photo by Boyd Loving
February 22,2018
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, There was a Special Public Meeting last night, Wednesday, February 21, from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The Village Council interviewed the four companies that bid on the construction of the Hudson Street Parking Garage. Each company gave a full presentation. The Village Council and the public had the opportunity to listen to proposals and to see a broad range of design options. Names were drawn from a hat to determine the order of presentations as follows:
Terminal Construction Corporation
Prismatic Development Corporation
Epic Management Inc
The Pike Company
Councilman Ramon M. Hache said that , “Overall, I was very pleased with the presentations. The presenters were very thorough and professional. The information provided by them is a crucial component of the extensive due diligence process necessary for a project like this. Generally, much of the focus has been on the dimensions, capacity and construction costs. But the analysis must also take into consideration the annual maintenance costs and the durability and quality of the materials used in its construction. We also have to consider the various approaches to construction methods as they relate to safety, as well as the logistics and timelines associated with the different phases of construction. Last night what had the opportunity to discuss those factors.”
Hache went on , “The due diligence process can be painstaking but it is the same cautious and prudent approach one would take before allocating capital to any significant investment project. Although this has been a long process, in hindsight, I am happy to not have rushed the project along given the valuable lessons learned. For one, declaring the existing Hudson Street lot to be an area in need of redevelopment has given us a tremendous amount of leverage. I think we are already seeing the benefits over the traditional design/bid/build process. Simply put, we are now in a position to negotiate better terms for the Village. We are now looking at potential construction costs that are 20%-30% lower than any previous estimates, and without having to pay for additional designs. The designs discussed last night were absolutely at no cost to the Village.
It was a long meeting but definitely worth it. I am thankful for the residents who attended and sat through the presentations to the end. We only lost a couple of people which was very impressive.”
Updated Bids:
One of the original bids was reduced by 11%. Epic Management reduced their bid after reviewing the numbers with the company that supplies their pre-cast concrete. Here are the updated bids received, listed from lowest to highest overall:
$9,464,666: Pike Company Inc
$10,100,000: Terminal Construction Corp (Version 3)
$10,900,000: Terminal Construction Corp (Version 2)
$10,983,193: Epic Management Inc (Low Version)
$11,190,627: Epic Management Inc (High Version)
$11,480,000: Terminal Construction Corp (Version 1)
$14,399,000: Prismatic Development Corp
Next Step is that the Village Council will be reviewing the results of the Walker Feasibility Study at the next Public Work Session on Wednesday, February 28. The study will provide a planning-level analysis of net operating income potential for the parking system when the new garage is complete, including rate adjustments that will help maintain a parking utility that is self-supporting. Armed with a thorough financial analysis, we can then move forward with discussing contract negotiations and final selection.
During public comments at the end of the meeting, 2 residents reminded VC members that there are already 76 spaces on the ground there. Thus, the construction cost per space is much higher than what was presented by the developers last night. That is, you must subtract the current number of spaces from the total being built to obtain the net increase in spaces, which should then be used to calculate the cost per space.
Also, last night was the first time the public was made aware of the perpetual maintenance costs associated with the operation of precast parking structures. Several of the presenters indicated that unless the structure is properly maintained, its life expectancy decreases dramatically.
It was said that the use of ice/snow melting agents and HARD WATER are particularly problematic. And the only way to clean the ice/snow melting agents away is by using water on a regular basis. And what type of water do we have in Ridgewood? HARD WATER, of course!
This is going to be the biggest financial boondoggle ever. Way beyond the boondoggle of post Tropical Storm Floyd renovation costs at Village Hall. Way beyond. Way, way beyond.
Looks like he wants to become THE Mayor who built THE Garage for his friends Vagianos and Saraceno.
Any council member who votes for this is making an enormous mistake. It’s a terrible, terrible shame.
6:15 is Correct.STOP THIS HUGE MISTAKE.Neighborhood wrecker.
Thank you.. you have my vote to build the new garage. Well done.
No good, none whatsoever, will come from this project.
No it’s not 705…it’s a parking garage that the residents of this town have wanted for YEARS. And as such the council is moving forward with a well thought out plan that will finally address the needs of the CDB. The naysayers and a minority of local social gadflys continue to predict doom and gloom just like they do at any time the town looks to the future. We’re moving forward without you. Get used to it.
1048 building a parking lot is moving backwards not forwards. Who is the garage intended to benefit other than out of town developers looking to build more shanties and failed resauranteurs who think that more parking spaces will make their bad food and over priced drinks more palatable.
EVERY parking study done over the past 50+ years by objective professional consultants has indicated the need for a parking garage in Ridgewood. It appears the current Village Council is doing something to remedy the longstanding parking deficit. The garage will primarily serve commuters during the day and local businesses afterwards. It will be a boost to all of Ridgewood and despite the naysayers it will not destroy or diminish the character and desirability of the Village. Other higher end towns (particularly Summit and Princeton) have garages and residential property values in these towns have continued to rise. There is not one shred of evidence that the garage will negatively impact residential property values in Ridgewood. To the contrary, it will likely enhance values because prospective homeowners who commute to NY will benefit from the availability of convenient parking. This is a big benefit when you are rushing to catch your regular morning train to the city.
1048…. the horse is out of the barn..
The garage will finally be built. Rejoice.
To pay for garage parking rates in town will go up dramatically. No more shopping in town for me when that happens. Just not worth it. I guess people from other towns will pay the higher meter rates to eat in Ridgewood.
Not a single shred of evidence exists that the current residents of Ridgewood want a parking garage funded and constructed at any cost. No proof whatsoever. Until you have such proof, shut up. Thank you.
This just in…..”Retail Dying”. The Wall St. Journal reports that even trendy SoHo is seeing a store closings as retail shopping continues to dip.
https://www.wsj.com/…/even-soho-cant-escape-the-retail-property-storm-1519160376
In 10 years people will wonder what possessed a Village to build a hulking garage to support a retail shopping district that went the way of the dinosaur. If we are looking to the future it should be how the CBD will be repurposed once retail shopping has evaporated. Not building a garage decades after it would have made a difference.
1136…. original bond was approved… the overturn was based on the original massive proposal. It was not against a garage. It was against the original proposal which many thought was way too large.
Anyone knows when Hache is up for reelection? This guy is a cheat. I voted for him but I totally dislike him now. Working for Real Estate in Ridgewood puts him directly in conflict of interest yet he has taken the lead on this garage debacle.
If the garage is built I ask that street parking along Ridgewood Ave be prohibited and meters removed. We won’t need those spots anyway and the street would look great with no cars parked on both sides.
Is anyone from VC talking about street and lot paving these days? Bronx has much better streets.
11:36, I think this result qualifies as at least a little evidence that residents want a garage. After all, a 2:1 vote of residents expressed explicit approval for a parking garage on exactly the site that is being planned. A much smaller group of people used a technicality on the funding of the garage to veto a particular design, but that certainly doesn’t eliminate this overwhelmingly positive result as the foundation for moving forward.
https://theridgewoodblog.net/ridgewood-voters-back-parking-garage-proposal/
11:39 a.m. Let the council know your opinion either through e-mail or at town council meeting.
1233… please dont inject facts and logic into this
12.33. What’s the point of letting the council know? The decision has been taken. Emails or other comments won’t change anybody’s mind. Let them go though with the garage and hope that it will work out. I am exhausted by this debate.
11:36 that is simply false. I am no fan of the garage because I think it will require increased meter rates (which people won’t want), increased meter times (which people won’t want), and a net subsidy from the taxpayers (which people don’t want).
But even with those facts, there are still plenty of residents that want the garage.
We live in a Democracy.
Our elected leaders try to make the right decisions.
Don’t vilify them for trying to do what they believe is right, even if you think they are wrong.
I repeat: Not a single shred of evidence exists that the CURRENT residents of Ridgewood want a parking garage funded and constructed at ANY COST. No proof whatsoever. Until you have such proof, shut up. Thank you. The referendum question in November of 2015 did not specify costs. A new referendum question is needed.
Pave the lot already!!
Referendums not required. The first one was a political stunt.