Tag: Parking Garage

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Village Council Meeting December 9th at 8pm

Ridgewood

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD  VILLAGE COUNCIL

REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING

 DECEMBER 9, 20 8:00 P.M.

 

  1. Call to Order – Mayor

 

  1. Statement of Compliance with the Open PublicMeetings Act

 

  1. Roll Call – Village Clerk

 

  1. Flag Salute and Moment of Silence

 

  1. Acceptance of Financial Reports

 

  1. Approval of Minutes

 

  1. Proclamations

 

Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over – 2015 Year End Holiday Statewide Crackdown

 

  1. Presentation – Update – Lead in Drinking Water – David Scheibner, Ridgewood Water

 

  1. Comments from the Public (Not to exceed 5minutes per person – 30 minutes in total)

 

  1. Manager’s Report

 

  1. Village Council Reports

 

  1. ORDINANCES – INTRODUCTION

 

3515 – Bond Ordinance – Hudson Street Parking Deck          ($12,300,000)

3516 – Amend Chapter 265 – Vehicles and Traffic –                Establish Stop Signs – California                       Street/Fairmount Road and Highland                  Avenue/Gardner Road

3517 – Amend Chapter 265 – Vehicles and Traffic –               Parking Restrictions – Hillcrest Road

3518 – Water Bond Ordinance – Rehabilitation of Water           Tanks ($1,312,500)

 

  1. ORDINANCES – PUBLIC HEARING

 

3509 – Amend Various Salary Ordinances

 

3510 – Amend Chapter 105 – Animals – Cats – Establish a     3-Year Cat License

3511 – Amend Chapter 145 Fees – Fees for 3-Year Cat         License

3512 – Amend Valet Parking Ordinance

3513 – Non-Union Salary Ordinance

3514 – Management Salary Ordinance

 

  1. ORDINANCES – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

 

3489 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development –           Establish AH-2 Zone District

3490 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development       – Establish B-3-R Zone District

3491 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development       – Establish C-R Zone

3492 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development       – Establish C Zone District

3493 – Amend Chapter 190 – Land Use and Development       – Amend Various Sections – Multiple Zone Districts      and General Affordable Housing Regulation

 

  1. RESOLUTIONS

 

15-  Approve Village Cash Management Plan

15-  Designate Official Newspapers for 2016

15-  2016 Annual Meetings Statement

15-  Establish Interest Rate for Non-Payment of           Taxes, Assessments or Other Municipal Liens            for 2016 and Set Grace Period

15-  Establish Interest Rates for Delinquent                   Payments to the Water Utility for 2016 and             Set Grace Period for Payment of Water Utility      Bills

15-  Establish Interest Rates for Delinquent                   Payments for Significant Sewer Discharge           Bills for     2016

15-  Approve Budget Transfers

15-       Approve 2016 Temporary Budget

15-  Title 59 Approval – Servicing and Repair of     Electric Source

15-  Award Contract – Servicing and Repair of Electric    Source

15-  Title 59 Approval – Furnishing and Delivering   Sludge Dewatering Polymer

15-  Award Contract – Furnishing and Delivering Sludge    Dewatering Polymer

15-  Title 59 Approval – De-Silting and De-Snagging of         Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River

15-  Award Contract – De-Silting and De-Snagging of

     Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River

15-  Title 59 Approval – Laboratory Analysis Services –   Ridgewood Water

15-  Award Contract – Laboratory Analysis Services –      Ridgewood Water

15-  Title 59 Approval – Dewatered Sewer Sludge Hauling   Services

15-  Award Contract – Dewatered Sewer Sludge Hauling      Services

15-  Award Contract – Financial Computer Software

15-  Award Contract – Preparation of 2016 Village         Council Meeting Minutes

15-  Award Contract – Valley      Hospital, Department         of Community Health – Public Health and            Nursing Services

15-  Award Extraordinary Unspecifiable Services Contract – Field Investigation Study and Purchase of Replacement Parts for Non-Potable Water System – Water Pollution Control Facility

15-  Authorize Shared Services Agreement –                Municipal Court Teleconferencing (Northwest           Bergen Shared Services)

15-  Authorize Shared Services Agreement – Health    Officer Services (Fair Lawn)

15-  Authorize Amendment to Contract – Pipe,    Appurtenances and Materials for Water Distribution Maintenance

15-  Authorize Change Order – Cleaning of Concrete   Water Storage Tanks

15-  Approve Cancellation of Grant Balances – 2012 Fire   Safer Grant

15-  Accept Ridgewood Water Annual Maintenance            Fee –

15-  Revise Special Service Charge for     Voluminous/Extraordinary OPRA Requests

15-  Authorize Execution of Forestry Grant

15-  Appoint Clean Communities Coordinator

15-  Appoint Joint Insurance Fund Commissioner      

15-  Appoint Public Agency Compliance Officer             (P.A.C.O)

15-  Appoint Risk Management Consultants

15-  Appoint Members to Community Relations                    Advisory Board

15-  Appoint Members to Project Pride Committee

 

  1. Comments from the Public (Not to Exceed 5 minutes per person)

 

  1. Resolution to go into Closed Session

 

  1. Closed Session

 

  1. Adjournment

Posted on by — 18 Comments

Ridgewood Council members review parking garage design options

Village Council

file photo Boyd Loving

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.

https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/council-reviews-design-options-1.1467285

Posted on by — 10 Comments

Rebuttal to: “Planned garage a plus for Ridgewood”

parking

December 4,2015

Boyd A. Loving

Editor, The Ridgewood Blog:

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.

Posted on by — 11 Comments

Village of Ridgewood’s own photo simulations look a lot like the ones on the “anonymous mailer”

village parking flyies

December 4,2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

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.

WP 20151202 22 44 50 Pro

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.

Posted on by — 4 Comments

USA retail stores sales plummet. We just need more parking, everywhere!!!

parking cbd

 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.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/retailers-store-sales-fell-10-last-weekend-shoppertrak-says

Posted on by — 23 Comments

Ridgewood Residents will have an opportunity to chime in on the parking garage design on December 2nd

parking garage cbd

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.

 

Posted on by — 42 Comments

Ridgewood Mayor Aronsohn : not “whether” to build a parking deck or even “where” to build it; rather, the questions are “what size” and at “what cost.”

parking cbd

“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.

Thank you.

Mayor Paul Aronsohn

Village of Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-time-to-build-a-parking-deck-1.1463522

Posted on by — 27 Comments

Ridgewood Parking revenues can support largest garage

parking garage cbd

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

Financial Advisory Committee

Village of Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-parking-revenues-can-support-largest-garage-1.1463512

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Public is ready to weigh in on Ridgewood parking garage designs

Hudson Garage

file photo by Boyd Loving

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.

https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/public-to-weigh-in-on-garage-designs-1.1461204

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Parking Garage : What does “we have confirmed the economics . . . ” (from PDF attachment) truly mean?

parking_enforcement_theridgewoodblog

 

November 23,2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

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

Click Here

Posted on by — 21 Comments

Information before Ridgewood Parking Garage referendum vote was confusing

parking garage cbd

Information before referendum vote was confusing

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?

Ellie Gruber

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-information-before-referendum-vote-was-confusing-1.1459327

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 — 39 Comments

Mayor Paul Aronsohn, the “next steps” with respect to a proposed parking deck

paul Aronsohn

Dear Neighbor,

I am writing to share our “next steps” with respect to a proposed parking deck.

As you know, we have spent the last few months engaged in a community-wide conversation on this topic – one that has been asking and answering a series of fundamental questions: Do we need a parking deck? If so, what should it look like? How big should it be? Where should it be? How should we pay for it?

To inform this conversation and to fully involve the public, the Council did two things:

First, the Council commissioned architectural renderings and a financial analysis that – together – have not only helped answer those questions, but have also given us a good sense of the challenges and the opportunities. We have made all of the information available to the public on our website and have discussed it during several public meetings … including Council work sessions, a Planning Board meeting, a Historic Preservation Commission meeting and a handful of public forums that involved presentations by the design team and one-on-one conversations with the experts. The renderings — which have evolved to reflect input received throughout this process — have been on display at Village Hall, the train station and the library. And the Village Manager and I have even set up shop outside of Memorial Park at Van Neste to answer questions and hear people’s ideas and suggestions.

Second, the Council also decided to put a referendum question on the November 3 ballot, so that we could gauge public opinion. The result was not only a record turnout on Election Day; it was also a show of strong support for a parking deck, which received a full 65 percent of the vote. In fact, the parking deck was the big vote getter for the day … receiving more support than any of the candidates on the ballot … 3,236 votes in support!

Now, we need to move forward and decide on the size of a parking deck.

To that end, working with our design team, we have settled on three alternative designs. Each has pros and cons. Each reflects feedback received from people throughout our community. And each would cost much less than the $15 million originally discussed.

§ Option A: A parking deck with 4 floors and an open roof that could accommodate 405 cars and cost approximately $12 million. (The current rendering on the Village website.)

§ Option B: A parking deck with 3 ½ floors and an open roof that could accommodate 355 cars and cost approximately $11 million.

§ Option C: A parking deck with 3 floors and an open roof that could accommodate 306 cars and cost approximately $10.1 million.

To facilitate this decision, the design team met individually with Council members last week to go through these options, and the design team will be on hand at our next Council meeting on December 2 to do the same with residents, too. We are also making available in the Village Hall lobby renderings that show what each of the options would look like and the costs associated with them. Our plan is to make a decision by mid-December.

Your involvement throughout this process has been invaluable, and we want to hear from you … again. Please stop by the lobby. Please come to our December 2 meeting. Please let us know your preference.

And as we get closer to resolving this issue – the need for more parking – that has been discussed and debated for over 50 years, I sincerely hope that we can share in the excitement of the moment and work together to make it happen.

Thank you.

Paul

PS. Please let me know if you have questions.

Paul Aronsohn, Mayor
Village of Ridgewood
@paularonsohn