Posted on

Meeting at the BCIA , Ridgewood on the Agenda

hudson parking garage

Well, we’re definitely on agenda for Thursday. See below. We are on page 3.

16-27 Authorize Application to LFB (Ridgewood Parking Garage, series 2016) see attached
16-28 Award Contract- Bond Counsel- Ridgewood Parking Garage, series 2016
scroll down to page 4 to see the attached resolution
https://www.co.bergen.nj.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/02042016-309
Posted on

BCIA Hudson street Garage Option , great for out of Town Commuters , not so great for Ridgewood

Hudson Street Parking Garage
February 1,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, The reason why the project has been studied and studied but never actually built is because at the end of the day, although we need more parking, it does not make sense from a practical, logistical or financial sense to build one in the downtown proper

Going to the BCIA , once the money is approved, it tends to appear almost instantaneously, accruing interest long before the project can even get started. That is a significant reason to reconsider this plan or ploy and an excellent reason, if it does happen, not to ask for a cent more than is needed. But losing control over the way commuter spaces are priced is a huge problem and there are undoubtedly more.

There will be approximately 320 car garage. 4 levels. The mayor said in the last meeting that 2 levels may be dedicated to commuters. That’s about 160 cars for commuters. We currently already have one level, which is mostly used by Ridgewood commuters. Lets say the second level is used by Bergen County commuters at no extra money compared to Ridgewood commuters. So, 2 levels are either used by out of Ridgewood commuters or commuters who are already using this lot today without the garage.

With remaining 2 levels, we will get 160 new spot, presumably for non commuters. Cost – 12.3 million in new bond, 500K bond has been already spent + 450k already spent on environmental studies in 2014 & 2015 on this lot. = 13.25M.

That’s 82,800 for every new parking spot created for CBD. This assumes that the project will not go over the budget. With the way this council and village manager are spending the money, this is highly unlikely to stay in the budget.

How does putting a garage at one end of the CBD really help the rest of the downtown area ? This proposal, like Valley, is over the top and in no way needed. This country goes into a slowdown/recession and you can kiss going out to the real beneficiaries of this (the restaurants) good bye.

Posted on

Why on earth would Ridgewood leap into bed with the BCIA????

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ

file photo by Boyd Loving

From the archives: Local towns paying heavily for Bergen County loan program meant to save time, money

DECEMBER 28, 2009, 8:47 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2010, 2:41 PM
BY STEPHANIE AKIN AND CHRISTOPHER SCHNAARS
STAFF WRITERS |
THE RECORD

This story was originally published Dec. 28, 2009.

A Bergen County loan program touted as a quick and easy way for local governments to pay for big-ticket items has instead plunged some of them into long-term debt.

The five-year-old Municipal Banc was supposed to let cash-strapped towns bypass conventional borrowing methods and get county-backed loans for emergency services and public works projects. The program promised 24-hour loan approval with no red tape, backed by the county’s AAA credit rating.

Most towns and school districts that used the program borrowed only what they needed and spent the money quickly. Many praised the program for its convenience and low fees.

But some towns took out loans for items as inexpensive as rope and firefighter boots, borrowed money long before they intended to make purchases and paid interest on money they never spent. In some cases, their applications were approved even though they provided little information about how the money would be used.

From 2004 to 2008, Rutherford, Fair Lawn and Hackensack let a total of more than $1.6 million in loans sit idly in Commerce Bank accounts while taxpayers paid more than $200,000 in interest and fees. Fair Lawn, for example, waited four years to buy a $130,000 generator.

“That’s like saying, ‘I’m going to buy a house, I’m going to pay a mortgage and interest on the house, but I’m not going to move in for three or four years,’” said Joseph Tedeschi, a Fair Lawn councilman.

TD Bank took over the program after it bought Commerce in March 2008.

Five consultants that donated more than $450,000 to Bergen County Democrats from 2004 to the end of 2008 were paid at least $1.8 million for professional services by the Bergen County Improvement Authority — the agency that oversees the Municipal Banc — including more than $180,000 for services tied to the loans.

Those consultants included Dennis Oury, the former counsel for the BCIA and the Bergen County Democratic Organization. Oury, who pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges in September, collected more than $1.1 million from the BCIA during that period. Oury resigned from the BCIA in early September 2008 after federal officials accused him of fraud.

The program auditor, Ferraioli, Wielkotz, Cerullo & Cuva, also was the auditor in three of the towns that were the heaviest users of the program: Fair Lawn, Hackensack and Rutherford.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/from-the-archives-local-towns-paying-heavily-for-bergen-county-loan-program-meant-to-save-time-money-1.1243384

Posted on

Ridgewood Village Council Approves “Mysterious Garage ” by 3-2 Vote

Village Council Meeting
file photo by Boyd Loving
January 27,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ,  The Ridgewood Village Council approved changes to the planned parking garage on Hudson Street by a 3-2 vote Wednesday night.

In the “newest version” of the Hudson Street Parking Garage ,residents were told the reduced size garage would provide close to 325 parking spots and will be 43 feet tall. The foot print of controversial  structure will now be no more than 5 feet over the property line with Hudson Street will be slightly reduced in width but will stay at lest 25 feet wide so it will be able to maintain the three lanes, two for traffic and one for parking. The mystery of coarse is that no actual garage drawings were shown.

The encroachment onto Hudson street has become one of the most divisive issues surrounding the garage causing concern from Our Lady of Mount Carmel parishioners and many residents who voiced concerns over traffic congestion, fire safety as well  the feeling the encroachment seemed very well concealed from referendum voters.

I think Boyd Loving summed it up best when he recounted the story of how he met his wife – His best friend from grammar school through high school came to him 41 years ago and said he’d met a girl that Boyd would probably want to marry someday.  Boyd’s first question to his friend was “Well, what does she look like?”  In short, it is insane to expect the public, especially property owners near Hudson Street, to wholeheartedly embrace the “revised” garage plan without first seeing what the hell it looks like.

Many felt that ,”To have the council vote on a design that doesn’t exist and to have our village manager justify the benefits of going to County is within the realm of farce.” , “Spin, subterfuge and slander are what I witnessed last night.”

It seemed that most resident questioned the amount of the change orders for the new plan. They also wanted to see the new design which was not available. Susan and Mike wanted some time to digest the new plan and speak to neighbors. So did most residents but the Council Majority were in a rush.

The interesting  thing  is Roberta said that bonding through the BCPA not cost anything it just about breaks even. Seemed a bit of a stretch  ,there are paper work cost and attorneys fee. Plus what in it for BCPA ?

However the council did postponed the vote on entering an agreement with BCIA for funding but will likely do so at its next meeting, Feb. 10.
Disgusted. But not surprised residents especially love how the Deputy Mayor so smugly dismissed public protestation over going around a supermajority to the BCIA with “it’s perfectly legal…” but then are disgusted by Dana Glazer taping the HPC meeting even though that, too, is perfectly legal.

How the Chief Finance Officer replies to a resident who understands some numbers : https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7641044

Legit or not residents remained very skeptical with the BCIA funding . The biggest issue was going through BCIA (besides not seeing the actual garage drawings)…even if the Council assumptions on rate savings are correct and the bond through BCIA vs bonding ourselves is a wash we create 2 problems by doing this:
1) give up additional revenue by not being about to charge out of town commuters more
2) create more out of town commuter traffic to the lot that actually takes away parking spaces for residents

Just seems stupid , the BCIA gets hundreds of thousands in fees (great deal for them), and we get more commuter traffic that we don’t get to charge a premium for.

The Deputy Mayor who previously lost his temper and made threats at a previous council meeting now has a problem in recording the public meetings. Councilmen  Mike Sedon stated that the NJ Law allows one party consent for recording, and Matt Rogers stated that as per the case laws, courts have allowed anyone to record a public meeting  . Deputy Mayor pushed his dissent and stated that he is going to introduce an ordinance to limit it.

Here is the link – fast forward to  4h9m54s

https://youtu.be/4fa9ET4nvtM?t=4h9m54s

Posted on

BCIA financing for the Ridgewood Hudson Street Garage does not qualify as a rational decision

pro garage signs 2
January 27,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Critical issues remain before the BCIA can be engaged on this new, unknown plan. The village and residents have much hard work still to do. The November vote, and the mandate to borrow applied to a plan that is no longer is on the table.

This garage will be operate under different circumstances due to the county funding, the out of town commuting load will likely be higher than the village has detailed. Our outdated and antiquated traffic signals cannot handle traffic as it is. Has the village shown any financial information to residents for this funding? The village and county will be asking us to be investors in this multi-million dollar project and we would like more information on all aspects. The village still has a ways to go on the items it has promised. The residents need time to make a smart investment decision with our tax money on this new and unknown plan.

Even though the council hasn’t answered the question, I understand that the additional cost by going through the BCIA rather than using our own AAA credit rating (the best available and higher than the US Govt at one point) will cost the town an additional 1.5-2%.

Everyone who has likely shopped their mortgage around when buying their home in order to eliminate .5 point. This council, who likely did the same for their own home purchase, is apparently willing to throw away 3-4x that amount of our money rather than have a discussion about a more appropriate solution. We could then finance ourselves and have no input from a county authority that would expect something in return for the privilege of using their inferior cost of capital!

I’m not sure how that qualifies as a rational decision in anyone’s book.

Posted on

Ridgewood Village Council : Revised agenda for tonight’s VC meeting?

Hudson Street Parking Garage

A very recently revised agenda for tonight’s VC meeting?
Am I nuts or does this imply no presentation to the public, no further discussion, etc. ?
16-31:  Approve Hudson Street Parking Deck Design

______________________________________________________

Discussion: Parking

  1. Authorize Change Orders No. 1, 2, & 3 – Hudson Street Parking Deck (Desman)
  2. Authorize Change Order No. 4 – Hudson Street Parking Deck (Desman)

3. Award Professional Services Contract – Validation Study of the Revised Design of the Hudson Street Parking Deck (Walker)
4. Approve Hudson Street Parking Deck Design
Discussion: Budget
Award Professional Services Contract – Professional Land Surveyor Services
Discussion: Policy

  1. Revisions to Field Policy
  2. Healthbarn – Irene Habernickel Family Park


Highlights – Special Public Meeting:

ORDINANCE #3519: PUBLIC HEARING –  Leasing Agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority Resolutions
16-28:  Authorize Change Orders #1, #2, & #3 – Hudson Street Parking Deck – Desman, Inc. (in the amount of $20,800)
16-29:  Authorize Change Order #4 – Hudson Street Parking Deck – Desman, Inc. (in the amount of $121,650)
16-30:  Award Professional Service Contract – Validation Study of the Revised Design of the Hudson Street Parking Deck (Not to Exceed $12,500)
16-31:  Approve Hudson Street Parking Deck Design

Posted on

Readers Say going to BCIA, which will open up this lot mainly for out of town commuters because of the county funding and owning the garage

parking garage cbd

Once again, the Council majority is trying to rush a construction agenda item through before any opposition can organize. Look for them to rush the “comprehensive impact studies” on the high density housing question through too. That vote will be scheduled immediately after the results are released so that the minimum number of people will have read them beforehand.

Apparently they only listen to rooms full of people with signs so let’s give them what they want.

Dear Members of Council and Manager,

There are many dissatisfied residents in town, and as our representatives, we urge you to listen to our concerns, not ignore them.  We have lived in Ridgewood since 1968 and we don’t remember a time when legitimate concerns were given lip service and then ignored.

Marty & Ellie Gruber

Angela Turner Stoehr , does great job in explaining the problem with the current design. Hopefully watching your explanation will be an eye opener for many who think that some residents oppose all progress, and will come to the council meeting this Wednesday to request the council to come up with a design that fits the lot and not encroaches the street, and then bond it with our own bond, instead of going to BCIA, which will open up this lot mainly for out of town commuters because of the county funding and owning the garage.

https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7623263

Next the Village has to go to the BCIA to petition for the money next. That will be a public meeting and the freeholders have to vote on it.

Posted on

PLEASE COME TO VILLAGE HALL, THIS WEDNESDAY, 7:30PM TO ASK THE RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL TO PLEASE LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS OF RIDGEWOOD!

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ

file photo by Boyd Loving

Dear Village Council & Village Manager,

As you are aware, in recent years, your Residents have voiced ongoing concerns with the “process” by which many important matters facing the Village are undertaken. Included in our concerns are handling of the High-Density Housing Ordinances, Schedler redevelopment, Habernickel house leasing/parking, and, of course, the Parking Garage designs and rushed BCIA Bonding for construction.
The Agenda set for this Wednesday, January 27’s Council meeting,https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/…/480-20160127-village-council-p…, is further evidence that our Village government is still not handling “process” in the well-planned, open and Resident-focused manner we have requested time and again. We need you to do the right thing, from the get-go, without the now routine changes that follow the constant, but fully valid and sadly necessary, complaints from your Residents.
For example, justifiable Resident complaint led to changes in the problematic scheduling of: (1) the original high-density ordinance public comment and vote, set for a single meeting on a night shared with 3-4 back-to-school nights, and (2) the recent “special public meeting” for high-density housing impact studies at the prohibitive time of Friday evening at 5pm.
We should not be Ridgewood’s guardians. That’s the Council’s job. But once again, your Agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting forces our hand. Why? Here’s why:
1. DANGEROUSLY RUSHED GARAGE BONDING WITH BERGEN COUNTY: Firstly, this Special Meeting is set to review the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) application and bonding, despite the fact that we don’t even have a finalized garage plan. In effect, we don’t know what we’re buying, but are still applying for the loan! It doesn’t take a financial genius to see the problem with that. At the 1/6/16 garage meeting, you committed to working on a new garage redesign that (1) fits on the lot, (2) does not cut Hudson Street in half, and (3) tries to address the concerns of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. So far, Residents have yet to be fully presented with any formal revised designs that we can use to either support or question the ordinance. We need to see these plans. What we do know is that the revised draft still does not fit within the Hudson Street lot and takes over several feet of Hudson Street itself. Based on the wording of the Referendum and the commitments of the 1/6/16 Council meeting, that is unacceptable and requires correction. Remember, several Councilmembers specifically told residents to “Vote Yes to Parking… and then Negotiate the size, scale and design of the garage later.” As such, based on your commitment to us, we ask that – as promised – you allow us to be a “real” part of the process. So let’s see the new plans before you write any checks.
2. FAILURE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED IN YOUR OWN TRAFFIC STUDY (by Maser): Beyond design, size and scale issues, Ridgewood must address and resolve the recommendations of its own Maser Traffic Study, which not only mandated further study of ‘at-capacity’ intersections at Broad/Ridgewood and Broad/Franklin, but also raised questions about the need for such a large garage at that location. In prior years, even the Mayor himself, in a very smart December 2008 essay on parking, stated that “I am not convinced that we need a large, potentially expensive garage… in fact, the more I learn about the situation, the more I believe that a garage now would be a big mistake” (https://www.paularonsohn.com/writ…/time-for-action-on-parking). The Mayor then wisely added some cost-effective recommendations, he called “Quick, Smart Fixes,” including enhanced signage for current parking lots (something that still hasn’t been done, but is a GREAT idea) and repainting existing lines to gain spaces. Many residents have voiced agreement with Mr. Aronsohn, circa-2008… let’s try other let costly (and maybe more effective) options first.
While you can legally take POLITICAL action towards bonding, you cannot take RIGHTFUL action towards bonding, in any manner, unless you let your Residents know exactly what you are bonding for, and give us a real opportunity to weigh-in and approve. Ultimately, Residents will pay this bill, either as parkers or through real estate taxes.
3. SCHEDLER DISCUSSIONS NEED TO HAVE THEIR OWN NIGHT, OR AT LEAST EARLIER PLACEMENT AT T A LATER MEETING: Lastly, but of similar importance, it appears you have scheduled a meaningful discussion on the Schedler Redevelopment matter at the tail end of this meeting, after what may be a lengthy parking review. Schedler is too important to too many Residents, and to the Village itself, to be given such short shrift. By the time the Schedler discussion occurs on 1/27, so late on the agenda, many or most of the concerned Residents who need to be there, will be gone. And even Councilmembers have complained of trying to make important decisions at late hours. Whether intended or not, this will continue to raise the specter of this Council’s legacy of problematic scheduling and “process.” This specter hurts your ability to be trusted by Residents and to be effective as leaders at a time you need to be the most effective. Please give this some real thought. According to many empty-nesters and seniors I’ve spoken with, Ridgewood has not seen so much government distrust and community group outrage in decades. Only you can fix this… and here’s a quick way to start:
Please do the following:
1. Put off the BCIA discussion and vote until we have answers to the Maser Traffic Study questions and until we know what parking plan we are bonding for.
2. Reschedule the Schedler discussion to a future meeting out of respect to your concerned Residents and to the import of the matter itself.
As always, while frustrated, we hope that you will do the right thing in the handling of both these related requests.

Thank you, in advance.
Dave Slomin,
Concerned Resident
Posted on

Please Reschedule the Dangerously Rushed Garage Bonding (BCIA) Vote/Discussions & Give Schedler Discussion Earlier Agenda Placement at Later Date

village council meeting
file photo by Boyd Loving
Dear Roberta and Council members,
Thank you for rescheduling Schedler as the agenda is so jam packed that we were all looking at another marathon meeting.  I may not be an expert on anything but I do recognize when town issues have reached a critical mass level of concern.  With hundreds of people speaking out on multiple issues and the vast majority offering well thought out solutions, it is time to go back to the drawing board.  Had it not been for concerned residents speaking out on the garage we wouldn’t have known about the encroachment of all three options onto Hudson Street.  This revelation has altered the integrity of the present plans so dramatically that the entire project is open for reevaluation on design and financing.
Regarding Schedler, I urge you to refrain from the removal of structures or cleaning up of the woods until a fully vetted plan is in place with feasibility studies and financials that can be presented to the public for consideration.  I became aware recently that a private citizen paid for the tarp on the Zabriskie/ Schedler House and that no  town monies are available for needed repairs on said tarp.  I was under the impression that the town had paid for the original tarp and I feel that I and others were misled.
I can only say that having been involved with saving the Stable and getting a community center for the town, it is very shortsighted to disregard the value and the potential use of this historic house and property.  I can’t begin to tell you how important it is to save the woods, for humans as well as the bald eagles that are in the area.  We can have it all plus a smaller ball field.  Numbers show that more children are enrolled in RBSA programs than young adults .  The smaller field will get much use.  We might look at leasing/ renting field space in local towns.
Years ago, my kids played at Ramapo College fields, the Armory in Teaneck and the indoor arena in the Meadowlands. Not to leave out housing density changes in the CBD, Valley Hospital and the reported 600 leaf summonses that were given out and the large numbers who showed up at court in protest.  Change is sometimes about doing less but more effectively.  If ever there was a time to take a step back and examine the unintended consequences of massive change, it is now.
Sincerely,
Linda McNamara
Posted on

Ridgewood Vote Scheduled to the BCIA for Bonding

parking garage cbd

https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7623263

Ridgewood NJ, A vote to go to BCIA is scheduled for this coming Wednesday. Our council members have expressed interest in voting for the bond in house without going to BCIA if a reasonable design / size is proposed that fits the lot, but the council majority is willing to push ahead with BCIA vote without finalizing the design first.
Posted on

Readers say Going to the BCIA is a back-door way of going around the electorate

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ

file photo by Boyd loving

Going to the BCIA is a back-door way of going around the electorate, plain and simple.$250,000 in additional cost to the taxpayers because the bond vote failed 3-2.

At the meeting on January 6th a few things were made clear. One is that the “threesome” stands firm as a bloc and of course voted in perfect synchronicity, in spite of the gigantic number of objections to the huge garage. Another point  is that Aronosohn is going rogue, going directly to the BCIA to get his funding, for which he only needs three votes.

Damn the laws of the land, just find a way around them. Another is that Albert’s trigger temper is still very much alive, as he went after a resident who alluded to the upcoming election. The resident was calm and polite, and Albert was wild, then Gwenn started holding up her cell phone. Such unprofessionalism from the dais, such calm in the audience.

A summary is SAME OLD SAME OLD. A million people spoke. Most were against the garage. The three amigos voted in favor of the bond. Susan and Michael voted against it. Aronsohn is immediately going to circumnavigate the law (legal, but still underhanded) and go to the BCIA, where he only needs three votes. He put that in motion before the ink was dry on the bond defeat. Good luck trying to find the Ustream on the new website. It seems to be nowhere.

Posted on

Bergen, Ridgewood target parking

highlander-garage-fight

Bergen, Ridgewood target parking

OCTOBER 25, 2014    LAST UPDATED: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2014, 1:21 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER | 
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — The county and village could soon be partnering to address parking problems in an attempt to attract more shoppers to the downtown and ease the crunch for residents.

The Bergen County freeholders unanimously voted on a resolution earlier this week authorizing the transfer of nearly $180,000 from the county planning department’s budget to the Bergen County Improvement Authority.

Ridgewood officials have been meeting with representatives from the BCIA over the past year to discuss a partnership for a multistory parking garage, which would likely be built downtown on Hudson Street.

“I am grateful to Chairman David Ganz and the entire Freeholder Board for their leadership and partnership,” said Ridgewood Mayor Paul Aronsohn.

“Working together with BCIA Executive Director Rob Garrison and his board, I am increasingly confident that we can make a Ridgewood parking deck a reality,” Aronsohn added.

The BCIA will meet next on Nov. 6 to consider funding a study of the parking situation throughout the village, while making suggestions for improving it.

– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/bergen-village-target-parking-1.1117894#sthash.pWm99iBB.dpuf

Posted on

Readers suspicious over BCIA involvement in Parking Garage

7th_Penn_Parking_Lot
Readers suspicious over BCIA involvement in Parking Garage 

Out of 70 Town in Bergen Count. They are going to come here and help us with our garage. You asked the county to fix a road or line stripe one of their roads and it falls on deaf ears but all of a sudden they are going to do this for us. Whats in it for them or is this Council going to sell us down the drain to further the agenda

If it made financial sense to build a parking garage…..it would have been built long ago.

BUT….if you can get your buddies at the BCIA (that independent authority that gets to borrow millions and millions and millions of dollars) to do a study, and to pay for it, and that you will have some influence in it’s results, then you do it.

The Republican County Exe. Donovan stated she would not issue bonds through the BCIA, now she wants to use tax dollars to do just that. Also Glen Rock School Board, refused to use the BCIA because of their high fees

I’ll believe it when I see it. The plain and simple truth is there’s no need for a parking garage in Ridgewood. It simply can’t be cost justified. If they build it, people will NOT come because it will be too expensive to park in.

Here’s a simple idea that costs no money. Free up parking spaces in the downtown district by having your employees park a couple of blocks away and walk to work.
There you go…..I’ll give you that advice for free.

I would think the powers that be would concentrate on getting the stores filled and operational before they build a garage to house the customers that aren’t there yet.