Dear Friends/Neighbors,
I am writing to you with an update on our parking deck initiative … and I am doing so with a great deal of excitement.
Simply stated, we are very close to making a downtown parking deck a reality. After months – in fact, years – of hard work and after 3,236 Ridgewood residents (65%) voted in support of a parking deck in last November’s election, we are in the final stages of the process … fine tuning the design, working through the finances and getting ready to put shovel in the ground.
In January, the Council voted on an ordinance to finance the parking deck on our own. Specifically, we voted 3-2 in favor of bonding up to $12.3 million to pay for the deck. Unfortunately, for bonding purposes, a simple majority of the Council is not enough.
So, in February, we voted on a different ordinance – one that would allow the Village to partner with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA), which would borrow the necessary funding and finance the deck. Again, the vote was 3-2 in favor, but since the Village would not assume any debt under this arrangement, the simple majority was enough to pass the ordinance.
In my mind, either scenario is good for Ridgewood. Both would result in a much-needed parking deck at comparable costs.
Some, however, have suggested that our vote regarding the BCIA was taken to “circumvent” the bonding process. That is simply not true. We began exploring a partnership with the BCIA in May 2013 – long before our current discussion – because there are many advantages to doing so. Better interest rates. Better amortization (payment schedule). And such a partnership would allow the Village to finance and build a parking deck without adding to our overall debt burden. Further, I am a big believer in partnerships – public/public or public/private – because they can lead to enhanced efficiencies, enhanced effectiveness and saved dollars.
Regardless, there is now a petition drive underway to prevent our partnership with the BCIA – a drive that has been fueled, in part, by misinformation and outright lies. That is unfortunate. The people of Ridgewood deserve better.
That said, in the spirit of getting this project done –once and for all – and in the spirit of doing it together as a community, I am willing to re-introduce the January bond ordinance at our March 2 Council meeting. Although I still believe that a partnership with the BCIA would be a good thing for Ridgewood, I want to give my Council colleagues another chance to make this happen.
But let’s be clear – if the full Council is still not willing to support the bond ordinance – notwithstanding all of the statements recently made by Council members – we should continue to move forward with the BCIA.
Again, I sincerely believe that either approach – going it alone or in partnership with Bergen County – would be good for Ridgewood. Either way, we must seize this unique moment. Either way, we must keep moving forward.
Thank you.
Paul
Paul Aronsohn, Mayor
Village of Ridgewood
Misinformation and outright lies? I thought that was from his end.
What are the “lies”? I really need to know.
Will the new (or not new) details regarding the design be made available to the other Council members? Did the footprint actually shrink to fit the lot?
“The BCIA would allow the Village to finance and build a parking deck without adding to our overall debt burden”…. say what? Paul, this is an outright lie. Whether it is on our Village B/S or off our books on the County B/S, it is still our debt to be repaid from our parking revenues. By diverting parking revenues from the current Village budget to amortize the BCIA debt, the Village is creating a funding need to replace current parking revenues. Wonder how that gets paid? Oh, tax increases on all of us Village residents, not on your pals in the CBD. You and Albert have your heads up your A$$ with these moronic, uninformed statements about “soft costs”, i.e. change orders which blow out the budget, and now our debt burden? Does anyone on the FAC explain this stuff to you guys or are you so hell bent on this white elephant that you can’t understand what they say?
Just an observation, but if this “deck” was really a deck put on top of the existing lot across from the Post Office in the middle of the CBD, and costing a fraction of what this “garage” will cost, do you think that anyone would be signing this petition? Nope, because there would not be any.
To the people who voted for this originally, and the council members who pushed this thru, you might want to reconsider.
What troubles me is that the mayor never mentioned his involvement with the BCIA in terms of the parking garage until the vote didn’t turn his way.
He should have told the public at the beginning of the process that he wanted to partner with BCIA; he should have put the option on the table right away.
That’s what I think, am I wrong?
Get it done Paul!
Bang on 9:11
This current mayor is a disgrace to the village, nothing more than a phony politician.
7:34 and 8:05am-
There is a perfect example of misinformation in 8:05am’s statement: “By diverting parking revenues from the current Village budget to amortize the BCIA debt, the Village is creating a funding need to replace current parking revenues. Wonder how that gets paid? Oh, tax increases on all of us Village residents.”
Ridgewood Parking Utility revenues do not support the general village budget. The revenues pay for the maintenance of the parking system, the enforcement activities of that system, and the portion of village administrative costs that are used to supervise and run the utility. It is my understanding that some current surplus is being “paid back” to the village to cover for deficits that were generated when all the coins were being stolen. But that’s not the intention going forward once that is paid back. Any surplus stays within the parking utility.
When the garage is built, the intention again is for the parking revenues from the garage and all the other spots to pay for everything. Tax revenues would be a “backstop”, not the primary source of funding. The financial model used to plan the garage projects the system to be “self-funding” and not require taxpayer support. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it’s not the intention.
Thus, you are spreading misinformation yourself!
lol please stop John that garage does not have a high hope in hell of it coming in on budget or it paying for it self copy and paste to your hearts content these are meaningless statements from the “land of make believe “
John V, again you incorrectly assume this garage will be built on time and on budget. That will never, ever happen. We’d also start paying back the BCIA funds immediately, not once the garage is built, and again, you’re also assuming if they build it, commuters will come. All of these assumptions = white elephant. I notice you did not disagree with the point raised about off the books debt still being an off B/S debt burden that will still consume Village funds going forward, whether they be parking revenues or tax revenues. This plan stinks, I promise you.
John V, the Village couldn’t fly a kite without expensive change orders to pay for graft, delays and cost overruns. You’re dreaming!!!
if it don’t fit..you must submit Paul..
James at 11:27am-
You make a fair point! Why should we trust that the project will come in under budget when pretty much every other project runs over budget? Why should we trust that enough revenue will be generated when there has been no “test” of raising the rates and extending the hours to such high levels? I agree, the project is “risky” in that sense.
But that doesn’t change the fact that 8:05am’s statement is “misinformation”! It’s not “true” that a garage would divert parking revenues from the Village Budget. Parking revenues aren’t net contributors to the village budget!
please give it up
11:35am-
For those who’ve been reading my comments here for a while, I don’t feel like I’ve ever assumed anything. I’ve always written that the big risks are the project goes overbudget or they don’t raise enough revenue to pay of the system. For some of you, you may judge those risks to be large enough that the project is not worth it. Fair enough! I disagree, but perhaps I’m just more naive than everyone else.
Re: if you build it, they will come – the Walker report is based off existing parking demand, not really new demand, commuters or otherwise. They even assume demand drops by 10% to see if that would impact the numbers. Even under that scenario, they can still raise enough revenue to pay for the garage. The challenge is you have to raise rates and hours by a ton. And construction has to come in on budget. Big risks! Risky enough for some people to reject the project altogether. I respect that.
Re: off-balance sheet debt, no disagreement there, but I’m not a finance or bond guy, so I have no idea how that works in practice. Though I agree that the Mayor’s comment doesn’t make sense. We still need to make the lease payments, so wouldn’t that be factored into a credit rating? Same thing when you have a car lease and are looking to take on more debt. That lease agreement would be factored in.
The BCIA funding is pretty stupid to me and seems to be all about getting around the need for a 4-1 vote. Hopefully Susan or Mike will vote for a town bond and they can just drop this whole BCIA thing.
James at 11:58am-
I’ll gladly give it up when you decide to join the “reality-based community”. Any luck finding Bigfoot yet?
Question about raising parking rates…
.
Wasn’t there an outcry a few years back by the members of the Chamber about rates and we dropped the times down to 6:00 pm? Now they say they’re ok with extending them to 9:00 pm at a higher rate? Who’s going to police the extended hours, have those salaries and other expenses been considered (I haven’t read the reports, so I’m not sure this is covered or not)?
.
On a side note, I parked in Westwood the other day. On street, for 25 cents I got 2 hours.
12:35 And you shopped in a wider variety of stores and ate in a good restuarant.
Regardless of how this garage is funded (BCIA or self issued), if revenues are insufficient to pay debt service, the tax payers of Ridgewood will be footing the bill. This is a general obligation bond where the bondholders will look to the tax payers of Ridgewood to pay timely debt service. This is not a revenue bond where the bondholders would look only to the revenues of the parking authority for payment. Ultimately, bond indebtedness is for the account of the Ridgewood tax payer and to say otherwise is misleading. Think of this project like our Graydon Pool. If you use it or not, operating shortfalls will be made up by either cutting Village expenses or increasing Village taxes.
John V- I speak for a number of people in saying you are the most unbelievable sh*t stirrer. Please, sir, find yourself something to do during the day.
John V. Surplus to parking utility can stay in the parking utility or can go to general fund – it doesn’t matter – it’s still ‘money within our municipality”. It’s a positive cash flow TODAY, which will go towards paying for the garage for next 25 years.
Going to the BCIA is a bad idea and bad for Ridgewood, pretty much everyone agrees. If anyone expects Mr. Sedon or Ms. Knudsen to vote in favor of bonding in Ridgewood they should also demand that the renderings of the new garage fitting in the landscape and the specific financial payback plan are delivered before the vote. Both have repeatedly asked for those specific items before voting yes and both are reasonable requests. In fact voting yes before you have that information IS unreasonable.
But, unwisely or not, the voters of Ridgewood did vote in favor of a garage so the council needs to do its job and figure this out among themselves. Let’s nail down the new parking rates and hours and test it for 1-2 months, get the garage out of the street and show pictures to the church and if all is good bond it.
Anon- I have asked that at meetings and not been answered.
Brian Conn- makes perfect sense.
Thanks Brian and 1:38…. I was not spreading misinformation John V, just explaining reality
1:38pm-
Agreed, cash flow basis is probably a reasonable way of looking at it instead, whatever “pot” it’s supposed to be in. I think current excess cashflow from parking is something like $400k per year? I can’t find newest Walker report update, but the older version indicated similar cash surplus after building the garage and raising rates: https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015walkerFinal.pdf
Again, that only hold true if garage doesn’t go over budget and raises enough revenue. So on a “risk-adjusted” basis there’s a reasonably argument against the garage.
1:34pm-
Slow day at work…
I haven’t commented on anything in like a month. So after today I probably will drop offline again for a while. These topics are exhausting!
Anon at 2:08pm,
If you are the same as Anon at 8:05am, you haven’t been telling the “whole truth”, thus I’m personally willing to call it mis-information. You say that the project will “divert parking revenues from the current Village budget to amortize the BCIA debt”. That’s only true if parking revenues don’t increase more than the amount needed to fund the new debt. The “plan” is to increase those revenues by a sufficient amount. You may think that plan is BS! It certainly could be. But please acknowledge that there are contingencies to your statement. Some people are unaware that the garage is “intended” to be funded first and foremost by parking revenues, not by taxes. You are right that taxes will cover shortfall if there is a revenue shortfall or a cost overrun. That’s the risk of the project…
revenues will never cover this thing , you are fantasizing
John, I like when you visit. Never hurts to challenge ourselves and I particularly love it when municipal bond experts such as Mr. Conn are provided a reason to weigh in…
We should ask the church what they think when they start paying taxes.
Why do i keep seeing the term parking deck, it is a building that will be over budget and really does not help. Just put up a deck instead.
From Feb. 29,2016 issue of New Yorker magazine.
I sooooo believe a parking garage has no place in Ridgewood. I love this article by Nick Paumgarten and I LOVE THIS QUOTE. It sooooo applies to Ridgewood. Let’s keep the historical character of this town….. pleeeeease.
“Paying for parking is a sign from God that you’re in an area not designed for a car,” he said. “You are fighting the design of your city.” Although he maintains a
YOU ARE FIGHTING THE DESIGN OF YOUR CITY. Any parking garage is fighting the design of this wonderful charming , historical town. Dave Slomin has good ideas. Why in the hell won’t certain council members give him a chance. The council takes advice from other residents on issues.
$400k revenue just about covers the next coin Heist. Maybe we can borrow the money to pay for the garage from the people who know how to steal the meter money.
I thought Tommy boy was making restitution to the Village for the money he stole as part of his plea deal with the County. Where’s that money? If he’s not paying it, why doesn’t the new Bergen County prosecutor lock him up?
Dammit John you are naïve…
8:52am-
Thanks!