Tag: parking

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Ridgewood Residents feel input ignored on Garage Discussions

Hudson Garage

file photo by Boyd LOving
November 20,2015
th staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, The Village of Ridgewood is pushing three options for the parking garage design . Village manager Roberta Sonenfeld claims in a recent email to Village Residents that ,”We have already confirmed the economics by commissioning an independent consulting firm whose work was studied and endorsed by the Financial Advisory Committee.”

Sonenfeld went on , “The Council selected an architectural/engineering firm to work with us in designing the deck and putting together the construction bid documents. We are currently in the design phase of building the deck, and have held numerous meetings where input from the community has been received and incorporated into the design. We continue to seek input from you regarding the design, particularly as it relates to the size and height. Below you will find three options for you to peruse and comment upon. Each has pros and cons.”  https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/hudson/20151119-PDwPV1.pdf

Many residents however see things differently , “Since the vote, there has been no council meeting with an agenda to discuss the parking garage. The discussion should be at a council meeting. Put it on the record and for all the public to hear. As I said below, it appears that things are being done backwards and in private yet again. You say you want public input. You say you want communication. You say you want transparency. You said, “vote yes to parking, and then negotiate the size and design.” I see none of that.”, Lorraine Reynolds

Ellen McNamara said , “I attended the second of 2 informal forums and I was the only person not on a committee, who had had prior opportunity to review the garage plans at length. I did not have an opportunity to speak publicly, ask questions on the record, or be heard by anyone other than Gwen Hauck, Fire Chief Jim VanGoor, the architect (forgetting his name at the moment), and Nancy Johannsen from the financial committee – only in private conversations initiated by me. I did not feel as though my input was “gathered.” In fact, I was lead to believe the design and size of the garage were still being worked out, and many of my questions had been asked and answered already, so not to worry. I have worried every second since casting my vote for the garage referendum.”

The Village Manager has once again assured everyone that on the December 2nd meeting residents will have an opportunity to ask questions

 

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Reader says Private Meetings on Garage Design seem to have been set up to avoid the Open Public Meetings guidelines

Hudson Garage

Why did the “design team” (gimme a break) meet with council members individuall Paul???? Trying to avoid a public meeting where all five could hear each other’s opinions and the public could be present? Hmmm, sounds like you tried to avoid the Open Public Meetings guidelines.

The point is, why have each member come in for a private meeting? They should each have been able to hear what the others are thinking, what plans they are favoring, and their reasoning. This stupid system circumnavigates the open public meeting act, and it does not good. Opinions will form before the December 2 meeting, when in fact they all should have started right out looking together in front of the public. That is not Paul’s way. He proclaims openness and transparency, and then holds these secret one-on-one meetings. Kind of like sliding the Health Barn in before telling the residents in the neighborhood. Kind of like letting the RSBA hand-deliver the ballfield grant application. Everything is done wrong under this regime, but it is deliberately done wrong in order for them to control the agenda. The three of them and Roberta stink.

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Montclair’s parking study puts optimization before construction ,could Ridgewood do the same ?

parking

NOVEMBER 16, 2015    LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015, 2:35 PM
BY NICHOLAS KATZBAN
STAFF WRITER |
THE MONTCLAIR TIMES

Thomas Brown of Nelson Nygaard, a New York City-based transportation consulting firm, has been making rounds and fielding questions at Montclair’s ward meetings.

His firm has been consulting the Township Council and other municipal offices on a parking survey, hoping to answer the many questions and complaints from townsfolk regarding what some view as a dearth of available and appropriately timed parking spaces.

During this past Thursday’s 1st Ward community meeting, Brown said, “Every town I go to, whether it’s New York City, Washington, D.C., or small towns like Davenport, Iowa, everyone is convinced they have inadequate parking supplies.”

Brown explained it is common to see “congestion of demand” in certain areas, and the possibility to shift demand to other areas that are underutilized.

The consultant used the word “management” to explain the study’s overall purpose, but he did not take the construction of new parking facilities off the table. He highlighted the importance of seeking alternative solutions that do not require the construction of new spaces. “That’s where we start. If we feel, at the end of the day, it’s not enough, then we start talking about supply.”

After the meeting, Brown spoke with The Montclair Times, and broke down his company’s strategy into three stages.

First, he said, the firm will look at how many available parking spaces are in a municipality – in this case, Montclair. Next, it would look at the busiest time for a shopping district, or other area with congested parking. Third, it would count how many spaces in that area are being used during the district’s peak hours, and more importantly, other nearby parking areas that are not being used.

“To give you an example,” said Brown, “in Vineland, NJ, on their main street the on-street meters would be totally full, but the lots behind the businesses were half empty.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/montclair-s-parking-study-puts-optimization-before-construction-1.1456517

Posted on by — 11 Comments

Ridgewood CBD : Better planning, more trust needed

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ
photo by Boyd Loving
NOVEMBER 13, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Better planning, more trust needed

To the Editor:

Sept. 30 was a great night for Ridgewood. Hundreds of residents bore witness to our council approving, by 4-1 vote, four important studies required to make a truly informed decision on a high-density housing amendment that could change the character of our village forever. Based on a motion by Councilman Sedon, amended by Councilwoman Knudsen, studies for financial impacts, school impacts, infrastructure and a comprehensive traffic review, were all approved.

For the first time in years, residents felt that their voices were being heard. Rather than the frustratingly expected, rushed approval of the out-of-scale high-density ordinances, we instead heard a vote that began restoring our trust.

Unfortunately, at this Monday’s meeting, our council took a scary turn towards breaking that newfound trust. Residents in attendance witnessed several members — Aronsohn, Hauck and Pucciarelli — offer commentary questioning the council’s commitment to the studies, with an angle seemingly against prompt commissioning. It further came to light that no work has commenced towards planning any of the studies, despite the matter’s urgency.

Further disturbing were statements by several council members indicating that they couldn’t recall what studies they voted for on Sept. 30, despite the vote’s place in public record. Interestingly, all the residents in attendance knew the vote. A review of the Sept. 30 video shows that all council members were fully aware of the motion and were given opportunity for further clarification. By the time the vote occurred, there were no such clarification requests and the “multiple studies” motion was put forth by the village clerk: “Infrastructure Study,” “Financial Study,” “The School Impact Study,” and “a Comprehensive Traffic Study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village.”

Knudsen, Sedon, Aronsohn and Hauck voted “Yes.” Pucciarelli voted “No.”

These studies are so important because our Planning Board, despite years of deliberation, strategically missed the mark, never “planning” in a comprehensive manner. Their process was too reactionary to the zoning-change applications. Studies used were too site-specific for proper master planning, leaving many questions unanswered in a process akin to spot zoning.

Regarding one study, Councilwoman Knudsen explained: “… there has never been a comprehensive traffic study done of the Central Business District proper, the adjacent communities and/or the village as a whole. It becomes incredibly relevant when we consider that there are four large parcels being considered for high-density development, coupled with the North Walnut Redevelopment Zone with an assisted living facility of … 76 units per acre, upwards of 98 (units). And coupled with the fact that we are pursuing a parking garage that will add over 300 vehicles to an already narrow, difficult, congested corner of Broad Street and Hudson. So when you take all these collectively, it really becomes imperative that we conduct our due diligence and get this right. So, I think that, to the question: What traffic studies have been done? Not enough.”

“Not enough” is not good enough. Ridgewood needs better. Better planning. Better process and a better foundation for trust.

Please promptly commission these incredibly important studies.

Dave Slomin

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-better-planning-more-trust-needed-1.1454595

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Planning Board continues reexam of Ridgewood master plan

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

NOVEMBER 12, 2015    LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2015, 12:48 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

The village’s Planning Board forged on with its reexamination of Ridgewood’s master plan last Tuesday with a discussion that focused on its circulation and community facilities plan.

With an early February deadline to submit a complete master plan reexamination, the board voted unanimously to include the village planner’s recommendations in the draft version of the report with final determination to be made prior to adoption.

One of the recommendations made by Village Planner Blais Brancheau was the establishment of a Transportation Improvement District (TID) in Ridgewood, which would allow the village to allocate the cost of roadway improvements to areas of development in town based on the property’s use. The board also asked for the Complete Streets program previously adopted by the Village Council to be included in the report.

In discussing the current circulation and community facilities plan with the board, Brancheau said he was “struck” by how outdated they are and said both are in need of a major overhaul.

Brancheau suggested the board could decide to do away with the respective elements altogether as they are not mandated by the state and some municipalities have no such elements in their master plan.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/planners-continue-master-plan-reexam-1.1454175

Posted on by — 21 Comments

Residents Dismayed over Village Council Attempt to Renege on High Density Housing Impact Studies

3 amigos

November 10,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, “We’ll see…” was Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s answer when asked about the the September 30th agreed to studies . The Mayor did at lest confirm his commitment to the Financial Impact Study.Residents felt betrayed and reminded the council that you cannot renege on any of the approved studies and maintain our trust.  Residents deserve and demand the comprehensive overlook you voted for before you consider any sweeping  changes to the Central Business District.

At the Monday night meeting several of the Council Members indicated that they could not recall exactly what they voted on, and “committed” to, on September 30th before an audience of hundreds of residents.  The video and Heather Mailander’s clarification of the motion immediately before the vote from the September 30th meeting set the record straight :

It is clear that ALL Councilmembers were fully aware of the motion put to the vote and  all parties were given the opportunity for further clarification, prior to the vote.

The Vote then occurred as follows:

Heather Mailander:  “So this is the amended version which we just read which is multiple studies.  Traffic and infrastructure study, financial study and the school impact study.  And it’s a comprehensive traffic study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village.  Correct?  Okay.  So that’s the motion on the floor.  Any more discussion?

Susan Knudsen:   “And that would be to table everything until this?”
Heather Mailander:  “Correct, correct.”

The vote, was then taken with the following result:

Hauck:  Yes
Knudson:  Yes
Pucciarelli:  No
Sedon:  Yes
Aronsohn:  Yes

It could not be clearer as to what the Council voted on. The council committed to multiple studies.  a comprehensive traffic study and infrastructure study, financial study and the school impact study. That’s now what residents require .

Residents clearly indicated that they need a better answer than,  “We’ll see.”  The High Density development issue is simply too big of an issue ,fundamentally changing the nature of the Village of Ridgewood forever.

Posted on by — 17 Comments

Village Ridgewood :Only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner

Paul_Aronsohn_theridgewood blog

file photo Boyd Loving

November 6th 2015

Written by Anne LaGrange Loving

I had to shake my head when I read Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s commentary in today’s Ridgewood News Mayor’s Corner about what he referred to as “a disinformation campaign that sought to confuse and undermine” the conversation about the parking deck.  How pitiful it is that our Mayor felt it necessary to fire off such harsh criticism against a document that did not support this project.

He characterized the flyer as “distorted;” it had a drawing that was not to exact scale, but unlike the official drawing being put forth from Village Hall, the flyer’s at least included surrounding buildings, thus making it in many ways a more realistic depiction of what is to come.

“Anonymous mailer?”  The signs that proclaimed VOTE YES on parking had absolutely no identification as to who had produced and distributed them.  What made these less anonymous than the flyer?  And what is the Mayor’s great opposition to anonymity? – when we go into the voting booth, we are always anonymous.

The Mayor actually analyzed the language in the flyer and sought to identify the post office from which it was sent?  Really?  What is the threat that inspired such intense detective work on his part?  Of course the flyer was created and sent from a person or persons who opposed the plan; who else would send it?  It is dismaying that the mayor is putting so much effort into determining the source of the flyer; this level of investigation suggests that the sender/s, if identified, could be subjected to some kind of retribution.  I am hopeful that the Mayor would tread very carefully here, as freedom of speech is a right and a privilege.

Amazingly, when an anonymous email was sent to Councilman Sedon’s employer minutes after his campaign became official in 2014, Mr. Aronsohn took no action.  When members of the public implored him to press forward with identifying who tainted our election process by trying to derail a candidate’s campaign, Mr. Aronsohn still did not take any kind of stand.  Only when publicly pressed him to DO SOMETHING did he finally, 17 months later, send a very benign request for information, with no outrage about what had happened to Councilman Sedon, and no description of how urgently the citizens of Ridgewood wanted to identify the culprit.  I would have to ask the mayor why his indignation about this anonymous parking garage flyer so overshadows his disinterest in the anonymous email during the 2014 elections.

It is a sad state of affairs when our own Mayor does not encourage those who disagree with him to share their opinions with their fellow citizens, and accuses them of undermining an initiative that he supports.  I did not write, pay for, or distribute the flyer, and did not even get one in the mail.  But, I was very happy to see it and more than willing to share it once I saw it.  The flyer provided another part of the conversation about the Parking Garage project.  The last time I checked, here in America we are entitled to express ourselves.  Speaking up is our right, and the person/s who sent the flyer should be applauded.

Posted on by — 25 Comments

Backed by voters, Ridgewood officials set sights on downtown parking deck construction

Hudson_street_parking_theridgewoodblog

NOVEMBER 5, 2015, 5:43 PM    LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2015, 6:16 PM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — Local officials expect plans to construct a parking garage in the downtown commercial district to progress quickly after the overwhelming support showed by village voters in Tuesday’s referendum.

The referendum was non-binding — meaning it was only meant to take the public’s pulse, said Mayor Paul Aronsohn. But now that the public has okayed it, shovels could hit the ground as early as next spring — even though the project’s size and design haven’t been finalized, he said.

A rendering of the proposed parking garage in the downtown commercial district in Ridgewood.

“We’ve zeroed in a lot of this — we have a sense of what it could look like,” he said, noting the council has been considering a four-story, open-roofed rendering. “We’ve been very aggressive … in the way we approached this.”

The mayor anticipates nine to 10 months of construction for the garage, which is expected to benefit local commuters who use the village’s train station, as well as customers of the downtown’s shops and restaurants.

Although the ballot question asked voters to approve a bonding of up to $15 million to fund construction, Aronsohn said it would likely be more in the $12.5-million range. The referendum gave the question 3,236-1,777 voter approval. Village officials said voter turnout was around 30 percent.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/backed-by-voters-ridgewood-officials-set-sights-on-downtown-parking-deck-construction-1.1449647

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Readers say the garage is a done deal the mayor wants this as his legacy and of course it will be a financial disaster for Ridgewood taxpayers

20151022_115546_resized

The garage is a done deal. wake up people. the mayor wants this as his legacy. Of course it will be a financial disaster when we take money from NJ transit and Bergen county and the garage will end up being a commuter parking for out of town people. I predict the taxpayers will get stuck footing the bill as the garage will be underutilized and not meet the expected income Keep in mind that the money we now get from the parking garage goes to subsidize other elements of the town budget. Those funds will now be used to subsidize the debt on the garage so the taxpayers will need to fund that shortfall.

The recent report explaining that the income steam from the garage would be insufficient to cover the cost of the bond used to erect it, and that our entire parking fee system (i.e., meters all over town) will be made much more financially and logistically (in terms of having to pay through until 9pm every night) onerous to motorists in order to defray just PART of the added financial burden, should now be made the subject of a village-wide discussion, regardless of what 3000 die-hard supporters of big government wish to say in a “non-binding” way and during an off-year election cycle when for the first time since 1999 the lowly NJ assembly was at the top of the ticket.

Posted on by — 12 Comments

Ridgewood Central Business District : Are these signs legal?

parking signs cbd

November 5th 2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ , Seen in front of the old Brogan Cadillac property on South Broad Street.  Looks like something you’d see at the Jersey Shore , Jersey City or Paterson  to us . Voting in favor of a new parking garage does not imply people are looking to turn the CBD into a “slum district”.
These signs are clearly out of keeping with the character of the Village , so lets leave Tito’s alone , stop playing favorites and focus on preserving the historic character of the Village .
DSCF4136
Nice to see the downtown littered with garbage .

Posted on by — 27 Comments

Ridgewood voters back parking garage proposal

parking garage cbd

NOVEMBER 3, 2015, 10:35 PM    LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015, 10:42 PM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — Village residents voted to support a referendum proposal Tuesday that would bond for up to $15 million to construct a parking garage downtown.

The non-binding referendum, which was meant only to assess public sentiment on the plan, passed by a nearly 2-to-1 margin — 3,236 voted in favor, while 1,777 opposed. Village officials said voter turnout was around 30 percent.

The proposed garage, which officials hope to break ground on next spring, will be built on the corner of Hudson and South Broad streets, the referendum stated, and paid for “principally” with parking revenues. It would add about 300 parking spots to the dense commercial zone.

It is expected to benefit local commuters and residents, as well as customers of downtown shops and restaurants.

Village Mayor Paul Aronsohn said he felt “very good” about the results.

“This is something we’ve talked about in Ridgewood for decades, and it looks like we’re on the verge of making history,” he said. “A parking deck is something we really need. And the folks in Ridgewood came out in large numbers and they spoke with a very compelling voice today.”

Funding for the garage would come from Ridgewood’s parking utility, as well as county and state monies, the referendum said.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-voters-back-parking-garage-proposal-1.1447718

Posted on by — 17 Comments

2015 Election Results – Village of Ridgewood

pro garage signs 2

2015 Election Results – Ridgewood

Member of General Assembly (2)

David C Russo – 1,837

Scott Rumana – 1,711

Paul Vagianos – 3,151

Christine Ordway – 3,020

Board of Freeholders (2) (Full Term)

John D Mitchell – 1,981

Kenneth P Tyburczy – 1,901

Steven A Tanelli – 2,429

Tracy Silnazur – 2,476

Richard A Siegel – 128

Board of Freeholders (1) (Unexpired Term)

Daisy Ortiz-Berger – 1,812

Thomas J Sullivan – 2,422

Peter J Rohrman – 166

Board of Education

Vincent Loncto – 2,068

Municipal Question #1 – Support Financing and Building of Parking Garage

Yes – 3,236

No – 1,777

Posted on by — 24 Comments

Walker Report : Demand stream is not anticipated to cover debt service for the Ridgewood Parking garage

Hudson Garage

2015 Walker Feasibility Study for Garage

page 24

INCREASING REVENUE Given that the new demand stream is not anticipated to cover debt service for the garage, the parking system will need to increase revenue on existing spaces if it is to be self-supporting.

There will be a natural uptick in revenue as Parkmobile becomes more utilized. Apps of this sort increase compliance and also disallow “piggybacking” onto a previous parker’s leftover meter time. We have increased revenue in 2015 and 2016 to account for Parkmobile’s impact. While a 15 percent increase is common, we are projecting a five percent increase. Extending meter hours and enforcement until 9 pm is the first recommended step. Since daytime retail and restaurant customers pay to park, it is fair to ask evening restaurant customers to pay as well. In addition, metering the streets in the evening can provide parking management solutions to crowding in the future, should the Village wish to reduce employee parking along streets that should be available to customers.

Evening rates alone will not cover the projected debt service; it will be necessary to increase rates as well. In order to achieve a debt service coverage ratio of 1.5, our projections assume the following:

• Evening rates will go into effect in 2016. • On-street meter rates will be increased to 75¢ along key streets (blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11) in 2016.
• Core area rates will be increased to $1 in 2017, with the rest of the on-street parking and all off-street parking going to 75¢. This is projected to be the opening year for the garage.
• After five years (in 2022), $1 parking should increase to $1.25 and 75¢ parking should increase to $1 if necessary.
• We assume some reduction in parking demand with each increase as people look for free alternatives (farther away on street, or in private lots) or choose to go elsewhere. We use an assumption of 10%.
• We have not projected a shift in demand away from Ridgewood Avenue and other core streets to the cheaper garage or other off-street lots, as we assume the 25¢ differential will not significantly alter people’s preference for convenient spaces. We further assume that the demand reductions discussed above will cover the limited shift from more expensive to less expensive resources.
https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf
Posted on by — 9 Comments

Planning Board reviews Ridgewood garage proposal

hudson parking garage

NOVEMBER 2, 2015    LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2015, 11:35 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

A presentation of the current plans for the proposed Hudson Street parking garage was provided to the village’s Planning Board at the Oct. 20 meeting, allowing members the opportunity to have a question and answer session with designers and architects.

Tim Tracy, principal for Desman Design Management, gave the board a primer on the garage, which will give Ridgewood a net gain of approximately 300 spaces over the current set up on Hudson Street.

Tracy reviewed the size constraints for the site as the process by which Desman arrived at the solution of building a cantilever over the sidewalk for the top levels of the garage that was able to give the village more spaces and better parking efficiency by adding an additional row of spaces.

Although the garage is exempt from zoning standards, Tracy noted they tried to come as close to complying with regulations as possible without sacrificing efficiency. One example is the rear yard setback, which is required to be 26 feet. With the eastern end of the garage considered the rear of the property, the setback there is approximately 23 1/2 feet.

The five-level, four story parking facility currently sits at 51 feet high, although Tracy said when the final design is complete, the building will be closer to 48 feet. A couple of the driving factors in that regard are the eight-foot clearance required on the ground floor and the supporting slabs on the cantilevered section.

The height of the building was certainly the concern of some board members. Nancy Bigos asked if the garage could be built as at least a partially underground structure to ease the scale of the deck.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/planners-take-look-at-garage-proposal-1.1446737

Posted on by — 12 Comments

Walker Study : Key verbatim assumptions on Ridgewood Parking Garage

parking garage cbd

Key verbatim assumptions/findings taken from the Village Council commissioned parking study prepared by Walker Associates:

Easing crowding does not, in and of itself, create a new revenue stream; it transfers revenue
from other metered spaces in the Village. The garage will likely encourage people to come
downtown who have been avoiding it due to parking constraints, but this is not a quantifiable
revenue stream and is not included in our analysis. More conservatively, we project the
following net new revenue streams for the garage:

• The 72-space Brogan Cadillac lot on South Broad Street at Essex Street and at the 92-
space Ken Smith Motors lot just east of the train tracks and north of Franklin Avenue are
going to be demolished for development. Both of these dealerships have closed and
lease out their parking. The Ken Smith Lot is permit parking for downtown employees.
The Brogan Lot accommodates commuters during the day and is leased out for
restaurant valet parking at night. We anticipate these demand streams would transfer
to the garage.

• We understand from Village staff that there are other restaurants downtown that use
valet services in private lots that would use the garage instead (probably doing away
with valet service since self-park options would be easier).

• The Village used to have 120 non-resident commuter permits, but doubled non-resident
permit rates because there was not enough space for these commuters. Currently
there are very few non-resident commuters parking in the train station area. The Village
plans to reduce the non-resident commuter rate to $875/year to increase that demand
stream again.

It is typical in downtowns that the revenue stream in a given garage is not sufficient to cover its
operating costs and debt service. Downtown parking systems are just that – systems – that rely
on pooled revenue from all resources, and especially the on-street meters (which tend to
have the highest turnover), to cover the higher cost associated with building and operating a
garage. This is the case in Ridgewood, where the net new revenue projected for the garage
is not projected to offset its expenses. Therefore, our revenue projection includes all downtown revenue and all expenses associated with the parking system. To operate the
garage and have a revenue-positive parking utility (with funds available for other parking lot
maintenance projects), we project that the Village will increase meter rates as follows:

• In 2016, meters will be extended until 9 p.m. and meter rates on key downtown streets
will increase to 75¢.

• In 2017, 75¢ meters will be increased to $1 and the rest of the on-street and off-street
meters will increase to 75¢.

• If needed, rates would increase by 25¢ after five years.

• Commuter permit rates would increase by $25 in 2021 and 2025.