“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
Pure stupidity. Put the $15 million number out there to anchor expectations and then residents are supposed to be happy that it will “only” cost $12 million. This is a colossal mistake, and leaves taxpayers with an open ended liability with new revenue sources needed to replace current municipal pakrling revenues. You lost my vote Paul.
Now when people stand up to say the entire thing is a fiasco he will feel justified in repeating “size” and “cost.” He may even read his letter into the record before public comments begin.
Does current municipal parking revenue just go to the towns general funds, or is it allocated to anything in particular?
John V contact the Village Manager see what kind of answer you get and share it with The Ridgewood Blog.
Roberta Sonenfeld
Village Manager
(201) 670-5500 x203
rsonenfeld@ridgewoodnj.net
12:33pm –
I was actually able to look it up and answer the question. I posted the following on another thread already:
Let’s look at the data.
Current budget: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015statebudget.pdf
Look at Sheet 34-36. Revenue from parking meters in 2015 is something like $1.3M. Expenses (including salaries for enforcement officers) are something like $1M. So surplus is about $300k, which can fund other things.
Now look at the Walker Study: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf
Table 1 indicates a surplus of $400k (Operating Income – Debt Service). Thus, if the assumptions of the study prove to be correct, the surplus provided to the towns general funds should be the same as are currently generated. If you read the Walker study, it’s “new demand” assumptions are relatively conservative. It doesn’t assume much “new” parking revenue sources for the town, only about $275k per year. It achieves the big revenue increase through higher rates that would extend into the evening. So the parking garage issue to me comes down to me whether the project can be executed at projected cost and whether those higher rates and longer hours will suppress demand very much. I’m relatively new to town, so I guess I’m not as jaded as everyone else yet!
It takes employees to run the New Parking Slum terminal.of course they will get the Gold plated benefits Package and all the bells and whistles afforded to other clerks and cashiers on the Public Dole,Unlimited liability here for deficits overheads Maintenance costs snow removal.ice mitigation
Etc,It’s a Boondoggle for what the Restaurant Mafia..does not pass any sensible test reasonability, CBD IS CLOSE TO FULL.PARKING FOR OUT OF TOWNERS NOT THE AVERAGE TAXPAYERS PROBLEM,WE HAVE OWN VILLAGE TAXES AND 800 parking pass to pay just to get to work.why shud I give any concern for out of town parkers..zero.not my problem,
Historical boondoggle.Build it and they might come..who cares about the
Restaurant owners.they screwed UPTHE parking for own employees and village commuters no have to pay over 750 a year for what.its was 25 cents per hour /12 hours ie 3 dollars.
Village residents (and everyone else) should have to pay for a parking pass since land is a scarce resource that is best allocated by price mechanisms. That’s simple Econ 101.
4:41pm –
Look at Table 12 in the Walker study: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf
The financial assumptions allocate $200k per year for repair and maintenance. Given the number of studies Walker has done, I imagine the potential margin of error on that number is pretty low.
4:41/4:44pm,
Look at the financial model. It assumes only $275k per year in “new” parking users, mostly the employees who would no longer use the old car dealer lots, plus issuing new out of town permits. The total cost of the parking system would be paid for by the meter revenues, with the same surplus currently generated. Any incremental traffic to town due to increased available parking would be a plus that is not currently factored in.
Yes, taxpayers are ultimately “responsible”, that’s because the town owns and operates the parking system in town. Full privatization of our parking system is not realistic, so this is the only way to do it. Given that there is a good margin for error in the economic assumptions of the plan, the risk doesn’t seem that high.
(Sometime in the future) For Sale in Ridgewood, $419,000 Excellent opportunity to enjoy living in desirable Ridgewood Village, offering gourmet dining, outstanding shopping, country club and several parks! Only five short blocks to train/bus stations. This charming colonial home is set way back from the road on a picture perfect park like property. R.E. Taxes $20,000. Whattttttttttt? Why are the taxes so high?
Why is it the best kept secret in town who controls the old car dealer lot ?
Since ther is no apparent sale recorded figure out who got a long term lease…….connect the dots
Paul Aronsohn – the same Paul Aronsohn that contacted one of my clients and tried to convince him not to stop using my services. All because I do not support Mr. Aronsohn’s policies. I ask you, what gives Mr. Aronsohn the right to interfere with my business operations? The answer is, he has no right to do so but he thinks because he is the mayor of Ridgewood and I’m a resident of Ridgewood, he can get into my personal business. Time to contact an attorney about Mr. Aronsohn’s big mouth.
yes they do that to everybody who opposes them ,thus the protected anonymity on this blog btw I would love to hear your story onlyonesmallvoice@gmail.com
Hey 7:04 – same thing he did to Councilman Sedon, right? Sue the bastard.
John V – Village residents should have to pay for a parking pass. Really? So we pay for the bond, we pay when the garage fails, we pay for a parking pass. Are you for real???
Thanks for posting that 7:04. I know you can’t post more details because Aronsohn and is wreaking crew will surely go after you. An attorney sounds like the right thing to do. Good luck.
Forgive him 7:18 he is new in town.
This posting and comments has it all.VOR YOU ARE AT A CROSSOADS.
EITHER SURRENDER and Leave sell or Stay and fight these People who think they know Better..who benefits. Look at both sides of the views.
VALLEY has the Lawyers lined up to Crusify VOR Once they see the bonding.. Citizens. The Status Quo more than acceptable.
7:18pm –
Village residents definitely should have to pay for a commuter parking pass! Parking is a scarce resource best allocated by prices, not just “free” for first come first serve. Parking is a town service, just like other utilities or like our recreation programs. We don’t expect those services to be free just because you’re a resident?
In addition, taxes do not pay for village parking services (e.g. meter maids, maintenance, etc). The revenue from meters pays for all that. If you look at the village budget, the parking meters generate about $300k per year in “profit” above and beyond expenses. The Walker report indicates that the system would generate an equivalent “profit” with the new garage, even after debt service is taken into account. (The extra revenue comes from longer meter hours and higher rates.) Thus, as long as there are no major excess costs for building the garage, and no major shortfalls in revenue generation, the plan is self-funding. Those are very very big “IFs” of course!!! I’m on the side of trying to make the project successful, not for scuttling it upfront.
and when the project runs 20-25% over budget ?
Then the taxpayers have to put up more taxes or seek reduction in costs or accept lower services from the village.all so that the gamblers can chalk this up on their maybe list and blame the economy townsfolk,,,etc..NO THANKS ..LET THEM PARK AND WALK ..ITS HEALTHIER ALSO FOR MY TAX RISK
Agreed James, that’s the part John V is missing. Municipal construction jobs in NJ -and in particular Bergen – are an excuse for taxpayer theft via change orders, cost overruns and delays. Our Village engineer couldn’t build a corn hole toss on time and on budget. The chances of this being built on time and on budget? Zero.
Agree with all that potential cost overruns are probably the biggest issue. I grew up in Morris County, not Bergen, and just moved back to NJ in 2014 after a decade in California. Perhaps garages are “simpler” than other buildings and less likely to go over-cost? Less potential for change orders? Very good questions to ask the council: what would they do different on this project to ensure that there is no 25% overrun? If no good answer, I’d certainly consider changing my support for the project…
9:14, re: garage may be simpler and therefore not incur change orders: in this town we have change orders literally for a concrete sidewalk (new one at Graydon). They are absolutely standard now, so that the proposed costs in bids don’t even remotely resemble the final ones.
John, that’s why the business owners of the CBD, who supposedly benefit from the net parking increase – should be on the hook for 20-25% of the FINAL cost for the project and also for the cost to operate the garage, not the initial estimate – it will give them an incentive to watch over the guaranteed “change orders”, delays and cost overruns… that offers taxpayers some protection. If its a 100% municipal financed project, we’re all screwed. Paul and Albert know this, but don’t seem to care – anything for their beloved garage. The FAC members also know this, yet say nothing. This issue is enough for me to lose all trust in the Council. If Paul says there won’t be a cost overrun, he’s flat out lying (which he is known to do). Ask old-timers about the $5 million “golden” toilet in Village Hall…. you can’t make this stuff up. Also ask who’s responsible for operating the garage, including maintenance & repair, insurance, and patrolling the garage? Taxpayers? A parking lot management company? How much will they cost?
John V. Let’s forget the garage idea for a second. Would you be against a deck on the lot across from the Post Office ? If not, why not ?
Bill H Great Point. Also Valley Hospital Lawyers would see huge opening for their own Expansion including Cavernous below ground Garage. And why not ALSO BUILD BIG BUILD HIGH AT VALLEY. That whole issue Awaits huge dogfight
Where are all the reports comparing the economics of other sites/approaches to the Walker report? How do we know that the numbers aren’t better for another alternative?
It’s seems obvious to me that building the garage in a corner of the Village is less efficient than one in the center, or (even better) several smaller ones. Exactly how was the current approach decided upon?
Actually several smaller ones would be more expensive, although to me I would rather pay that price because it would benefit more.
Everyone should attend the meeting this December 2 and next week December 9. You all have a lot to say and you should put it on the record with the council!
How much will it cost to insure this garage per year? Who pays that? Who operates the garage? Who pays for repairs and maintenance when the elevator breaks down? Why not just build a second deck over an existing lot or two?
7:48am –
Re: Construction Cost. I agree that construction cost is the big risk here. Those questions definitely should be addressed to Roberta and the council.
Re: Funding. Are there examples of other public-private partnerships on garages that could be used as a model for this project? If so, that would be a good thing to bring up and try to get some comment on from the council on why that model wasn’t considered.
Re: Operating Responsibilities. Some of this detail is in the Walker Report: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf. The town would own and operate the garage. It will be a self-parked, unstaffed garage. R&M would be done by village employees and or contractors. Those costs are at least “budgeted” for in the financial model. Patrolling and enforcement would be from the existing parking enforcement resources. (Those resources are currently “paid for” by meter revenue per the town budget.) Depending on the exact type of payment system that is implemented, enforcement could be very easy and automatic or a bit more manual. Insurance and other costs would be paid for by the town out of parking meter revenues.
Bill H. at 8:23am –
You’re talking about the village owned lot on N Walnut St? I think a garage there as a very good idea as well. Unfortunately with a “big garage” on Hudson St, all the potential new parking revenue would be “used up” to pay for that big garage. Thus, I believe the “N Walnut St Redevelopment Plans” have private developers paying for a garage and donating to the town in exchange for the town letting the developer build their projects on those town-owned lots: https://www2.ridgewoodnj.net/RedevelopNW.cfm. Current proposals are for either assisted living or luxury condos, I believe both combined with retail and a garage.
Oliver at 9:37am –
I suggest reading the Walker Report, which I did for the first time yesterday: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf
The report shows that the biggest capacity gaps are on the western half of the downtown area, nearest to the train station. A garage that adds new capacity at Hudson St would better serve the demand from commuters and shoppers during the day and restaurant traffic at night on that end of town. The lots on the east end of town are underutilized.
The “central lot” on N Walnut is heavily utilized as well. That N Walnut lot is part of the “North Walnut Redevelopment Zone”: https://www2.ridgewoodnj.net/RedevelopNW.cfm. The current plan would have a developer build and pay for a garage and then donate to the town in exchange for the right to build on the town land. Proposed projects are assisted living or condos, with retail on ground floor.
The Walker Report shows that the maximum amount of “garage construction” that could be paid for is ~$15M. All the revenue potential from raising rates and extending hours would only cover that total. It’s a simple matter of construction cost “physics” that you get more net spaces per $ from a single big project than from 2 medium projects or 4 small projects. Thus, the plan aligned on is for the town to fund a single big garage on Hudson (~300 new net spaces), and for a developer to fund a medium-sized garage on N Walnut St (~100 new spaces). I don’t believe that you can generate >400 new net spaces for <$15M by building 2 or more smaller decks around town. The math just doesn't work out.
10:52am –
See the financial models in the Walker Report: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf.
Tables 1, 2, 12, and 13 for example. Operating costs would be the responsibility of the town, but would be 100% paid for by the revenues generated from the overall parking system in town. The new revenue would be generated by raising rates and extending paid hours. The model seems to assume that the town would self-insure the garage, thus paying no premium. I don’t like this assumption – shouldn’t you put aside some money to cover self-insurance costs? Self-insurance is not “free”!
Per the town budget, Ridgewood currently generates ~$300k in surplus revenue from parking each year (after paying for enforcement officers and the like). The “Walker Model” shows a similar surplus being generated by the system after the garage is built. So if the constructions costs don’t blow up, and the revenue generation meets projections, the new garage would not be a drain on town finances. Those are very big “IFs” of course!
John your repeating yourself , the issue is the assumptions , most would bet on 50% cost overruns, people are very skeptical over the demand issues. Repeating fake wishlist numbers does nothing to change that btw the Mayor and his cohorts promised the garage would be self funding which flies in the face of the Walker Report which you love to quote
James,
Yes, I have been repeatedly referencing the report. I am data and fact driven, so I do refer to relevant data when others ask questions that have fact-based answers. I “love to quote it” b/c the report is the actual analysis and proposal for the garage. Do you have other data and reports that would be relevant for us to discuss as well?
Re: self-funding, when was the promise made that the garage by itself, in isolation, would be self-funding? Everything I’ve seen indicates that the “system” overall would be self-funding, as we’ve discussed before. Have there been actual proposals presented that had different assumptions?
It’s definitely possible that when speaking “casually”, the mayor and others have mixed up the “parking garage” being self-funding with the “parking system” being self-funding. Since you forgive politicians like Trump being casual with language, facts, and exaggeration, hopefully you can offer the same courtesy to Ridgewood’s officials. (I don’t like such lack of precision personally, which is why I always refer back to the primary sources and try to be precise with my words.)
Re: cost overruns. I’m very skeptical on this as well. Definitely the biggest issue. Has there been any analysis or reports on what went wrong with previous municipal projects that had large overruns? Any lessons learned that can be applied to this project?
Re: demand issues and assumptions. Do you have specific facts or analyses to support skepticism on the demand as measured or projected? The Walker Report doesn’t actually assume any additional cars coming into town with the new capacity. They can’t model that increase accurately, so they don’t try to model it. They take current demand as static and make projects off of that. (Like I mentioned, the model does assume some new demand from CBD employee parking that will move to the garage, and that there will be new permits issued for non-resident commuters. Those are the only sources of “new” demand.)
John V. Actually I’m talking about a deck being added above the lot facing the Post Office, not on the property at the corner of Franklin. Save that for future development. It’s central location benefits more on both the merchant and consumer side, not as “lopsided” as the garage idea and way cheaper.
Bill H –
Not sure which lot you are referring to? Can you point to a lot number from Map 1 on page 31 in the attached: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/engineering/pb/North_Walnut_Street_Redevelopment_Plan_May_14_2014.pdf
I believe the N Walnut re-development plans (like the assisted living + retail + garage) would cover ALL of the town owned lots (#3 and #4), as well as the Town Garage lot (#2). That’s a pretty big project!
John V. Middle of N. Walnut, between East Ridgewood and Franklin, across from Post Office.
Bill, from what I can tell online that lot is part of the “N Walnut Redevelopment Zone” and thus would be part of the proposed assisted living or condo proposals that would give the village a “free” garage. Other option is to take the $15M and divide in two and build two smaller garages, one on Hudson and other on N Walnut. You wouldn’t get nearly as many new spots though with that sort of plan.
John V. And that certainly is a part of what the opponents are saying : You don’t need 300 more spaces in the corner of the town. Having an extra 100-125 in the middle would help a lot more and be cheaper.
Bill H –
Good point on size. I think the data is clear that if we’re going to add parking spots, the Hudson st lot is a good place to put some/most of them. But probably not “all of them”. And why is “300” new spots the right number? If you look at the Walker Report, the “inadequacy” in Table 9 and 10 is only 20 spots or so. I hadn’t noticed that before!