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
Wo are these people? What finical background do they have in parking garage building and long term maintenance. Are the just talking head for our Mayor and his super pac.
Sounds like the company line..if it’s so great let the business owners take at least one third of the cost in prebonding as they benefit or not the most,
Rather that taxpayers getting hosed.STOP THIS MASSIVE MISTAKE
Its sad when no one trusts a word these people, associated with the council majority, have to say. All these appointees are buddies and would say and do anything they command.
FIX IS IN. BEWARE OF THESE UNTRUSTBLE SERVANTS .TAXPAYERS WILL BE ON THE HOOK.THEY WILL ALL BE LONG GONE
There will be all sorts of reasons to rush the bonding..Fed interest rate hikes. Etc..those talking points likely being placed on illegal planter sandwich signs that will litter the schools and public properties just say NO
Re 8.13 comment spot on
What qualifications in municipal parking engineering and traffic urban impacts do Robert Broatch, Richard Cundiff, Charles DiMarco, Nancy Haig, Mac Highet, Nancy Johansen, Janice Willett, Evan Weitz, Jimmy Yang
have..we have a right to know to place weight on such statements
Any such covered parking will suck the life out of other street and outdoor lot meter revenue.spend 15 plus million to shift existing revenues which no one can manage without scandal , felony robbery with no accountability or recovery plan,NUMBERS DONT ADD UP FOLKS..This is a pork barrel operation for the restaurants who will belong gone in Florida in 5 years.TAXPAYERS HOLDING A BIG FAT LOOSING TAX INCREASE BAG.
Correct me if I’m wrong. The F.A.C. is appointed by the council and the council majority wants to build a garage so what else is the FAC going to say.
… and when they are wrong, they’ll just say that extraordinary circumstances caused unexpected increases (aka “not my fault so I don’t even owe you an apology”)…. and then ask us for more money.
SOP
CBA,CBA,CBA,CBA thats all they know to say
In their nearly 4 years in office, our Council majority has failed to show any of the leadership required to unify our divided town. Effective leaders bring opposing point of view together and build solutions based on compromise. These 3 have consistently abused their authority to advance their own personal agendas. They have not only ignored opposing points of view, they have ridiculed them. They have publicly belittled their own neighbors simply because they disagree with them. These are not leaders; these are petty and vindictive people who happen to have their pictures up in our Village Hall.
Until those pictures come down, we should view anything that these 3 support with great skepticism.
When I moved here thirty plus years ago there were only a few with their heads up their rear ends. It’s a shame there are more now, but even more of a shame that assholes are voting for them.
Does anyone have substantive, fact-based reasons to disagree with the studies that have been done on the parking garage financing and revenues? What specific assumptions are unrealistic in the analyses that were run? Whether or not the assumptions are accurate is a different question from whether the parking garage is the right scale, location, etc. I voted yes on the financing for the garage, and am fine with the location and scale of the project. Ridgewood does in fact need more net parking. And municipal ownership of a parking garage seems appropriate if the system can be self-financing.
John, you’re wrong. The parking revenues are currently used to fund other areas of the budget, so what replaces those funds If they are only used to finance this garage? Further, it shouldn’t be only the municipality funding this. This is north Bergen, where graft was invented. Our Village engineer couldn’t oversea the construction of a tree house without delays, change orders, and massive budget overruns – it’s how municipal projects are done here. Instead, have the business owners in the CBD – who supposedly want this thing – contribute 25% of the final bill. Then they have an incentive to keep an eye on the budget, change orders which inflate the price, and construction delays. That’s called protection for Village taxpayers. What we have now is unlimited liability. It’s just pure stupidity.
Too bad you did not post the letter to the editor from our dumb ass mayor, who basically says that he will introduce an ordinance for bonding of the garage on December 9 despite the unanswered questions. VOTE THE BUMS OUT IN MAY!
John V – this is your OPINION that Ridgewood does in fact need more net parking. Many of us find parking without a problem.
8:08am –
Let’s look at the actual data from the Walker report rather than talking about opinions:
https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf
Table 6 indicates that the “core area” is nearly at capacity on weekdays both during the days and the nights. Table 8 shows that on weekends capacity is okay during the day, but basically full in the core area at night. Thus, the core area is “full” much of the day.
Should people just be willing to park farther out and walk a bit? Of course they should! But that’s not what the average person wants. If they can’t find parking close to their destination, they simply will shop and eat elsewhere. The ridgewood downtown “core” would be more vibrant (e.g. better restaurants, better shops, fewer vacancies, higher rents, more tax revenue) if there were more parking nearby to the core.
9:54pm –
Good point on revenues. 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!
John, there is no way the project can be executed at the projected cost. It will end up costing 2X or more after “change orders” and delays, that’s how the shakedown happens in NJ. They Mayor knows this but doesn’t appear to care.
9:07pm –
Agree that’s probably the biggest issue. Good questions to ask the council this month. What are they going to different to ensure no cost overruns? Can we get a fixed price RFP done before issuing any bonds? Should project be managed differently than other projects have been managed in the past? Perhaps get some independent, outside project managers on board who will can capture 50% of the “savings” if the project comes under budget?
nothing in Ridgewood has come under budget in over 100 years
James –
If that’s true that everything is over budget in Ridgewood, I think we would be wise to: 1. Try to change that poor history so we can succeed in the future, 2. Emphasize that poor history as the biggest risk for this type of project and ask our officials what they are going to do about it, 3. Stop trying to cloud the issue by trying to argue that there is no need for more parking, when data and experience indicate otherwise.
For example, what is the typical cost overrun for these types of projects? What are the implications on the finances if there is a typical cost overrun, be that 25% or more or less? Is there enough “headroom” in the revenue model to cover that cost? How much risk are we really taking on with this project, given the rang me of possible outcomes?
The Village Hall renovation project wound up costing more than 2 times what taxpayers were told it would cost. Ditto for the bathrooms at Vets Field.
And a simple sidewalk construction project at Graydon Pool went 30% over budget.
John, if you can convince the Council to hire an independent, outside project manager who can keep 50% of the “savings” if the project comes in under budget, then you will have caused a revolution in North Jersey municipal contracting. I think the better solution is to ask the business owners in the CBD to pay 20-25% of the FINAL cost to build, maintain, insure and operate the garage, that way they’ll have an incentive to watch out for the “change orders”, i.e. graft that is 100% guaranteed on any project here. Your idea also works, but doesn’t tie the business owners in our CBD to the future costs to maintain, insure and operate the garage. No one ever mentions insurance, repair and maintenance, let alone who will operate the garage… it’s like when police departments took surplus equipment from the DoE but then never budgeted for repair, fuel and insurance…. same crap with the garage, and as always, taxpayers bear the brunt of the stupidity.
Funny, Rutishauser with a bean counter watching over hjs shoulder, that’s rich
10:03pm –
These are great questions for Roberta and the Village Council. What will be done differently with this project to ensure that it doesn’t repeat past mistakes?
8:02am –
Happy to offer innovative suggestions! I’m relatively new to Ridgewood and new to paying attention to municipal projects, so no idea if it’s feasible to avoid past mistakes. The group on here doesn’t seem very confident…
RE: Repair, Maintenance, and Operating costs. The financial model that the Walker report built for the project does factor those costs in going forward. Look at the various tables in the report for the details: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf. So they are at least “accounted for” to some degree with this project thankfully. If there are other recurring costs not accounted for with this projects, or costs that are poorly estimated, those should also be brought up with Roberta and the council asap.