $2,000 to BCDO): Awarded $1,802,536 on Feb. 4 (`Res. 183-26`) for janitorial services across county buildings and $29,270 (`Res. 255-26`) for Winter Wonderland cleaning.
Paramus Ford / All American Ford ($1,760,651.89 across 17 resolutions in 2026; $1,500 to Tedesco): Including three October 2026 vehicle awards (`Res. 1386-26`, `1303-26`, and `1304-26`) totaling $290,940.30.
MRA International Inc. ($1,756,752.07 across 20 resolutions in 2026; $5,500 to Tedesco + $2,000 to BCDO): Long Branch IT vendor awarded 20 hardware, software, and managed-print resolutions in 2026, including three in October totaling $269,940.49 (`Res. 1349-26`, `1250-26`, and `1274-26`).
Michael J. Formanek / Strategic Planning Services ($1,602,810.00 across 5 resolutions in 2026; $2,500 to Tedesco + $700 to BCDO): Owner’s representative consultant on the Bergen County Jail shower renovation (`$198,560`, `Res. 1197-26`), One Bergen County Plaza elevator modernization (`$360,250`, `Res. 1078-26`), and general owner’s representative contract (`$750,000`, `Res. 52-26`).
Business Furniture Inc. (BFI) ($740,153.58 across 5 resolutions in 2026; $8,200 to Tedesco + $5,000 to BCDO): BFI’s 2026 state-contract awards include $269,031.11 on July 15 (`Res. 928-26`) specifically to buy workstations and office furniture for the County Executive’s Office and Treasury Division, plus $381,040.03 (`Res. 689-26`) for Health Department furniture.
Engineering & Architecture Heavy Hitters:Neglia Group ($69,500 donated: $5,500 Tedesco + $64,000 BCDO; $220,461.64 in 2026 awards), Boswell Engineering ($64,700 donated: $6,700 Tedesco + $58,000 BCDO; $324,071 in 2026 awards), RSC Architects ($55,000 to BCDO; $505,000 in 2026 awards), Netta Architects ($32,000 donated: $4,500 Tedesco + $27,500 BCDO; $477,125 in 2026 awards), CP Engineers ($3,000 to BCDO; $465,281 in 2026 awards including $395,399 on Oct. 20 under `Res. 1369-26`), and Colliers Engineering & Design ($32,525 donated: $2,525 Tedesco + $30,000 BCDO; $52,640 in 2026).
County contracts and debt service are paid through countywide property taxes levied across all 70 Bergen municipalities. Homeowners can see how county, municipal, and school levies break down on their property with the free GardenState.ai Property Tax Calculator and model future tax changes with the GardenState.ai Tax Shock tool.
Bergen TV asks: Should Bergen County cap political contributions from county contractors even when contracts are awarded through “fair and open” RFPs or co-ops? Share your take in the comments.
New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJ ELEC) Form R-1 filings for Tedesco for County Executive: 2025 Q2 (`DocId 3878588`), 2025 Q3 (`DocId 3895024`), 2026 20-day post-primary (`DocId 3934433`), and 2026 29-day pre-general (`DocId 3951230`, filed Oct. 5, 2026).
UPDATE (Oct. 26, 2026): Sixty-four minutes after Bergen TV published this report, the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office dropped its $54,000 fee demand and released 1,294 pages of 2021–2026 meal invoices, county purchase orders, and shift meal-count forms for $0. Read our follow-up investigation: Bergen County, N.J., Sheriff Drops $54K Fee; Files Show $188K Overpay.
Bergen TV Exclusive:HACKENSACK, N.J. — Bergen County commissioners voted 6-0 on Oct. 7 to award Aramark Correctional Services a new five-year contract capped at $15,000,000 to feed detainees at the Bergen County Jail and residents of the county’s Housing, Health and Human Services Center. County payment and procurement records obtained through the Open Public Records Act show the new ceiling is 65.4% higher than the 2021 contract award—even as actual county spending on Aramark fell four straight years to $1,616,856.66 in 2025, and even as the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office demanded $54,000.00 in officer overtime to release meal-count records.
Bid pricing tables and evaluation scorecards released by Bergen County on Oct. 19 under OPRA request B021799-100826 reveal for the first time how the two bids were priced and scored:
Aramark’s new meal prices do not explain the $3 million-a-year ceiling: Under Bid Table BT-05EP, Aramark bid a fixed daily basket of $5,671.14 a day based on 900 inmates served three meals a day (2,700 meals at $1.727 each), 200 officer and staff meals a day (at $3.91 each), and 131 shelter meals a day (at $1.727 each). Even if the jail held 900 inmates every day of the year, that fixed bid works out to $2,069,965 a year, or $10.35 million over five years—nearly $1 million a year below the county’s new $3,000,000 annual encumbrance for 2027 through 2030.
Only three of six listed reviewers scored the proposals—all from the Sheriff’s Office: Although Section II of the county’s specifications states that proposals “will be conducted by a committee of five (5) individuals,” the county’s evaluation scorecard lists six officials and shows that only three submitted scores: Jail Warden Nick Grella (98 points), Corrections Tour Commander Michael Cumiskey (100 points), and Jail Administration Capt. Paul Allegretta (94 points). All three County Division of Purchasing officials listed on the scorecard—Purchasing Director Pete Gerrity, Principal Purchasing Assistant Jacki Tate, and Public Agency Compliance Officer Michael Kupec—recorded no scores.
The OPRA Catch-22: When challenger Trinity Services Group asked the county during the bidding process for copies of Aramark’s July 2025–July 2026 monthly invoices and actual staff dining participation to prepare a competitive bid, the county replied in Addenda 2 on July 31: “Can be requested via OPRA.” Yet when those same 2022–2026 meal invoices and meal-count records were requested under OPRA from the Sheriff’s Office, Capt. Allegretta—one of the three bid scorers—sent third-party kitchen-repair bills instead of meal invoices for 2022–2025 and demanded an estimated $54,000.00 (about 500 hours of officer overtime) to pull hard-copy shift meal-count forms.
Bergen TV infographic. Sources: Bergen County OPRA B021799-100826 (Resolutions 1311-26, 859-21, 472-23, 1498-24; 2021–2026 vendor payment histories; Bid Table BT-05EP; Evaluation Scorecards; Addenda 2) and Bergen County Sheriff’s Office Oct. 19, 2026 OPRA release. Photos: Bergen County Sheriff’s Office.
Actual spending fell every year from 2022 to 2025
Resolution 1311-26, adopted Oct. 7, 2026, awards Contract No. 2600301 to Philadelphia-based Aramark Correctional Services, LLC for the five-year term from Oct. 18, 2026, through Oct. 17, 2031. The resolution sets a not-to-exceed ceiling of $15,000,000.00, encumbering $625,000 for the remainder of 2026, $3,000,000 a year from 2027 through 2030, and $2,375,000 for 2031.
The previous five-year contract (Resolution 859-21, adopted Oct. 6, 2021) was awarded at a ceiling of $9,071,250.00, or $1,815,000 a year for 2022 through 2025. Commissioners raised that cap twice—by $286,402.66 in April 2023 (Resolution 472-23) and by $182,864.72 in December 2024 (Resolution 1498-24)—to cover contingency meals while kitchen floors were replaced at the jail, bringing the amended five-year cap to $9,540,517.38.
County vendor payment histories obtained under OPRA show that what Bergen County actually paid Aramark dropped for four consecutive calendar years:
2022: $2,198,322.56
2023: $2,073,186.16
2024: $1,839,543.05
2025: $1,616,856.66
2026 (through Oct. 9): $1,472,397.20 (bringing total payments between Oct. 18, 2021, and Oct. 9, 2026, to $9,440,055.77, or $100,461.61 below the amended cap with eight days left in the contract term).
A not-to-exceed figure is a spending ceiling rather than a guaranteed payout, because the county pays per meal ordered and served. Even so, the county’s new $3 million annual encumbrance is 85.5% higher than what the county actually paid Aramark in 2025. When asked under OPRA for the backup calculations and Chief Financial Officer certification of funds supporting the $15 million ceiling, the county responded on Oct. 19: “The County is not in possession of any memorandum. As for item 1: Certification of funds is not an independent document with backup records. The certification of funds is done through the creation of Contract #2100360 which is noted on the resolution. As the contract has not been executed and is still in draft stage, the County does not have a contract to provide.”
County contracts are funded through countywide property taxes. Bergen County homeowners can check how county, municipal, and school levies affect their annual bill with the free GardenState.ai Property Tax Calculator and test future budget scenarios with the GardenState.ai Tax Shock tool.
What the newly released bid tables show: Aramark vs. Trinity Services Group
Only two companies bid on BC-RFP-26-003 when proposals closed Aug. 25, 2026—down from three bidders in 2021: incumbent Aramark Correctional Services, LLC and challenger Trinity Services Group, Inc. of Oldsmar, Florida. Both companies submitted pricing on the county’s Euna Procurement bid form (BT-05EP), which asked for two pricing baskets: a fixed daily price (Basket 1) and an occupancy-based sliding scale (Basket 2) using a baseline of 900 inmates (2,700 inmate meals a day), 200 officer/staff meals a day, and 131 meals a day at the Housing, Health and Human Services Complex (BCHHHS) at 120 South River St.
Notably, the written RFP specifications contained an internal contradiction on the inmate threshold: Section 71 () and the bid table used 900 inmates, whereas Section VI.1 () still stated that “the base-line for the inmate population will be 775 inmates per meal”—the cutoff from the 2021 contract.
Here is how the two bidders priced each line item:
Fixed Inmate Meal (2,700 meals/day at 900 inmates): Aramark bid $1.727 per meal ($4,662.90/day). Trinity bid $2.388 per meal ($6,447.60/day) under Option 1 (three hot meals daily) and $2.111 ($5,699.70/day) under Option 2 (one cold and two hot meals daily).
Sliding-Scale Inmate Meal (Below 900 / Above 900 inmates): Aramark bid $1.820 per meal when jail occupancy is below 900 inmates ($4,914.00/day at 2,700 meals) and $1.727 above 900 inmates ($4,662.90/day). Under the expiring 2021 contract, Aramark charged $1.835 ($1.84) per meal below 775 occupancy and $1.35 above 775. That means Aramark’s new below-threshold inmate meal price ($1.82) is actually 1.5 cents lower than its 2021 rate below 775 inmates. Trinity bid $2.969 / $2.281 under Option 1 and $2.601 / $2.020 under Option 2.
Officer and Staff Dining Room Meals (200 meals/day baseline): Aramark raised its staff meal price to $3.91 fixed and above 200 meals ($782.00/day), and $4.01 below 200 meals ($802.00/day)—up from $3.48 under the 2021 contract. Trinity bid $4.48 fixed and below 200 meals ($896.00/day), and $4.00 above 200 meals ($800.00/day).
Housing, Health and Human Services Complex Shelter Meals (131 meals/day baseline): Aramark bid $1.727 fixed and above 131 meals ($226.24/day), and $1.820 below 131 meals ($238.42/day). Trinity bid $2.840 / $2.281 under Option 1 and $2.490 / $2.020 under Option 2.
Daily Basket Totals: On the fixed-price basket (Basket 1), Aramark’s daily total was $5,671.14 ($2,069,965/year), compared with $7,715.64 ($2,816,209/year) for Trinity Option 1 and $6,921.89 ($2,526,490/year) for Trinity Option 2. Combining Basket 1 and Basket 2 on the procurement scorecard produced a composite figure of $17,296.69 for Aramark versus $24,257.49 for Trinity Option 1 and $21,685.40 for Trinity Option 2.
Even if the county paid Aramark’s higher below-900 sliding-scale rate on a full 900 inmates every day of the year ($5,954.42/day for inmate, staff, and shelter meals combined), annual spending would be $2,173,363—more than $826,000 a year below the county’s $3,000,000 annual ceiling. Reaching $3,000,000 a year at Aramark’s $1.727-to-$1.82 inmate meal prices would require serving roughly 3,944 to 4,169 inmate meals a day, or 1,315 to 1,390 inmates a day—exceeding the jail’s maximum physical capacity of 1,250 beds stated in Section I.1 of the RFP.
Who scored the bids: three Sheriff’s Office officials, zero Purchasing scorers
Section II of the county’s RFP specifications states that “the proposal evaluation process will be conducted by a committee of five (5) individuals selected by the Undersheriff in charge of the Corrections Division or his designee,” scoring proposals on Experience and Past Performance (30 points), Personnel Qualifications (30 points), and Cost (40 points).
However, the county’s “Evaluation Group 2 – Agency Review” scorecard (`Scoring_by_Reviewer.pdf`) lists six individuals—three from the Sheriff’s Office and three from the County Division of Purchasing—and shows that only the three Sheriff’s Office officials entered scores:
Michael Cumiskey (BCSO Corrections Tour Commander): 100 points for Aramark (30/30 Experience, 30/30 Personnel, 40/40 Cost).
Nick Grella (Bergen County Jail Warden): 98 points for Aramark (29/30 Experience, 29/30 Personnel, 40/40 Cost).
Capt. Paul Allegretta (BCSO Jail Administration & OPRA Custodian): 94 points for Aramark (27/30 Experience, 27/30 Personnel, 40/40 Cost).
Pete Gerrity (County Purchasing Director / Qualified Purchasing Agent), Jacki Tate (Principal Purchasing Assistant), and Michael Kupec (Public Agency Compliance Officer): no scores recorded across all categories.
Averaging the three Sheriff’s Office reviewers gave Aramark a final score of 97.33 out of 100 points (28.67 Experience, 28.67 Personnel, 40.00 Cost), ranking #1 in every category. Trinity Services Group received 79.00 out of 100 points (25.33 Experience, 25.33 Personnel, 28.33 Cost), with warning icons displayed next to both of Trinity’s technical scores on the summary dashboard; the county did not release the reviewer-by-reviewer breakdown for Trinity’s score.
“Can be requested via OPRA” — followed by a $54,000 OPRA bill
The procurement records also shed new light on the Sheriff’s Office’s handling of public records requests for Aramark’s meal counts and invoices. During the RFP question-and-answer period (`Addenda 2`, generated July 31, 2026), Trinity Services Group specifically asked the county for two sets of historical billing records:
“Trinity respectfully requests copies of the monthly invoices submitted by the incumbent contractor and associated payment records for the period July 2025 through July 2026. This information will assist proposers in understanding historical meal volumes, billing practices, and contract utilization to develop the most accurate and competitive pricing proposal possible.”
“The specifications indicate that the baseline for staff meals is fixed at 200 meals per day for pricing purposes. Please clarify how staff dining services are billed under the current contract… Please provide the average daily number of staff meals actually served for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and night shift meals during the most recent twelve (12) month period.”
To both questions, the county gave the same four-word answer: “Can be requested via OPRA.”
Yet when those exact records—Aramark’s 2021–2026 invoices and periodic meal-count reports—were requested from the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office under OPRA on Oct. 9, 2026, here is what happened:
On Oct. 14, the Sheriff’s Office released three PDF files labeled “2022-2023 Invoices,” “2024 Invoices,” and “2025 Invoices” (71 pages total). An audit of every page showed they were not Aramark’s weekly meal invoices to Bergen County; instead, they were third-party kitchen equipment repair, hood-cleaning, and supply bills sent by outside vendors to Aramark.
On Oct. 19, Capt. Paul Allegretta—one of the three officials who scored the Aramark RFP—sent 319 pages of 2021 Aramark weekly meal invoices (`$1,058,753.87` total across 53 weekly invoices plus three retroactive price-adjustment invoices), but denied the request for periodic meal-count reports from 2021 to the present. Capt. Allegretta wrote that “the BCSO does not have monthly meal count records separate from the invoices,” and said the closest records were hard-copy breakfast, lunch, and dinner shift forms stored in daily squad files. Pulling nearly six years of those forms, he wrote, would take “approximately five hundred hours” of officer overtime at an estimated cost of $54,000.00 (~$108 per hour): “If you are willing to pay this cost, please let me know. Otherwise, we will consider this request closed.”
What the 319 pages of 2021 invoices actually revealed
A line-by-line audit of the 319 pages of 2021 invoices produced by the Sheriff’s Office on Oct. 19 uncovered three key facts:
Weekly meal-count summaries already exist inside the invoice packets: Attached behind each week’s Aramark jail invoice is a printed Aramark spreadsheet titled “Bergen County Meal Count Summary”—a weekly grid listing each day’s breakfast, lunch, and dinner counts for Census, Diets, Veggie/Vegan, Kosher, Halal, Regular Trays, CallBacks, Sacks, Inmate Total Billed, and Staff.
A flat 1,400 staff meals billed every week—and a 136% staff meal price jump: Across all 53 weekly invoices in 2021, Aramark billed Bergen County for 510,209 inmate meals and a flat 1,400 officer/staff meals every single week (200 per day, totaling 74,200 staff meals and $134,769.60 in 2021). When the 2021 contract took effect on Oct. 18, 2021, the per-meal price for those 1,400 weekly staff meals jumped 136%, from $1.476 to $3.48 per meal—adding roughly $145,900 a year in staff dining charges. Under the new 2026–2031 bid, that staff meal rate rises again to $3.91–$4.01 per meal ($284,648 to $292,730 a year at 200 meals a day).
A 3,024-meal conflict on the week of Oct. 28–Nov. 3, 2021: On Nov. 17, 2021, Aramark issued three retroactive “price difference” invoices (`000863`, `000864`, and `000865`, totaling $9,301.33) to back-bill the Oct. 18, 2021 contract rate hike (+$0.107 per inmate meal and +$2.004 per staff meal). For the week of Oct. 28–Nov. 3, 2021, regular invoice `200332100-000855` (“2021 Invoices 2.pdf,” ) billed the county for 7,760 inmate meals. Yet retroactive invoice `200332100-000865` () for the exact same dates billed the rate increase on 10,784 inmate meals—a discrepancy of 3,024 inmate meals ($323.57).
On Oct. 20, formal written notice was sent to Capt. Allegretta and Sheriff’s Office legal counsel Daniel Zwillenberg declining the unitemized $54,000 fee under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c), requesting the unproduced 2022–2026 weekly Aramark meal invoices (with their attached weekly Meal Count Summaries) as immediate-access bills and vouchers under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(e), and narrowing the hard-copy shift-form request to a single week—Oct. 28 through Nov. 3, 2021 (21 forms, or about 105 minutes on the Sheriff’s Office’s own estimate)—to resolve the 3,024-meal discrepancy between invoices `000855` and `000865`. As of Monday, Oct. 26, the Sheriff’s Office had not responded.
A review of New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJ ELEC) annual pay-to-play disclosures (`Form BE`) shows that Aramark Correctional Services, LLC filed short-form disclosures for 2024 (Entity ID 13149, filed Feb. 5, 2025) and 2025 (Entity ID 19118, filed Feb. 18, 2026) reporting no reportable New Jersey political contributions; Trinity Services Group had no Form BE filings on record for 2024 or 2025. There is no allegation of criminal wrongdoing in the records reviewed.
SADDLE BROOK, N.J. — Attempted murder and aggravated arson charges filed last week against 36-year-old Bergen County resident Justin Martin have been dismissed “in the interests of justice” after investigators determined that the woman who accused him gave false information to police about how she was burned and who was responsible, Ocean County Prosecutor Bradley D. Billhimer announced.
In a pair of official releases issued Friday, Oct. 23, and Saturday, Oct. 24, the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office announced that all charges against Martin — whose hometown was listed as Saddle Brook, N.J., in the prosecutor’s Oct. 16 and Oct. 24 releases and as Saddle River, N.J., in the Oct. 23 release — were administratively dismissed on Oct. 23. His accuser, a 33-year-old Eatontown, N.J., woman, was charged Oct. 23 with two counts of falsely incriminating another person and taken into custody at Eatontown Police Headquarters.
Bergen TV is withholding the 33-year-old Eatontown woman’s name under its editorial policy for domestic-relationship allegations, while naming Justin Martin to set the public record straight following Bergen TV’s Oct. 17 report on his initial arrest.
All criminal charges against Justin Martin have been dismissed. The charges against the Eatontown woman are accusations, and she is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bergen TV infographic. Sources: Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office releases (Oct. 16, Oct. 23 & Oct. 24, 2026).
How the case unraveled in eight days
The investigation began at about 1:36 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 15, when Plumsted Township police and emergency medical services responded to a wooded area near Hawkin Road and Success Road in Ocean County after a 911 call about a female burn victim. First responders found the 33-year-old woman in distress and suffering from burns; she was taken to the Temple University Burn Center in Philadelphia, where she was treated and released days later, according to the prosecutor’s office.
During the initial investigation by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office Major Crime Unit and New Jersey Conservation Police, the woman claimed that while she, Martin and another person were in the wooded area, her boyfriend tried to burn and kill her, the Oct. 23 and Oct. 24 releases state. Based on that allegation, detectives located Martin in Asbury Park at about 12:15 a.m. Friday, Oct. 16, took him into custody without incident, and lodged him in the Ocean County Jail on charges of attempted murder and aggravated arson.
Three days later, on Monday, Oct. 19, Martin was released from the Ocean County Jail. According to court proceedings reported by NJ.com, Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor Mara Brater told a Superior Court judge that day that “it was learned today that there are recorded statements of the victim indicating that this defendant didn’t have anything to do with the assault on her,” and asked that Martin be freed while detectives investigated further.
According to Billhimer’s Oct. 23 and Oct. 24 releases, continuing investigation confirmed that the woman “provided false information to law enforcement about how she sustained her injuries and who caused those injuries.” On Friday, Oct. 23, she was charged with two counts of falsely incriminating another and lodged in the Ocean County Jail pending a detention hearing, and all charges against Martin were administratively dismissed in the interests of justice.
Billhimer credited the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office Major Crime Unit, New Jersey Conservation Police, Plumsted Township Police Department, Ocean County Sheriff’s Office Crime Scene Investigation Unit, Asbury Park Police Department, Eatontown Police Department, Keansburg Police Department, and Monmouth County Sheriff’s Office.
PARAMUS, N.J. — A second New York man has surrendered on felony drug distribution charges and the driver accused of running over a pedestrian in Monday’s fatal Route 17 South hit-and-run in Paramus, N.J., faces five new narcotics counts after detectives found several hundred THC cartridges inside the SUV and U-Haul trailer involved in the crash, Bergen County Prosecutor Mark Musella announced Friday, Oct. 23.
Michael C. Marciano, 47, of Fairport, N.Y., surrendered to authorities Friday and was charged with two counts of second-degree possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance and one count of second-degree conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, according to the prosecutor’s office. Investigators determined that Marciano owned the 2024 Acura SUV involved in the crash, had rented the U-Haul trailer it was towing, and was driving a separate vehicle in tandem with the Acura when the collision happened.
Estuardo G. Rodriguez, 31, of Tarrytown, N.Y. — the driver of the Acura who was boxed in by witnesses about half a mile from the scene on Monday evening — was served Friday at the Bergen County Jail with five additional charges: two counts of second-degree possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, one count of second-degree conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and two counts of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance.
Charges are accusations. Both Rodriguez and Marciano are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Bergen TV infographic. Sources: Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office releases (Oct. 20 & Oct. 23, 2026); Paramus Police Department.
What detectives say the vehicle searches turned up
Following Monday’s crash, detectives from the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Major Crimes Unit and the Paramus Police Department executed searches of the 2024 Acura and the attached U-Haul trailer. According to prosecutors, investigators recovered several hundred THC cartridges from the vehicle and trailer, along with one pill each of suspected Ecstasy and Percocet inside the Acura.
Further investigation linked Marciano to the drugs and established that he owned the Acura, had rented the U-Haul trailer, and was traveling alongside Rodriguez in another vehicle when the crash occurred on Route 17 South near Westfield Garden State Plaza, prosecutors said. Both Rodriguez and Marciano remain held in the Bergen County Jail in Hackensack pending court proceedings.
Background: The Oct. 19 fatal Route 17 hit-and-run
As Bergen TV reported Tuesday, Paramus police responded at about 5:09 p.m. Monday, Oct. 19, to a pedestrian hit-and-run on Route 17 South near the mall. Officers found Krisiann Reyes Rivera, 31, of the Bronx, N.Y., lying in the roadway with life-threatening injuries; she was taken by ambulance to HMH Hackensack University Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead.
According to the prosecutor’s office, the 2024 Acura towing the U-Haul trailer had collided with a 2015 Buick in which Rivera was a passenger. After that initial collision, Rivera got out of the Buick, walked to the Acura and struck one of its windows, prosecutors said. Rodriguez then accelerated and struck Rivera as he drove away, knocking her to the ground and running her over with the trailer’s rear tires, according to the Oct. 20 release.
Rodriguez exited Route 17 South onto Garden State Plaza Boulevard on the mall’s property, where witnesses who had followed the Acura blocked it in traffic about a half-mile from the crash scene and flagged down a Paramus police officer. Investigators determined that Rodriguez was operating the Acura under the influence of alcohol and with a suspended license, and charged him Oct. 20 with second-degree death by auto (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5a), second-degree knowingly leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5.1), third-degree endangering an injured victim (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2a), third-degree driving while suspended in a collision resulting in death (N.J.S.A. 2C:40-22a), and motor vehicle summonses including driving while intoxicated.
The investigation is being conducted by the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office under Chief Jeff Angermeyer and the Paramus Police Department under Chief Robert M. Guidetti, with assistance from the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office and the Bergen County Fatal Accident Task Force (including the Leonia and East Rutherford police departments).
