Posted on

Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Concludes Hudson Street Parking Garage can be funded entirely by parking revenues

PayByPhone_Meter

Statement of the Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Hudson Street Parking Garage

The Financial Advisory Committee (the “FAC”) of the Village of Ridgewood strongly supports the proposal to construct a parking garage at the site of the existing Hudson Street parking lot.

Members of the FAC have carefully reviewed the proposal, including discussions with Village management and a thorough review of the financial analysis prepared by Walker Parking Consultants (the “Walker Study”). Based on that review, we believe it is in the best interests of the Village to move forward with the project.

We would like to highlight the following points: The Walker Study substantiates the long-held belief of many of our residents that there is insufficient parking to adequately serve the Village core.

While there is ample anecdotal evidence that parking is difficult in downtown Ridgewood, the Walker Study provides factual confirmation based on observations of parking usage at different times and days of the week. We believe the methodology used in the Walker Study is reasonable and its findings accurate.

While there is excess capacity in parts of the Village, parking demand in the central core exceeds practical supply at nearly every key time of the day. As set forth in the Walker Study, the costs of the parking garage can be supported entirely by Village parking revenues, assuming small increases in parking rates and the extension of metered hours to 9 p.m.

The FAC conducted its own independent analysis of the costs and revenues associated with the proposed parking garage. Using very conservative assumptions (no new revenues, construction costs as high as $14 million and interest rates as high as 4%) the garage can still be funded entirely by parking revenues.

A new parking garage will have a significant positive economic impact on the Village. The new parking garage will enhance the attractiveness of existing stores and restaurants, encourage new businesses owners to choose Ridgewood, and modernize our parking infrastructure.

We recognize that while parking revenues should cover the cost of the garage, funding the garage still creates an additional financial obligation for the Village, which would need to be met by other sources in the unlikely event that parking revenues fell short. However, we think the substantial benefits offered by a garage support taking on that obligation. * * *

In its last annual report to the Village Council, the FAC stated that “addressing the Village’s parking problem is probably the single best thing the Council could do for the central business district.”

Parking has been an issue in Ridgewood for decades. Finally, we have an opportunity to address the parking problem, and thereby safeguard Ridgewood’s appeal as a destination for dining and shopping, and preserve the vibrancy of our central business district.
The FAC encourages you to vote “YES” for parking on November 3.

17 thoughts on “Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Concludes Hudson Street Parking Garage can be funded entirely by parking revenues

  1. We do need a garage “in the central core”. This one is way out of the way for most shoppers. Yes, they can walk..if they can. Lugging small children or being handicapped is another story. This should really have been on Franklin Ave which would give access to most of the town.

  2. If they are so sure back it up with personal Guarantees of the landlords and businesses. Dont ask me the overburdened Taxpayers to backstop this boondoggle

  3. Agree sandy. This lot is not far down enough to help stores east of the park it is for commuters and those select restaurants up by broad imo.

  4. This is disingenuous – what replaces the money funded by parking revenues in the Village budget?

  5. What are these FAC guys smoking? Will they offer a personal guarantee to Village taxpayers that the project will come in on-time and on initial budget? Why would FAC members recommend something which puts taxpayers at 100% risk for the inevitable cost overruns and delays associated with union labor and graft couched as “change orders” on all municipal contracting we’ve ever done in Ridgewood?

  6. Why wouldn’t they recommend a public private partnership (PPP) between the Village and business owners in the CBD? If it’s so beneficial to the Village’s core, wouldn’t business owners want to contribute to the cost of the garage? Village taxpayers will get better cost oversight from private business people than if it’s just the Village engineer overseeing it… $500,000 golden toilets anyone?

  7. “We recognize that while parking revenues should cover the cost of the garage, funding the garage still creates an additional financial obligation for the Village, which would need to be met by other sources in the unlikely event that parking revenues fell short. However, we think the substantial benefits offered by a garage support taking on that obligation. * * *”

    SHOULD is not the same as WILL. “IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT PARKING REVENUES FELL SHORT” – If the economy tanks as it did in 2008, parking revenues WILL FALL SHORT and taxpayers will be stuck paying for this money pit.

  8. Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Concludes Hudson Street Parking Garage can be funded entirely by parking revenues

    This title is misleading. Maybe it “can” be funded by parking revenues, but maybe it cannot. Maybe it “can” be if the rates go up town-wide, if the hours of paid parking are extended, if the lot is occupied 24/7…….or maybe even then it cannot be.

  9. The scary issue is what utilization the garage has to achieve to cover its fixed cost ( salaries, debt service, etc.). If it covers with 50 % of spaces occupied during the day that might be OK, but if it takes 90%+, then we’re probably looking at a money pit.

    I don’t see where this issue was addressed by the FAC. As others have said, “can” is not the same as “will” or even ” will probably”

  10. Propaganda. Plain and simple.

  11. Do they think that they can cover the cost with revenue from the new garage only? Is it possible that they are thinking that it can be funded by parking revenue from all parking meters around town?

    How much parking revenue do we get now? What Is it used for, just part of general revenue or is it earmarked for something?

  12. Timing alone of this released opinion is more than questionable.let them release the Data or withdraw these Statements.NO ONE GETS CALLED OUT ON ANYTHING IN RIDGEWOOD.We are talking Millions in underfunded liabilities including New village Emoloyees and associated Liabilities also for their Employment and Benefits Costs.

  13. Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee Concludes Hudson Street Parking Garage can be funded entirely by parking revenues. Well maybe they would like to sign a contract that they will be finically responsible for any shot falls of the garage for the term of the bond. That board both past and presents members are all tied in to the 3 amigos. What a bunch of hacks.

  14. Well the Finical Advisory Board knows how to take of their own ( Roberta) This was taken from their report dated November 2012.
    j.
    We suggest that t
    he Village Manager
    be exempt from the BPI Schedule. Instead, the Vi
    llage
    Manager’s
    BPI rate
    would
    be reset every year at
    a modest pre

    determined rate (4

    7%)
    above the
    highest
    current employee
    BPI
    rate
    . This will ensure an appropriate premium
    for the Village Manager’s
    annual compensation
    and that no employee has a higher BPI than the Village Manager

    So the question is let see who our Village Manager gave raise to in order to increase hers ?
    .

  15. 5:31, your comment is highly misleading and not based in fact. The November 2012 FAC report was not binding, and the BPI schedule was just an example of what could have been used instead of the 12% retroactive pay raise given to Gabbert after he’d reopened the CBAs for police & fire (without a labor lawyer present) to give raises to the senior brass. He came back to the Governing body and said he should get paid more than the guys he just gave raises to, and amazingly the Council voted 4-1 to give him a 12% retroactive pay raise ! Roberta isn’t doing her job to get a raise and she takes considerably less than the senior police & fire brass when you include their accumulated leave, 10% longevity pay, and future benefits (pension & healthcare from an average “special” retirement age of 52).

  16. Let the readers decide 12:59 but you seem to know a lot about it.

  17. These folks must also be predicting that less people will be using the internet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.