Six-Figure Gift Raises Red Flag for Residents

The Ridgewood Village Council’s unanimous acceptance Wednesday night of a six-figure donation from the family foundation of a potential downtown developer prompted resident questions about a perceived conflict of interest.

J.T. Bolger, whose father David’s foundation proposed the $250,000 to $300,000 renovation of Lester Stable, is the principal of Two-Forty Associates, a real estate firm with an application before the Ridgewood Planning Board for the “Chestnut Village” multifamily development.

Attorney Tom Wells, in making the presentation on the Stable project in September, disclosed the connections between the two entities, including his own representation of the firm before the planning board and J.T. Bolger’s role on the foundation’s board of directors.

During the presentation, he emphasized the donation stemmed from Bolger’s personal interest in the building, which he helped restore more than 30 years ago, and told the council that it came “without any strings attached.”

“We do not expect and have never received any preferential treatment before any boards,” he said.

Residents who spoke during the public comments portion of Wednesday night’s meeting questioned the perceived violation of the village’s “gift ordinance.”

The ordinance, banning donations from those with applications pending before the village, was passed in 2008 after a previous offer Bolger made while he had an application pending before the zoning board drew concerns from residents, officials said at the time.

In 2010 the council revised the ordinance, lifting the ban and allowing the council and village manager to review donations on a case-by-case basis.

On Wednesday night, and at the time the gift ordinance was first passed, those scrutinizing the donations said their concern was not with Bolger personally, but with the perception that money could influence village decisions.

Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli, a 23-year veteran of the planning and zoning boards, was adamant that Ridgewood is “not for sale.”

“People on those boards are very critical of every application,” he said, dismissing the possibility that a donation could influence officials.

“If it works that way then boy, I missed something in 23 years.”

Roger Wiegand, a frequent speaker at council meetings who said he opposed the 2010 amendment to the gift ordinance, said that the donation could create a perceived conflict of interest.

“What has changed since 2008 which would cause us to even consider this donation?” he asked members of the governing body Wednesday night.

The council last cited the gift ordinance earlier this year, when it unanimously declined an $8,000 offer from Valley to fund the printing of a new emergency preparedness manual, days after the hospital submitted a proposal to expand its facility.

“We don’t take money from some people but we do take money from others,” said resident Boyd Loving, referring to that decision. “It’s confusing to me.”

Reached Thursday, Mayor Paul Aronsohn said the council had proactively held a public presentation on the project in September where the overlaps between the two separate entities were fully disclosed.

“We’ve been extremely transparent, and rightly so,” he said. “I think because of the size of [the donation], and any interconnections, it was important that the council have public discussion of it.”

“It’s not just a gift, it’s something that we need,” he added.

The parks and recreation department, headquartered in the Stable, previously outlined restroom and programming needs that have outgrown the building in the last three decades.

The resolution passed by the council Wednesday night is contingent on the village reaching a construction agreement with the foundation. According to the presentation by Wells, construction is expected to take four to six months.

[Note: An earlier version of this article misstated Mr. Wiegand's name. The error has since been corrected.]