| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 327
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:24 am: |     |
Does anyone know the details to the proposed parking project costing $2.5 million?
Ordinance passed on first reading and assume will be discussed Monday evening for passage: (note - Agenda not posted as of this writing)
"Bond Ordinance Providing for Capital Improvements in and by the Township of South Orange Village, in the County of Essex, New Jersey, Appropriating $3,500,000 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $3,325,000 Bonds or Notes."(from July 11th Minutes)
Excerpt from notice in NewsRecord:
"Bond ordinance providing for capital improvements in and by the Township of South Orange Village, .... Appropriating $3,000,000 ...
Purpose:
Acquisition of land and construction of Parking Facilities within the Township - $2,500,000.." |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 2120
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:46 pm: | |
Word on the street is that they're planning a parking deck at the gas station on Third/Valley. Only 2 stories - if you're going to build it, why not 3 or 4? |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 498
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:59 am: | |
Please tell me you're kidding about the deck on Third Street! |
snshirsch
Citizen
Username: Snshirsch
Post Number: 375
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:54 am: | |
Another word on the street posting. Why is it that no one simply has any idea of what is going on around here?
Who does one have to know to be informed? |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 861
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:55 am: | |
Curious Taylor...why are you opposed? The idea of a deck, the location, or something else?
Thanks |
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:59 am: | |
Wouldn't a parking deck be better situated near the railroad at the Rescue squad lot out of most sight lines?, I feel having the location at 3rd and Valley street developed into a rateable might serve the town better, it is a prime location on Valley? |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 784
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:25 am: | |
If you built a parking deck at Valley & Third, it would most likely extend down to include the lot next to the Rescue Squad once you included entries and exits. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 863
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:25 am: | |
We may all be discussing the same location, since the town lot is right behind the gas station in question.
I agree that decking the town lot behind the gas station and developing the gas station land as a ratable makes sense, if anyone finds Valley street a "prime location" -- I'm seeing little evidence of that so far. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:34 am: | |
At a BOT meeting a few months ago, a couple of the trustees said that developers had shown more interest in Valley St. than the downtown. Sterling and Millenium were mentioned as two developers that had already approached the Village about Valley St. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 329
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 12:59 pm: | |
The location may be an ideal location. Commerical space could be developed along Valley with the "deck" below extending to the RR tracks.
Entrance and egress could be both on Third and Valley.
Some questions should be asked -
> How many "new" spaces will be created?
- For example: if 100 were created does $25,000/space seem reasonable?
At $225/year commuter parking fee it would take over 100 years to recoup the investment.
> Has a Traffic Study been performed? |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:41 pm: | |
I recall that mention was made of a possible joint venture or partnership with a private developer, as one of the possibilities that was being explored. I would hope that this could still be explored as a way of relieving some of the financial stress on the taxpayers. Other towns have done it.
Additionally, this is the kind of thing that developers shoud be asked to contribute to. If the deck has to be built prior to development on Valley St., the developers could be asked for a contribution towards repayment of the debt. |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:01 pm: | |
- For example: if 100 were created does $25,000/space seem reasonable?
At $225/year commuter parking fee it would take over 100 years to recoup the investment.
I have no gut feeling for whether $25,000/space is on the mark....though $2,500,000 for a structure that would park 100 cars seems in the ballpark. If this is accurate, then at (guessing) 6% interest, the debt service would be $1500 per space per year.
Charging anything less than that would mean never recouping the investment--and so we should not be thinking of it in those terms. We need to decide as a municipality whether we are willing to spend that amount of money for this kind of capital improvement. (i.e. does it bring more business to town or improve quality of life commensurate with the outlay.) |
SouthOrangeNanny
Citizen
Username: Sonanny
Post Number: 73
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:02 pm: | |
great.....lets add some more traffic on third st.... just what we need! how r the rigs are supposed to get out of the garage at the rescue squad..with the added traffic?? |
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8499
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:18 pm: | |
Hmm, interesting point. You may have to choose between development and light traffic.
|
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 75
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:48 pm: | |
Let's leverage what Summit learned when they built their deck. I'm sure many of the same issues came up, were addressed/analyzed and - not least - the end result was a very attractive deck that I'd imagine is considered an asset by the great majority of residents - esp. the train riders.
Hint: Anything visible from the street should not look like the walls of SOPAC that are facing the train platform. They should be brick and the overall structure/design/appearance should be compatible with retail on the gas station lot. |
Klg
Citizen
Username: Klg
Post Number: 25
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:13 pm: | |
off topic slightly but I would think that the SOPAC walls wont stay that way? Wont they paint it or put something on the outside to dress it up? |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 330
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:26 pm: | |
I would assume that more detail will be provided this evening for this agenda item.
ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING:
#05-16 – Bond Ordinance Providing for Capital Improvements in and by the Township of South Orange Village, in the County of Essex, New Jersey, Appropriating $3,000,000 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $2,850,000 Bonds or Notes.
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:42 pm: | |
100 spaces seems like very little.
That said, what is the parking capacity right now in downtown SO --
** total
** w/o train station/commuter parking, and
** train station/commuter parking only
If we're going to bond for a garage -- then it ought to be sufficient to meet projected needs, or work in conjuntion with a private developer.
/p |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 867
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:05 pm: | |
Yes...once it is built at two stories, it may be too late to decide that we really needed three. I hope that this has been looked at in a systematic way. We probably need much more than a net gain of 50 or 75 spaces -- how long is the town wait list now? Is the parking committee in the loop on this proposal?
Given that we are on second reading tonight, and have been told nothing so far (closed session all the way), can someone remind me whether the final vote happens tonight, or later?
You know, it may be that this is a wonderful, fully thought through proposal, or maybe not, but how the heck are we supposed to tell? Still waiting for my transparent government, and hoping that when I get home from an evening meeting and watch the instant replay, I'll find the answers that I hope for. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 333
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:50 pm: | |
I wonder if this has anything to do with the design of the parking deck?
1. An Ordinance to Amend the Code of the Township of South Orange Village, Chapter 92, Thereof Entitled “Land Development” to Amend Section 92-126 Therein Entitled “Parking Area Design Details and Criteria” and Section 92-200 Therein Entitled “Supplemental Height and Bulk Regulations.”
|
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 2126
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 7:54 pm: | |
quote:great.....lets add some more traffic on third st.... just what we need! how r the rigs are supposed to get out of the garage at the rescue squad..with the added traffic??
This is an excellent question, as well as why the town is even considering a parking deck at that location. The then BOT cited traffic impact on Third Street when they shot down Shop Rite's proposal to build on the Gaslight Commons lot. (Before you say that a supermarket would require large trucks on Third, please remember that the proposal included a tunnel/alternate access to the site.)
Edited to add: Though what's the point of bringing up old history? The Board of Trustees has an agenda, and clearly they cannot be dissuaded from it for any reason. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2633
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:16 pm: | |
Howard Levison received a very vague answer tonight that the bonding for $3 million is for "improvements to Village buildings and possible acquisition and construction of parking facilities".
When pressed for details, there were none, yet it passed unanimously without barely any discussion by the BOT. |
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 2129
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 9:21 pm: | |
Surprise, surprise, surprise. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 95
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:37 pm: | |
This seems to be business as usual, despite the talk of open government. Why would public disclosure affect "negotiations" and up the price of land the village is seeking to acquire, as Adminstrator Gross declares. Seems like an excuse to cloak events in secrecy. I wonder if there is more than meets the eye here.
As a taxpayer, i don't think I am willing to pay $15,000 a parking spot. Where is the "business plan" on this one? Where does this fall into a priority list of things we are being hit for on capital improvements? We hear the River Walk project is costing more for desing to cover the tennis court issue. SOPAC is asking for more money. The Stone House has issues. And so on. And the board goes merrily along. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark. |
Jeff DuBowy
Supporter
Username: Jeffd
Post Number: 124
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:42 pm: | |
There is approximately 200 commuter municipal spaces , both 12hr meter & permit. Excluding all temporary conditions.
The NJT Lot has 242 spaces for commuters.
The combined wait list for both the muni lots & njt was close to 1000 people on the last report I received several months ago.
Without land acquisition costs it is my understanding that constructing a deck would cost between $10,000 to $15,000 per space. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 1877
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:49 pm: | |
Why didn't the town allow NJ Transit to build the deck when they wanted by the station? This is such a stupid thing to do. Build a deck in an area already full of traffic, and then only build it two levels high.
As I thinks Bets already mentioned, the BOT kept Shop-Rite off Third Street because of the traffic it would generate; now they give the go ahead for a parking deck?
What were they thinking!? I hope we all remember this in the next election. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 96
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:55 pm: | |
Ok, so there's a 1000 people who want a parking space in town. I think we finally have figured out what to do with our downtown. Let's condemn and buy any eyesore businesses ( I think we can do that with the recent Supreme Court ruling), level them, and build the best darn parking facilty in the state. We could even put the Tony Smith sculpture in front of it. Then let the law of economics come into play and charge what the traffic will bear. At least the downtown will have found out how to compete with the malls. |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 11:13 pm: | |
The number $15,000 per space was mentioned at the meeting this evening.
Based on this we are talking about ~ 167 spaces. Will that make a sufficient dent in the demand? |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:50 am: | |
There's a story in today's Asbury Park Press regarding Red Bank which may be of interest. Last night, the Borough Council of Red Bank was supposed to introduce an ordinance whcih would provide for an $11.8 million, 570 space parking garage.
The introduction of the ordinance was held off when the Mayor of Red Bank said private developers may be interested in taking on the project. Many residents were at the meeting to express their concern at the increase in taxes if the municipality took on this project.
http://app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050726/NEWS/507260317 |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 334
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:29 am: | |
Stuart0628:
What else was described as a "parameter" was that they were seeking 500 spaces which I take as an additional $5,000,000 for the project. I did not ask but something that should be detailed is number of spaces to be allocated to various usage: Long Term - Commuter/Business, Short Term - Shopper.
We also heard that the BOT could not describe the detail of a "parking plan" since it was still under negotiation. When asked who would manage these facilities the response was that too was under negotiation - maybe the Parking Authority.
We are again being asked to back potential increase to our taxes without any discussion/dialogue to the purpose, plan or return on investment.
|
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 9:46 am: | |
I share your concern that these private negotiations with landowners will all of a sudden lead to a done deal.
Once a price is agreed on, will we have public hearings?
Like most of the projects around town, this could be a very good thing if handled prudently, or a very bad thing if sweetheart, closed-door deals are involved. |
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 169
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:22 am: | |
Once again it also appears that everything is being pushed through during the summer months.
Why not have a meeting specifically to address issues with parking in Sept when people can actually attend.
I personally am very tired of what still appears to be back door politics.
First rumor held that a parking deck would be placed in the train station lot on the Church Street side, now new rumors.
Who is holding the negotiations? It is my understanding that the Parking Authority is a separate entity and does not answer to the board. It is also my understanding that they have profit at the end of the year. What kind of profit?
Do the members and/or director of the Parking Authority earn salary and benefits? Which ones?
What agency has defined the amount of Parking required and, as you indicated Howard, who requires that parking? Were any numbers formulated on build and they will come or build because they are here?
Are we building to create some sort of job security for the Parking Authority? Decks are much more maintenance intensive than lots.
I would agree with the construction of a facility on Third with entrances/exits on Third and Valley that would include stores along Valley. I would agree only if numbers of required parking were issued in the gaslight with additional facts. Residents should not have to search out the info but it should be placed before them. That was the original purpose of the Gaslight. I would also only agree if the Village maintained control of that land and a long term lease with development by a professional company. Were security issues addressed? Police or security staff? What are all the costs?
Who are the negotiations with? I am scared to death of the future based on the past issues of "conflicts of interest" (especially as the attorney watches without addressing.)
The train station parking is more that enough in one place. It is my understanding also that according to traffic studies this area is presently crowded so why would anyone consider imposing more traffic there?
OPEN GOVERNMENT
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 337
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:58 am: | |
Parking should have been part of a larger Strategic/Master Village Plan. This would be something that would be handled by the proposed DRMC which seems as well stalled at the gate.
In conversation with the Parking Authority I have been told they are the operational component not the planning organization.
There is a paid staff at the Parking Authority which includes a director. The Commissioners are appointed by the BOT and do not receive salary.
PA by contract operates Township parking facilities as well has a contract with NJT for the Train Station lot (PA pays a fee to NJT). PA collects and keeps all revenues. They have bonding authority.
The CBAC reviews and comments on the audited PA's financial statements. Request has been made by the CBAC for copy of current reports. |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 76
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 1:57 pm: | |
Re: Traffic
I'm sure the traffic engineers have metrics on how creating X number of spaces generates Y amount of traffic.
I'm guessing that would be the case here. As Reingold and others observed, we do have a desire to have more commercial foot traffic in the village to attract and retain high quality businesses/restaurants, additional parking would help, presumably, attract more people to the businesses, so a trade-off may be necessary.
For those concerned with traffic growth on 3rd street, I see a lot of drop-off traffic ....wouldn't a fair number of spaces be taken by waiting list folks that are currently getting dropped off by their spouses? Just a thought. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page