Ridgewood NJ , Here’s a question for those so eager to sink millions of taxpayer dollars into the construction of a massive parking garage in Ridgewood’s Central Business District (CBD):
Why not offer any developer who would like to build luxury (not high density) housing in the CBD, an incentive of some sort if public parking is included as a component of their project?
If the need for public parking is as bad as those promoting the construction of a taxpayer funded garage say it is, wouldn’t it make sense to have each developer offer public parking in their respective buildings? Especially any developer(s) who want to build near the train station and/or concentration of restaurants along Oak and Chestnut Streets?
DECEMBER 4, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Ridgewood Council this week weighed in on a proposed parking garage to be built at the existing Hudson Street lot, and each member offered reasons why they supported one of the three options over the others.
Three members of the council supported option A, a notion that most of the public commenters agreed with, while the other two were in favor of option C.
Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck, who was in favor of the largest-sized and most-expensive option available (option A), explained that her decision was based upon three different factors: finances, aesthetics and intangibles.
“Economically, if you bought into the idea of the garage at all, option A is the one that makes sense; that provides the service that everyone has been clamoring for,” she said, noting that while the first two levels of the garage will cost $10 million to build, the next two will only cost a total of $2 million, allowing the village to save some money while meeting greater demand.
Hauck also explained that current interest rates are favorable, and that taking advantage of a 3 percent rate is the smart thing to do. A bigger garage, she said, means more rentable spots, which will allow the town to pay off the garage faster.
Addressing aesthetics, Hauck said she wanted the garage to be “an experience.”
“I think any substantial detailing that we can have to improve the look and strengthen it, we should have,” she said.
In terms of intangibles, Hauck explained that any large project involves a lot of risk, but that the risk is necessary for the reward.
Re: “Planned garage a plus for Ridgewood,” The Ridgewood Blog, November 29.
Mr. Don Delzio’s letter fails to state the obvious; the reason there has been no progress for decades on the construction of a parking garage in downtown Ridgewood is the repeated inability to cost justify such a project. And the current plan to fund a new garage by significantly increasing metered parking rates and extending the times during which municipally provided parking must be paid for, has not yet been fully vetted. This leaves a very strong possibility that Ridgewood’s predominantly residential taxpayer base could wind up footing the bill for a project that would do absolutely nothing to increase residential property values.
With regard to a controversial “anonymous mailer” that opposed construction of the garage, Mr. Delzio failed to mention that the hundreds of lawn signs and flyers promoting construction of the garage, displayed at publicly and privately owned properties throughout Ridgewood, were also anonymous in that no sponsoring individual, organization, nor business name was printed on any of them. Only after Election Day was it revealed that those printed materials were paid for by the Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce. And despite Ridgewood Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s claim that “no one was willing to take responsibility for the mailer . . . ,” at least one (1) individual who contributed to its production and distribution has come forward publicly on two (2) separate occasions.
Finally, Mr. Delzio’s suggestion that no member of the Village Council should consider voting anything but yes to bond a parking garage because there was “overwhelming voter support for the project,” implies that there is no room in Ridgewood for dissenting opinions. I say let those who we elected base their decisions on the facts and data at hand and not be swayed by opinions from voters, some of whom may have been misinformed, or who voted based on perceptions, not facts.
Ridgewood NJ, Don’t these photo simulations look a lot like the ones on the “anonymous mailer” Mr. Aronsohn can’t seem to shut up about?
More, and more importantly:
During the Wednesday evening, December 2nd Ridgewood Village Council Work Session, Mayor Paul Aronsohn vowed that the parking deck (garage) will be built, even in the absence of a 4 vote “super majority” vote of the Village Council, which would be required to bond the debt service.
The Mayor and Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli revealed that “they” have already discussed an alternate (and completely legal) plan of having the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) issue bonds for the project if the 4 vote “super majority” isn’t obtained.
At a minimum, this would add an additional $750k in BCIA fees to the project, plus an as yet to be determined interest fee each year for 30 years.
The staff of The Ridgewood Blog will attempt to keep you fully abreast of developments along this front, although we are sure a person or persons at Village Hall will do everything in their power to keep information away from us.
Retail Store Sales Fell 10% Thanksgiving Weekend as Online Gains
Lauren Coleman-Lochner LaurenLochner
December 1, 2015
U.S. holiday shoppers spent more of their time last weekend online and less in line.
Consumer spending at brick-and-mortar retail locations in the U.S. fell 10 percent to $20.4 billion over the four-day Thanksgiving weekend, according to ShopperTrak. The Chicago-based research firm gathers sales and traffic data from receipt information and devices in stores.
Retailers cut back on Thanksgiving hours, rolled out discounts earlier this year and ran more of their bargains online, putting less pressure on consumers to rush out for discounts after their turkey dinners or the next morning. The strategies also contributed to a 26 percent increase in online sales over the weekend, according to International Business Machines Corp. But even after the brick-and-mortar drop, ShopperTrak maintained its forecast that those sales will rise 2.4 percent this holiday season.
“The success of the holiday season doesn’t hinge on the performance of a single day,” said Bill Martin, ShopperTrak’s founder. “Seven out of the top ten sales days still remain, and December is anticipated to be strong.”
ShopperTrak’s forecast for the holiday season is weaker than that of the National Retail Federation, which has predicted a 3.7 percent sales gain for November and December.
Spending Less
The shoppers that did hit the mall last weekend may have kept a lid on spending. About half of Americans shopped on Black Friday this year, similar to last year, the International Council of Shopping Centers said Tuesday. But 55 percent said they spent the same or less than last year, according to a survey of 1,016 adults the trade group commissioned from Opinion Research Corp.
Janeen Price, who was shopping with her daughter in Greensboro, North Carolina, over the weekend, said she was a more serious Black Friday bargain-hunter in previous years. Now, her kids are grown up and she doesn’t feel the need to butt heads with other shoppers, said Price, 50.
NOVEMBER 30, 2015, 5:47 PM LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2015, 5:47 PM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Local officials will ask for public comment Wednesday night regarding the size and scope of the proposed Hudson Street parking garage, the construction of which is expected to ease longstanding parking concerns in the village’s crowded downtown.
Mayor Paul Aronsohn said the 7:30 p.m. meeting will feature a presentation by parking deck designer Desman Design Management and give residents a chance to provide opinions on the structure’s height, square-footage, and car capacity. Aronsohn intends to hold an informal council vote that night and introduce a bond ordinance on Dec. 9 to fund construction.
Voters endorsed the garage by nearly a 2-to-1 majority in a non-binding referendum last month. That referendum’s wording said the garage was anticipated to provide a net increase of about 300 spaces without having a “negative impact” on property taxes because parking revenues would be used to pay off the construction debt.
According to documents on the village website, three parking decks of varying sizes have been proposed.
Hudson Street Parking Deck – Message from the Village Manager
Click Here
Ridgewood NJ, According to Village Hall residents will have an opportunity to chime in on the parking garage design on December 2nd. The three designs presented included the original structure, as depicted on Villlage of Ridgewood (VOR) site, with 405 spaces (130,000sq ft), a modified version with 355 stalls (120,000sq ft) and the lowest profile version with 305 stalls (109,000 sq ft). The cost per stall decreases for each added level:
405 stalls @ $28,000 = 11.5 mil
355 stalls @ $29,300 = 10.4 mil
305 stalls @ $31,000 = 9.5 mil
You can see the higher you go the more efficient the project becomes IF, of course, those spaces are utilized.
As far as the design, it is exactly as shown at the informal meetings. The 355 version indicates a lower profile along Hudson St but retains the same height along Broad. The 305 version includes
the lower profile on both Broad and Hudson. For some reason I didn’t include the heights in my notes but will ask Roberta for those details. Each version includes cantilevering over the entire Hudson St sidewalk with an additional 20″ cantilever extending over the street. The cantilevers were depicted in the original design and, I believe cannot be eliminated due to the lot width.
Also Mayor Aronsohn sent an email (personal email) to residents regarding the three garage designs and process moving forward. His letter indicates surprise ,surprise higher cost for each version likely based on factoring in the original $500,000 bond.
Please share your thoughts and questions with us regarding the deck so that your feedback can be considered by the Council as they deliberate on this important issue at the December 2nd Council Meeting……please also consider coming to that meeting to share your opinions. You can email me at [email protected] or call 201-670-5500, ext. 203.
“see those empty spaces thats where the new Parking Garage is going to go ,bigger is better”
Time to build a parking deck
NOVEMBER 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
‘Time to build a parking deck’
To the Editor:
On Nov. 3, Ridgewood residents voted in support of the financing and construction of a parking deck on the Hudson Street lot. Although the referendum was “non-binding,” the message from the 3,236 residents who voted in favor of the parking deck – a full 65 percent of the vote — was loud and clear: After decades of discussion, it is time to act. It is time to build a parking deck.
Therefore, the questions now before the Village Council are not “whether” to build a parking deck or even “where” to build it; rather, the questions are “what size” and at “what cost.”
So, on Dec. 2, the Village Council will take up these two questions and decide on “what size” and at “what cost.” Then, a week later, on Dec. 9, I plan to introduce a bond ordinance that corresponds with those decisions and moves this process forward.
To facilitate these decisions, our design team has put together three options – at different sizes and at different costs — and although the referendum allowed “up to $15 million in public funds” to be expended, each of the options comes with a considerably lower price tag. (Please visit the Village Hall lobby and Village website for pictures and relevant information.)
Our design team will be on hand at the Dec. 2 meeting to outline the three options – pros and cons – and take questions from the council. We are also making special arrangements to allow members of the public to ask questions of the design team, too.
I encourage all residents to let us know their thoughts about “size” and “cost” – either by email or by showing up at the Dec. 2 meeting. We are at a critical, albeit exciting juncture in this process, and we want all residents to be a part of it.
A big round of applause for Ridgewood Council members Gwenn Hauck and Albert Pucciarelli and Mayor Paul Aronsohn for successfully stewarding the parking garage project for downtown, culminating in voter approval earlier this month. Decades of no progress on this topic finally have been broken.
There are many positives to this project, with the most important being to strengthen our central business district by addressing the No. 1 challenge: parking. As the mayor recently pointed out, the “only real negative aspect was the disinformation campaign that sought to confuse and undermine the public conversation – a disinformation campaign represented in part by an anonymous mailer.”
The mayor noted that “no one was willing to take responsibility for the mailer, [but] the language was strikingly similar to that used by some of the parking deck’s most vocal detractors.”
The next challenge for the parking deck is to secure financing. In order to bond, four of five council members are needed to vote yes. Will those who did not support the project vote no? That would be in direct opposition to the overwhelming voter support for the project.
NOVEMBER 27, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Parking revenues can support largest garage
To the Editor:
The Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Village of Ridgewood in a previous statement strongly supported the proposal to construct a parking garage at the site of the existing Hudson Street parking lot.
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 percent), the garage can still be funded entirely by parking revenues, with moderate increases in hourly parking rates and hours.
There are currently three proposals under consideration. From a strictly financial perspective, the proposal to build the largest 405-spot garage for an estimated cost of $12 million and a net gain of 305 spaces makes the most sense for the following key reasons:
As with any construction project, most of the cost is involved in building the first two levels, so we get greater benefit from the additional levels and a lower average cost per space with a larger garage — especially compared to building multiple smaller garages in various locations around the village. The first 306 spaces will cost $10.1 million or $33,000 per space, but the next 99 spaces (if we build the largest garage) will cost only an additional $1.9 million or $19,200 per space, which is a considerable savings. (The comparable numbers for the mid-size garage are 49 additional spaces for an additional $0.9 million, or $18,400 per space.)
From a long-term investment perspective the largest garage gives us capacity in the core business area of approximately 140 spots above what will be needed to simply replace the spots lost when the Brogan and Ken Smith lots are developed. If we go with the smallest garage, we are barely replacing the spots that will be lost and are thus making an investment that does not significantly improve the existing parking deficit or provide for growth. Further, the cost to expand the smaller garage at a later time would be cost prohibitive so we believe it is prudent to make this long term investment now.
Although the analysis we performed did not include new revenues, maximizing the number of spots enhances the attractiveness of existing stores and restaurants, and encourages new businesses owners to choose Ridgewood, which provides for the possibility of increased tax revenues from downtown properties.
Given the cost and effort involved in this project, it is clear from a strictly financial standpoint that maximizing the impact on improving the village’s parking situation is best accomplished by building the largest garage. That said, the financial argument must be considered along with other non-financial factors.
Robert Broatch, Richard Cundiff, Charles DiMarco, Nancy Haig, Mac Highet, Nancy Johansen, Janice Willett, Evan Weitz, Jimmy Yang
Ridgewood NJ, According to Village Hall residents will have an opportunity to chime in on the parking garage design on December 2nd. The three designs presented included the original structure, as depicted on Villlage of Ridgewood (VOR) site, with 405 spaces (130,000sq ft), a modified version with 355 stalls (120,000sq ft) and the lowest profile version with 305 stalls (109,000 sq ft). The cost per stall decreases for each added level:
405 stalls @ $28,000 = 11.5 mil
355 stalls @ $29,300 = 10.4 mil
305 stalls @ $31,000 = 9.5 mil
You can see the higher you go the more efficient the project becomes IF, of course, those spaces are utilized.
As far as the design, it is exactly as shown at the informal meetings. The 355 version indicates a lower profile along Hudson St but retains the same height along Broad. The 305 version includes the lower profile on both Broad and Hudson. For some reason I didn’t include the heights in my notes but will ask Roberta for those details. Each version includes cantilevering over the entire Hudson St sidewalk with an additional 20″ cantilever extending over the street. The cantilevers were depicted in the original design and, I believe cannot be eliminated due to the lot width.
Also Mayor Aronsohn sent an email (personal email) to residents regarding the three garage designs and process moving forward. His letter indicates surprise ,surprise higher cost for each version likely based on factoring in the original $500,000 bond.
NOVEMBER 23, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015, 1:56 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
With the November election and the affirmative results of the non-binding referendum in the rearview mirror, the next steps for the village include further discussions on specifics for a garage on Hudson Street and the presentation of a few different design options for the public.
Earlier this month, voters approved a non-binding referendum question asking residents if they were in favor of bonding up to $15 million in public money for the construction of a parking garage, which is expected to be paid for principally, if not entirely, with parking utility revenues. The measure passed with 65 percent of the vote.
In the subsequent weeks, the village appears to have settled on three different designs for a parking deck, which vary in terms of overall size, height, cost and the number of cars it can house. Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld provided The Ridgewood News with specifics on each of the options.
Option “A” is the design that has been most prominently featured at public meetings with a capacity of 405 cars, which would provide a net gain of 305 spaces. The 136,650 square foot building is 49 feet, two inches, to the top of the highest parapet with the tower extending to 68 feet. The approximate construction cost per space is approximately $29,630 and the village would plan to bond $12 million.
A second rendering, known as Option “B,” brings the height of the building along Hudson Street down to 37 feet, four inches, but the highest parapet on South Broad would remain at the 49 foot mark and the corner tower would also remain the same height. This garage will hold 355 cars for a net gain of 255. The village would plan to bond about $11 million for this 119,800 square foot proposal.
Option “C” scales down the building even further with the tower now lowered to 56 feet, eight inches, and both the Hudson and Broad parapets down to 37 feet. This design can house 306 cars for a net gain to the village of 206. Ridgewood would plan to bond $10.1 million for the 109,350 square foot structure.
In a letter sent from his village email account, Mayor Paul Aronsohn invited residents to come to the Village Council’s meeting on Dec. 2 to weigh in on their preferred design. Renderings will be made available on the village website and in the first floor lobby in Village Hall, the mayor said.
Ridgewood NJ, Ridgewood has always been a quaint and desirable village notably distinct from its neighboring towns and will always have some degree of crowding. A 300 space parking garage is only another step away from that “quaintness”.
When the Mayor Aronsohn was at the train station one morning lobbying for yes-votes for the garage, Residents asked him if 300 spaces would solve any problems. His response was that some people estimate it at 1,000 spaces and he’s looking at other locations for other garages as well. It’s like a runaway train.
The fact that we have some congestion goes hand-in-hand with desirability. Many would rather have the village we have now and pay the price that charm requires rather than chip away at its ambiance (and these are pretty big chips) and end up paying an even larger price in the long run.
Ridgewood NJ, in the PDF on the Village website called “Hudson Street Parking Deck – Message from the Village Manager” . The Village manager makes the bold pronouncement that the “We have already confirmed the economics by commissioning an independent consulting firm whose work was studied and endorsed by the Financial Advisory Committee. ” . Sounds a bit bold given that the final garage decisions have not been made . The three garage options listed would involve different economic assumptions .
The three designs presented included the original structure, as depicted on VOR site, with 405 spaces (130,000sq ft), a modified version with 355 stalls (120,000sq ft) and the lowest profile version with 305 stalls (109,000 sq ft). The cost per stall decreases for each added level:
405 stalls @ $28,000 = 11.5 mil
355 stalls @ $29,300 = 10.4 mil
305 stalls @ $31,000 = 9.5 mil
You can see the higher you go the more efficient the project becomes IF, of course, those spaces are utilized.
While we have gotten many assurances that the garage will pay for it self ,Several funding options had been presented to the Council. Have decisions been reached on increasing parking rates, increasing hours of meter operation, adjusting rates for non-resident parking passes, and increasing enforcement times? Until such decisions have been made and trialed, how could we possibly have “confirmed the economics?” As they stand now, these are just assumptions made on paper by the consultant. Lets face it does anyone really know how much money the parking authority really takes in ? And what happens to all the money being currently used from the parking authority to subsidize other Village activities ?
Before we commit to spending millions of dollars based payback from projected revenue streams, let’s check some of the assumptions out in the field.
Hudson Street Parking Deck – Message from the Village Manager
NOVEMBER 20, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Details on garage were ‘confusing’
To the Editor:
When the village manager and council asked residents to vote on a non-binding resolution to build a parking garage, it did not tell voters what they voted on had little bearing on reality. We were told to look at the village website for a description of the garage, financial plans, the Walker study, etc. for facts before voting. The words “draft” was on the rendering and “preliminary” on the financials, so voters really didn’t know what they were voting on, yet the ballot was specific. On the basis of the wording on the ballot, residents by a 2-1 margin voted yes. The town was very careful to use the words “non-binding,” but I doubt many understood the ramifications, that nothing on the website, in the plans, in the financials was definite. Yet we were told just the opposite.
All the money spent on the plans and financials was only for an “idea” of what was planned. All the details, the explanations, the reasoning taxpayers would not be responsible because of the very detailed financial plan, were not accurate.
Residents were told time and again to look at the website for details before they voted. There was nothing “non-binding” about that. The picture on the “Vote Yes” signs for the garage was a partial rendering of the presentation to the public. Yet in a statement made on Facebook, both the manager and a council member said the vote was just to give an “idea” and in fact there was no decision about size, cost, etc. I don’t think voters knew when they voted. If there was no decision, why spend time, money and signs for this. The goal was to gauge public opinion, but the time, the signs, the letters urging the vote, was time better spent working with neighborhoods on more urgent matters.
It appears we have a council more dedicated to public relations than to good government. This is discouraging to say the least.
Mayor Aronsohn, in his recent Ridgewood News column, excoriated the author(s) of a flyer for what he characterized as inaccurate information. On the other hand, he sent a robo-call to residents urging them to vote yes, stating he was doing this at his own expense as a private citizen. So it was all right for him to do this, albeit he wasn’t anonymous (to his credit) with inaccurate information, but it was not all right for an anonymous flyer to be sent with accurate information? “Non-binding” usually refers to the number of votes pro and con, not on votes based on inaccurate information entirely. The council has turned this on end.
This is a further example of confusing information, vague ideas stated as facts, backpedaling, decisions made without public input. This is not transparency or good government. We deserve better.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all the unsatisfied neighborhoods got together to figure out a way to make our council and manager more transparent?
