Third Street Garage Resident Parking permit fee to increase 133% in 2016

The rate used to be $300 annually. Now we get to pay $700 for this commodity as a result of the Third Street apartment construction.

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://villagegreennj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SOPA-spread.pdf&hl=en_US

Is the financial justification for this exorbitant increase available anywhere online?

I'd call it a bargain. There's no need to ask taxpayers to subsidize the cost of parking your vehicle.

jimmurphy said:

Is the financial justification for this exorbitant increase available anywhere online?

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/118140-Resident-Permit-Parking-Fee-Increase#comment-3028108

While I would agree that commuters should pay the full cost of parking that is a high fee. When we got our deck in Millburn annual fees went up sharply to finance the deck but it is still "only" $560.

mjh said:
I'd call it a bargain. There's no need to ask taxpayers to subsidize the cost of parking your vehicle.

And how exactly do you know that this is subsidized without the financial analysis?

michaelgoldberg said:

jimmurphy said:

Is the financial justification for this exorbitant increase available anywhere online?

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/118140-Resident-Permit-Parking-Fee-Increase#comment-3028108

Thank you for referring me to the prior thread, however the other thread does reference anything that financially justifies the increase.

I am looking for the operating and maintenance costs, debt service obligations, etc, that justify the 133% increase. The actual increased expenditures. Did I miss that?

jimmurphy said:

mjh said:
I'd call it a bargain. There's no need to ask taxpayers to subsidize the cost of parking your vehicle.

And how exactly do you know that this is subsidized without the financial analysis?

The $700 cost is not subsidized, which was my point. If you through all of the materials provided at the link, the details of how they arrived at $700 as the total [actual] cost of a space is provided.

mjh said:

jimmurphy said:

mjh said:
I'd call it a bargain. There's no need to ask taxpayers to subsidize the cost of parking your vehicle.

And how exactly do you know that this is subsidized without the financial analysis?

The $700 cost is not subsidized, which was my point. If you through all of the materials provided at the link, the details of how they arrived at $700 as the total [actual] cost of a space is provided.

Forgive me if I've missed it, but I went through the slide deck and all I see is cost comparisons to other garages. I see nothing that indicates that the actual unsubsidized expense to park a vehicle in the garage approaches $700. Something that totals the operating expense, debt service, etc and then divides that value by the number of spaces to arrive at an expense per space.

Is it there an I missed it?

The explanation is there in the slide deck and the subsequent fact sheet (in words, not a numeric spread sheet).

If you want to see the number-crunching, you'll probably have to ask for it.

The fact they're making it themselves tells me there isn't a better option. Small (pharma/biotech) companies almost always outsource manufacturing when possible.

RobB said:
The fact they're making it themselves tells me there isn't a better option. Small (pharma/biotech) companies almost always outsource manufacturing.

wrong thread

mjh said:
The explanation is there in the slide deck and the subsequent fact sheet (in words, not a numeric spread sheet).
If you want to see the number-crunching, you'll probably have to ask for it.

OK, so I'm not missing it. Thank you.

And for the record, the subsidy appears to be going the opposite direction. Garage permit holders are subsidizing the jitneys and other permit holders.

Is there a reason that commuter parking should be revenue neutral? If the spots will sell for that price and help to offset other town expenses, what is wrong with that?

$700 per year translates to less than $ 3 per workday.

Jim, your use of the word "commodity" to describe parking is both inaccurate and revealing. Commodity pricing is set by the market and allowed to rise to reflect demand...I'd say that commuter parking rates in South Orange would rise even higher if we let them rise to meet market demand from all of our surrounding communities (e.g. if we essentially sold spots to the highest bidders).

Instead, we treat much of our commuter parking as a locals-only utility, with a fixed rate and a managed process for gaining access. Since it is a utility which cannot meet demand, we price it to include a modest subsidy for alternatives like jitneys, which I find appropriate.

Hey, I'll miss getting our spot for $300 a year, but I've long considered it a below-market bargain. We've known the increase would be coming for many months. I applaud the decision to include some money to give jitneys stable funding and perhaps add a route that serves currently unserved neighborhoods (like the one I live in).

FilmCarp said:
Is there a reason that commuter parking should be revenue neutral? If the spots will sell for that price and help to offset other town expenses, what is wrong with that?

Not necessarily anything wrong with it, but the parking authority should not be able to make such judgments without detailed financial justification. Financial Statements that spell out all the numbers. It appears that the jitneys are receiving a greater subsidy - how much? What is the jitney ridership? Does it make sense based on that ridership to expand the service or subsidize it to a greater degree?

Why stop there? Why not make rec services into a profit center? It costs way more for a kid to play on a private baseball or softball team than it currently does for the rec program. Why not double the fee to play ball and "help to offset other town expenses, what is wrong with that?"

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at. If this were a 20 or 30% increase, I'd get it. But 133% in one fell swoop? Seems quite unfair and certainly has not been justified in detail.

Susan, I have no problem with your argument. My issue is with the magnitude of the change. It should be phased in.

I am also uncomfortable with the rather autonomous nature of the Parking Authority in general.

Jim - What have the rates been for the past 10 years? If it had been phased in you would have paid more but will small increases each year.

Mike - The rates have been constant at $300. But it is not as if the parking authority has been losing money all of those years. The have been small losses in some years, I understand, and surpluses in most others. What would the justification have been for those hypothetical small increases?

It is not as if parking has been a loss leader that we are now catching up on in one fell swoop. They have made a decision to add jitneys and change other services, at a great incremental cost to current permit holders. I believe that that decision should be justified in more financial detail, and that the policy change should have been phased in.

I think the jitneys were added because of the long parking lists and alternatives were needed for residents who were not lucky enough to get a permit. The jitneys need to be subsidized - and quite frankly, it seems reasonable that commuters with parking permits help subsidize the permits. Plus while the parking authority might not have been able to justify the increases, you were the one who suggested smaller increases. Obviously a deck is expensive to build and maintain, so either the cost was going to be subsidized by other taxpayers or more reasonably by those who use the deck.

I would imagine if the full cost of the deck, the maintenance, the value of the land, etc were calculated into the cost justification of permits the price would be significantly higher.

Does anyone know the annual cost of the NJ Transit lot and if it is more/less than what will now be charged to So Orange Villagers for their very own deck?

NJ transit lot is $840/year

mikescott said:
I think the jitneys were added because of the long parking lists and alternatives were needed for residents who were not lucky enough to get a permit. The jitneys need to be subsidized - and quite frankly, it seems reasonable that commuters with parking permits help subsidize the permits. Plus while the parking authority might not have been able to justify the increases, you were the one who suggested smaller increases. Obviously a deck is expensive to build and maintain, so either the cost was going to be subsidized by other taxpayers or more reasonably by those who use the deck.
I would imagine if the full cost of the deck, the maintenance, the value of the land, etc were calculated into the cost justification of permits the price would be significantly higher.

As one who waited on those lists for about 8 years, I understand that demand outstrips supply.

I suggested smaller increases going forward, not looking backward. Who says the jitneys need to be subsidized? And to what degree? Charge what it costs to run the system. Or start with a small subsidy paid for by a smaller permit increase, and phase in increases in the subsidy with increases in the permits.

Or create satellite "lots" using residential streets and a less costly, more efficient jitney system.

If you all think that an increase of 133% in the price of anything at one time is reasonable, then I guess I'm just talking to myself...

jimmurphy said:
Who says the jitneys need to be subsidized? And to what degree?

Sorry, but I think most (certainly not all!) people agree with subsidizing the jitney. I certainly do. It's good public policy.

mjh said:

jimmurphy said:
Who says the jitneys need to be subsidized? And to what degree?

Sorry, but I think most (certainly not all!) people agree with subsidizing the jitney. I certainly do. It's good public policy.

I get it. Mass transit gets subsidies. I ride NJT every day and understand that I am subsidized. But they don't raise tolls 133% in one year, or increase the gas tax 133% in one year.

jimmurphy said:

mjh said:

jimmurphy said:
Who says the jitneys need to be subsidized? And to what degree?

Sorry, but I think most (certainly not all!) people agree with subsidizing the jitney. I certainly do. It's good public policy.

I get it. Mass transit gets subsidies. I ride NJT every day and understand that I am subsidized. But they don't raise tolls 133% in one year, or increase the gas tax 133% in one year.

You could take the jitney.

mjh said:

You could take the jitney. ">

If everyone did that, who would subsidize my fare?

You are against subsidizing the jitney but you are ok with subsidized parking?

Jitney pricess doubled btw..

mikescott said:
You are against subsidizing the jitney but you are ok with subsidized parking?

mikescott said:
You are against subsidizing the jitney but you are ok with subsidized parking?

I am not ok with subsidized parking, but the parking in this case IS NOT subsidized. It does not cost more in expenses than revenue received through permits, therefore, I say again, it is not subsidized.

Again, I am taking issue with the amount over and above what it costs in operating expenses and debt service to subsidize other operations, including the jitneys and enforcement of other downtown parking. I take issue with the huge increase in one increment without detailed financial justification. How much per ride does the jitney operation cost? What amount is being covered by fares versus subsidies?