Posted on

Ridgewood Town Garage Site vs. Hudson Street Garage

town_garage_theridgewoodblog

Dear Village Officials,  I understand ” the train has left the station ” on the Garage at the Hudson Street site but I would like to state a brief case as to why this is not the best scenario for Ridgewood at the present time.

We have a contaminated site at the Town Garage site and the village owned properties abutting it. Hydrolic and diesel fuel from old underground tanks is seeping into the ground and could be affecting our ground water in the area.  I know that it is being monitored and that the DEP targeted this area for remediation at least 10 years ago. In 2002, a village conducted study saw the Town Garage site as a better fit for a municipal garage than Hudson Street for various reasons.
I believe the village tried to gain the property via eminent domain in 2009 but that failed.  I understand that you have asked our village attorney to look into the Abandoned Property ordinance.  The owners of that site are up to date on taxes but the property continues to be a threat to the environment.  I believe that this property should be acquired by the village, the site cleaned up and  responsible development of the property including a garage should take place.

You are voting on an ordinance this evening to bond 12.3 million dollars through the BCIA.  Our first priority should be the acquisition of the Town Garage site and the remediation of that property as soon as possible.  If a garage is built there, it would be used by employees, diners sand shoppers as well as commuters as it is more centrally located.  The Hudson Street area could be repaved and reconfigured to maximize parking spaces and also for minimal costs made more aesthetically pleasing.  I want what is best for the village and right now it is to clean up the toxic site in our downtown area.

Sincerely,
Linda Mc Namara
Posted on

Reader says This garage is going to be a money loser and the town will be left on the hook for it

BCIA

file photo by Boyd Loving

This garage is going to be a money loser and the town will be left on the hook for it.

I was in town on Saturday and the main streets had people circling for spots as usual on Chestnut, Oak, etc. But, if you drove a couple of blocks away to near Mt. Carmel (and where the new garage would be), there were TONS of metered spots open.

I don’t think the parking problem is that there aren’t enough spots in the downtown area. The problem is that people don’t want to walk a couple of blocks for a parking spot. Building the garage right near Mt. Carmel is NOT going to solve this problem. Maybe, if the new garage was at the old garage next to Ben and Jerry’s or somewhere more central and visible would it be more utilized. I just don’t see the draw to have to park in a multi-level garage when there is street level parking available at most times across the street.

There is no way Ridgewood should be spending $10m plus on this.

Posted on

BCIA votes today at 1pm on Ridgewood Garage Bonding !

Hudson Street Parking Garage

Dear Neighbor

BCIA votes today at 1pm. If you have not already sent them an email, please send them an email. Our council members are so close to bond it within Ridgewood. We should keep the control of the garage and not bond it through BCIA.
This link can auto-populate an email form for you to edit and send. Don’t forget to sign your name in the email.
If you can make it to the BCIA meeting today at 1:00 that will be really great.
Address is: Bergen County Improvement Authority, 1 Bergen County Plaza, 4th floor, Learning Center.
put 10 Hudson Street into your GPS.
Thank you
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

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

OLMC : uncomfortable with potential ripple effects and future implications of the Hudson Street Garage in Ridgewood

Mount Carmel

OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL

FROM THE PASTOR Dear friends,

Since the bulletin is prepared on Wednesday, before the Village Council meeting, I cannot share with you what happened. Below, please find the statement of the Parish that was emailed to Council members and read into the record.

On behalf of the Archdiocese of Newark and Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish, I would like to thank Mayor Aronsohn, Councilwoman Knudsen and the architectural/engineering teams working with the Village of Ridgewood for their willingness to engage in these open discussions and for their participation in the two meetings held at the parish last week. I have attached a memorandum from Daniel Disario, P.E., PTOE, of Langan Engineering, the firm that the parish has retained to review the traffic study submitted by Maser Consulting. The memorandum has identified several areas of concern that we would like to see addressed prior to the project moving forward.

While we are encouraged by the fact that the Village is willing to consider reducing the size of the proposed structure, we still believe that the construction of a parking deck for 200 additional cars will significantly impact day to day operations for the Church community and accordingly we would like to see the project proceed with due caution. Though we are thankful that the Village commissioned a traffic study, we feel that the report was limited in scope and a more thorough analysis is necessary.

The study was performed on Wednesday, October 7th for two hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon. As a result, the report does not take in to account added volume due to; daily drop off and pickup for Windsor Academy School, drop off and pick up for religious education classes, weddings, baptisms, confirmations, funerals and other parish events – including the significant attendance for weekend masses. With Mount Carmel being the closest neighbor to the parking structure, we would have preferred more interaction with Maser’s engineers so they could take these factors into account.

We are also uncomfortable with potential ripple effects and future implications of issues yet to be determined, including the possibility of the reversal of traffic flow and the elimination of street parking on Hudson and Passaic Streets, both of which border Church property. Certain aspects of the design, including the introduction of crisscrossing left hand turns at the entrance/exit of the lot, a problem which will be exacerbated by the inherent increase of both foot and vehicle traffic at mass times, should be more closely reviewed and fleshed out.

Furthermore, the proposed “cantilevered” overhang is a major aesthetic concern and also could present a series of logistical issues. We agree that solutions need to be found for the parking problem in Ridgewood and it is the intention of the parish to cooperate with the Village to address this longstanding issue. We also recognize the viability of the Hudson Street lot as a potential site, however, we believe the matter needs the type of comprehensive study and analysis that was recommended in the “Summary and Conclusions” portion of the original study completed by Maser Consulting on October 15, 2015 (page 22).

To this end, the parish is willing to retain an engineer at its own expense to examine the ramifications of the proposal in more detail. In conclusion, we formally request that bond approval be placed on hold until both engineering firms are given the appropriate time to study the matter in the required detail and subsequently confer for the purpose of providing a mutually beneficial solution for both the Village and parish communities.

Please pray we come to a peaceful agreement.

God Bless,

Fr. Ron

Posted on

In response to Ridgewood Mayor Aronsohn’s statement yesterday on the Parking Garage

Hudson Street Parking Garage
Dear Neighbors and Friends,

As many of you have likely read, Mayor Aronsohn yesterday proposed that the traffic garage be altered to the smallest of the three options.

On the surface, this seems like a generous compromise and that he is listening to the needs of Mount Carmel and the rest of us in town but I am concerned that he is still not hearing us.

Let me explain:

1) The footprint for the smallest proposed garage is the same as the biggest. More than anything, this is the most unseen problem. The proposed garage will in essence extend nearly to the center mark on the center line of Hudson street. As resident Rob Kotch put it today, “It’s like trying to fit an elephant into a VW bug.” So, the width is of equal concern as the height. This will affect traffic in that area in a major way, particularly with regard to the parishioners of Mount Carmel.

2) The only traffic study already commissioned by the town was conducted between 7-9am and 3-6pm on the same day in October. The study itself states: “We recommend that an analysis be performed to incorporate the intersections of South Broad Street & East Ridgewood Avenue and North Broad Street & Franklin Avenue into our traffic model as these intersections are already operating at capacity and may affect access to the surrounding land uses. We recommend that a study be performed to include Passaic Street as Hudson Street and Passaic Street operate as a pair within the roadway network…It is also our opinion that the study should include the intersections of South Broad Street & East Ridgewood Avenue and North Broad Street & Franklin Avenue as these intersections are operating near capacity and have a noticeable effect upon traffic.”

In other words, more study is needed to do this properly, which of course brings us to–

3) On September 30th, the Village Council voted in favor of doing a comprehensive traffic study that specifically includes the parking garage. It is essential we make sure the council follows through with this particular study and do so before anything further is done with the proposed garage.

As Jiminy Cricket once said, “There’s two ways of doing things…”

Hoping to see you Wednesday night, 7:30pm at Village Hall.

Sincerely,

Dana

cleardot
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video I’m No fool As A Pedestrian Jiminy Cricket Disney 16mm Sound Hd Hbvideos

hqdefault

I’m No fool As A Pedestrian Jiminy Cricket Disney 16mm Sound Hd Hbvideos

Posted on

Bergen County to build or manage Hudson Street garage in Ridgewood ?

Bergen County Executive Jim Tedesco

These 1/6/16 Village Council meeting agenda items were excerpted verbatim from the agenda posted on VOR’s website.

“Discussion

a. Parking

1. Ordinance t o Participate in Leasing Agreement with Bergen County Improvement Authority

2. Authorize Application to Local Finance Board – Hudson Street Deck

10. Motion to Suspend Work Session and Convene Special Public Meeting #2

11. Special Public Meeting #2 – See Attached Agenda”

It would appear as though the Council will introduce an ordinance(s) to form some sort of partnership with the Bergen County Improvement Authority re: proposed Hudson Street parking garage.

What now?

Posted on

Village of Ridgewood Feasibility Study for Hudson Street Garage Complete

Hudson Garage

photos by Boyd Loving 

2015 Walker Feasibility Study for Garage

Click Here to read the complete Walker Parking Garage Feasibility Study that was presented in the October 7, 2015 Village Council Public Work Session.

DSCF6398
Special Public Hearing – October 14, 2015

The Village Council of the Village of Ridgewood shall conduct a Public Hearing in the Sydney V. Stoldt, Jr. Court Room on the fourth floor of the Ridgewood Village Hall, 131 North Maple Ave., Ridgewood, NJ at its October 14, 2015 Regular Public Meeting, which meeting begins at 8:00 p.m.

20151007 110128 resized1

DSCF6403

DSCF64261

The purpose of this Public Hearing is for the Village Council to receive comments and suggestions from the public for the Village of Ridgewood’s 2015 Bergen County Open Space Trust Fund Municipal Park Improvement and Development Grant application. The Village has applied for this grant for Phase 1 work on the Schedler Park property, located at 460 West Saddle River Road, Ridgewood, NJ. Phase 1 would encompass basic infrastructure improvements to include: installation of underground utilities (water, electric, sewer); demolition of two-car garage, small shed; capping of inoperable well; selective removal of down, dead, diseased trees; site clean-up; and cut in proposed parking lot driveway entrance.

Heather A. Mailander

Village Clerk

Posted on

Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce issues a “Call to Action” to Push for Hudson Street Garage

Hudson_street_parking_theridgewoodblog

PARKING GARAGE -We are so excited -the Parking Garage got the needed 4 Votes.
Thank you so much!

The Ridgewood Chamber now invites you to a”call to action” meeting to put the facts on paper why this garage will not:
cost the residents more taxes,why it will save their “downtown town”.All businesses have a vested interest in this parking garage.

Ridgewood NEEDS to bring the infrastructure of its business district up-to-date -NOW IS THE TIME.
This topic has been talked about for over 88 years -NOW IS THE TIME.

Ridgewood Parking Garage Facts
Yes     No
Parking Garage Needed         X
Developer Interest               X
Land Study                    X
Zero Cost to tax payer  X
Vote                           X
First “call to action” meeting…
Thursday, July 30, 2015 9am – Chamber office.
many more meetings to follow.
Please call 201-445-2600,
if you are attending.

Posted on

Ridgewood Council to keep it simple on Hudson Street garage

7th_Penn_Parking_Lot

JULY 9, 2015    LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2015, 3:09 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

The results of a parking study performed by the New York-based firm Walker Parking Consultants are in, and the choice was simple for village officials – a traditional self-park deck is the way to go at Hudson Street.

While an automated garage would have provided more parking spaces, the gain would have been negated by its higher price tag.

The cost of a traditional deck was reported to be approximately $11 million to $12 million, while building an automated garage is estimated at $17 million to $24 million.

These numbers are dependent upon the amount of spaces built, among other factors that are typically handled during the request for proposal (RFP) and subsequent design phase.

Officials also cited some disadvantages that come with the technology used in automated garages, particularly at a site where commuters and rail passengers are often moving in and out of the area and would prefer to get to their cars quickly.

In the report, Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld said a traditional deck could yield a net gain of as much as 318 spaces over what already exists at Hudson Street, while one of the automated garage scenarios would only give the village an additional 322, but would cost several million dollars more.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/council-to-keep-it-simple-on-garage-1.1371637