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.
Ridgewood NJ, The Public Hearing for Ordinance #3519, “Leasing agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority,” was officially closed by a unanimous vote of the Ridgewood Village Council during a Special Public Meeting held on the evening of Wednesday, January 27, 2016.
At no time either prior to or during the Special Public Meeting was their any detailed financial information made available to Ridgewood’s taxpayers regarding the subject matter of Ordinance #3519, a “Leasing agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority.” However, on Monday, February 1, 2016, a full five (5) calendar days subsequent to closure of the official Public Hearing on Ordinance #3519, a document entitled “Bergen County Improvement Authority Parking Financial Summary” was posted on the Village of Ridgewood’s official website.
I ask: 1) Why was the Public Hearing for Ordinance #3519, “Leasing agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority” even held if no detailed financial information about the “lease” was available for public review, and most importantly, 2) Why did all members of Ridgewood’s Village Council vote to CLOSE the Public Hearing on Ordinance #3519 prior to the availability of the document entitled “Bergen County Improvement Authority Parking Financial Summary?”
Mr. Aronsohn and Mr. Pucciarelli used the following adjectives to describe the behavior of a taxpayer who LEGALLY videotaped a recent Open Public Meeting. I suggest that these same adjectives apply to the behavior of the Village Council with respect to closing Ordinance #3519’s Public Hearing prior to taxpayers having access to the document entitled “Bergen County Improvement Authority Parking Financial Summary.”
The adjectives are:
disgraceful
beyond the pale
not a way to conduct business
[should] not be tolerated
surreptitious
secretive
sneaky
awful
deceitful
hidden
Remember these adjectives and who they pertain to prior to casting your vote on May 10 in the Municipal Election.
This document produced by BCIA Professionals contrasts BCIA County Guaranteed Financing with Village of Ridgewood Stand Alone Financing for debt associated with the Parking Deck Project. Please note that the estimated differential between the two scenarios has changed since last week, due to changes in BCIA issuance costs amended by the BCIA on Friday, January 29, 2016. Now, there is an estimated differential of $22,248 which averages less than $900 per year. Click Here for the document.
DESMAN HUDSON STREET DECK DRAWINGS – 1/29/2016
These drawings represent the site plan, floor plan & building sections for the revised design of the Deck at Hudson Street. This Deck design was first considered in October 2015. There will be 325 parking spots. The height to the roof is approx. 43′ and 46′ 8″ to the parapet. Click Here for Drawings
The Council Majority ie 3 amigos have decided that although the proposed bond was not approved by the super majority that they would do an end run and get the money from the BCIA.
Worse than the extra fees involved in getting money from these outside place (and no way is this extra cost netting out to $2,200) is the fact that Ridgewood will lose control and be forced to open up the garage to outside commuters.
Faulty and incomplete analysis on BCIA bond. Even if the Council assumptions are correct on the bond fees being offset by lower rate (BIG if), you complete disregard the lost revenue by going through the BCIA. Ridgewood would lose out on the additional $750/pass per year ($750 residents – $1500 non-residents). Even if you only assume that 10 out of town cars use the garage for commuting we lose out on $187,500 over the life of the bond. We take the risk, the BCIA gets the reward – foolish.
While I’m all for helping our neighboring towns, Ridgewood commuters must come first. If we have unused commuter spaces fine let others park here. Bergen County as well and NJ transit has it’s own agenda and that agenda isn’t in the best interest of Ridgewood. It is a major mistake to take any money from these outside agencies
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
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
Revisions to Field Policy
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
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.
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 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.
I hope that since Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Grewal is a neighbor (from Glen Rock), he can see (hear about) the ‘development’ push happening in Ridgewood and try to get to bottom of it.
1. Why is the push for Hudson Street lot and going to BCIA for the money when our council is willing to bond for money for other more appropriate lots. Whats the hidden agenda with Hudson St lot, which is not large enough for self parking garage of 5 stories as per their own walker report? Why is he willing to encroach on to the street for this location? If we can pay 15 million for a garage, we can pay 1M to cleanup the north walnut site. There must be some hidden reason for the push to this location so hard. Lets hope this new prosecutor sees this.
2. Why is there so much push for the multi family housing in the town. Why are two lots that are in two different corners of CDB are being zoned in the same zone? They keep attaching it to ‘COA obligation’ in their arguments, but these are luxury apartments, not affordable units. They keep attaching it to ‘senior living’, but these are not limited to 55 and over. What’s the reason for this push, along with the push for the parking garage.
3. Why is the village administration always releasing information after the fact, i.e. maser report of Oct 15th, was released on Dec 30th, schedler grant application’s open public hearing happened after the application was already submitted with the checkbox stating ‘yes’ to the meeting, healthbarn’s lease was signed and then the public hearing happened, which was supposed to happen before the change of use, friends of schedler house were told that cannnot match the money, while it was accepted from the RBSA.Open Space funding requests were submitted saying ‘no historical property on the site’, while our own village’s HPC submitted the details to the village administration that the Schedler house is historic and must be preserved.
4. OPRA requests are now not affordable in the town. They have now (since last 2-3 months) started charging hundreds of dollars for each OPRA request because they don’t want residents to questions all these things happening at the same time with unprecedented push, without satisfactory answers from the council and administration. The Mayor uses his personal email account for most emails and some of them use their cell phones (text) to communicate, even when they are sitting at the public meetings.
There cannot be smoke without fire. If so many residents are going to these council meetings and they are frequently going to 1-2AM with residents speaking for 6-7 hours, there must be something wrong going on. Hopefully this new prosecutor will look at this and get to the bottom of this, which we the normal residents can’t do without access to all the data.
JANUARY 15, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Urging council to keep trying on garage
To the editor:
I thank the Village Council for the time and effort spent trying to solve the parking issues in Ridgewood, but remain disheartened after the meeting on Jan. 6.
As Councilwoman Knudsen stated, the referendum was a vote for a parking garage on Hudson Street … not IN Hudson Street. Many residents were unaware of the size and scope of what they were being encouraged to vote for in the referendum.
Furthermore, aside from one vague, not widely circulated, and still anonymous flyer, there was very little public opposition. There were no “vote no” flyers all over town or on school property.
Would Mt. Carmel not have fully mobilized before the vote if they had any inkling the impact would be so great? Do you doubt that the 4,000 families of the parish would not have voted down the referendum had they realized there would be a 10-foot narrowing of Hudson and loss of precious on-street parking?
Overwhelmingly the residents who attended the meeting on Jan. 6 agreed to parking — even parking at that imperfect location — but not such a dramatic encroachment into the street, infringement on church life, and congestion to that area of the village in general.
As mentioned numerous times, the town while not legally required to follow its own rules and ordinances, should be expected to do so in all but emergency situations.
The word compromise was often used, but would be more easily achieved if a design was presented that stayed within the footprint of the current Hudson Street lot. Instead all of the options were variations on the same too big for the property design.
Mayor Aronsohn has stressed how important it is to get it right on parking, but isn’t that worth asking the architects to come back with some new ideas that a majority of interested parties can get behind before seeking funding from the county? We have waited decades for a solution and are nearly there, yet suddenly weeks are too long to wait for new drawings?
Lastly, while the financing scheme is not quite buttoned up, there was actually little disagreement around the costs of the garage. How sad then that the majority of council feels the need to seek financing elsewhere and hand the reins over to the county. By doing this, we would incur needless extra financing fees and perhaps ultimately lose some control over the project — design aesthetics, number of spaces dedicated to residents outside of Ridgewood, measures to take if meter revenue is below expectations, etc.
Can this really not be worked out without going that drastic, precedent setting route?
We have agreement on the need for parking, acceptance if not full agreement on location, and agreement on cost. There are a few months left for the council to figure this out together … I urge them to keep trying.
Ridgewood NJ, Russ Forenza suggestion at the January 6th meeting to use the Graydon Parking lot , Graydon Pool parking is a tremendous asset that is never used , shuttle buses , would be a simple easy solution . The idea would be to push all the employee parking into the Graydon lot .Yes we know it was tried before and true it failed .But now parking rates are significantly higher and we could allow employees and business owners to park either for Free or at a greatly reduced rate and shoppers could also park there at a reduced rate . Shuttle service would have to run continuously during the day at regular short intervals .
It has been reported on this blog many times over the past 6 years , that often the parking spaces are already full on streets like Oak Street by 8 am in the morning when no businesses are even opened . The Graydon parking along with a shuttle service would siphon off many full time employees , encourage them to spend money in town and be far more ecologically friendly than circling the village in cars looking for parking . Non compliant business could be fined ,both the employee for parking in the wrong place and the business owner .
Perhaps the Graydon lot could be used seasonally like shopping centers that don’t allow employee parking during seasonally peak periods . Garden State Plaza for instance bars employees from parking in certain areas during the Christmas rush.
Another idea is to also add more bicycle racks in the central business district so the down town would be more bike friendly . Parker’s at Graydon could bike back and forth during warmer weather if they desired and the shuttle should be made “bike friendly”.
JANUARY 15, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Troubles in Ridgewood
To the editor:
We have troubles right here in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and that rhymes with P and that stands for poor planning.
We voted yes on parking but we didn’t understand that all three garage designs would not fit on the site and would encroach on already narrow Hudson Street by 10 to 12 feet, creating huge traffic and safety issues. Mt. Carmel parishioners came out in large numbers at last week’s council meeting to express their concerns about the effects of such a structure on the church community along with many others with strong objections to the garage proposals.
We live in a small town. I believe we are a mile square which makes all of us close neighbors and thereby connected. My neighbor’s problems are mine. I don’t want a facility that hurts Mt. Carmel.
I don’t want a large baseball field that will result in the removal of many acres of woods, which is the home of at least one endangered species. Residents are worried about noise and particle pollution due to their close proximity to Route 17.
I believe we must reduce the 35 units per acre density changes in the CBD to a more manageable 22-24 up from 12.
Habernickel Park neighbors need to have their traffic and safety concerns addressed. We all travel down Hillcrest Avenue and understand the problems. My fellow residents’ issues are mine.
This is our village. We elected our council members to represent us. I thought that meant they would also listen to us and when possible, act accordingly. I see all of our issues bring resolved with some form of compromise.
We would all benefit from that approach and in the process, we wouldn’t hurt our neighbors or in the long run, ourselves.
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.
JANUARY 8, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Planned garage is too big
To the editor:
My wife and I attended a meeting last week at Mount Carmel Church concerning the proposed garage on Hudson St.
I have been in favor of a structure at the site but was dismayed to see the overall size of the structure. It is massive. If I, as a private individual proposed a structure that size for that lot, the council would laugh at me. People would be up in arms.
I think that if the council informs residents of the size of the structure, they will be up in arms. It will permanently change the downtown area.
I also don’t understand the rationale behind the proposed traffic flow. It, aside from being a problem for Mt. Carmel, seems to me to be a disaster in the making. It will require the traffic to flow from Broad Street with the majority of vehicles making a left onto Hudson. It will also funnel the exiting vehicles to nowhere land since at the end of Hudson they will have the choice of making a left toward Ridgewood Avenue or a right onto Prospect.
I assume a traffic light will have to be put at the Hudson-Prospect intersection since the traffic from the park area will be head on to the Hudson Street traffic. Not a pretty picture.
Mayor Aronsohn, at the meeting, kept pointing to the referendum as a seal of approval for the garage as proposed. In my view, and probably most of those who voted for it, he received an approval of a garage on the site, not something so big it will tower over the neighborhood.
If the garage has to be this big to be financially viable, then maybe the council needs to rethink its location. The site at Walnut Street would be more appropriate. It is a larger site, has access to Franklin Avenue, a road that could better handle the traffic, and because of the larger site, it could be built lower so the structure would not be so imposing.
In closing I would ask the council to reconsider the size and site of the structure. At the very least, delay going forward until a proper traffic study is undertaken as has been proposed.
The council represents all the residents of Ridgewood, not just the 3,000 who voted for a garage.
