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

They should charge the max they can get to fill the spots. Capitliasm at its finest

I think the parking is subsidized. The cost of the parking does not seem to include a charge for the actual property being used (and certainly never has). And if they were going to phase in the increases it would have meant to reach their goal they would have had to part of the increases in the years before the deck opens and some after the deck opens. And I don't think anyone would have been happy paying more before the deck actually was open to permit holders.

Plus I would not be surprised if someone is needed to help direct traffic (like at the NJ transit lot in the evening) and that will be another cost.

BubbaTerp said:
They should charge the max they can get to fill the spots. Capitliasm at its finest

Put the parking Authority commissioners on salary too! I'm sure they can find other creative ways to increase revenue. Make it a profit center!

Parking fees should be at the whim of the market.

mikescott said:
I think the parking is subsidized. The cost of the parking does not seem to include a charge for the actual property being used (and certainly never has). And if they were going to phase in the increases it would have meant to reach their goal they would have had to part of the increases in the years before the deck opens and some after the deck opens. And I don't think anyone would have been happy paying more before the deck actually was open to permit holders.
Plus I would not be surprised if someone is needed to help direct traffic (like at the NJ transit lot in the evening) and that will be another cost.

All the more reason for a more detailed financial disclosure and analysis. If jitney fees have doubled as bog mentioned and parking permit fees have more than doubled, there will be a lot more revenue coming in.

The "slide deck" and supporting Q&A sheet from the June 11th presentation addresses this in generalities, but not specifics. Anytime something increases in cost by 133% at once, I want to see specifics.

Jim - if those specifics show the rates should be even higher, would you be ok with another increase?

mikescott said:
Jim - if those specifics show the rates should be even higher, would you be ok with another increase?

If it were phased in - yes.

Let's face it, people would pay $1,000 for a parking spot there, if not more. South Orange residents are (statistically speaking) very affluent.

jimmurphy said:

mikescott said:
Jim - if those specifics show the rates should be even higher, would you be ok with another increase?

If it were phased in - yes.

If you phase in increases that means someone is subsidizing the cost. Who should subsidize the phase in of increases?

Fair enough. Like a tax reval. Show me the numbers.

BubbaTerp said:
Let's face it, people would pay $1,000 for a parking spot there, if not more. South Orange residents are (statistically speaking) very affluent.

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the problem. I know of people that kept their $300 commuter spot because hey - one of us might work in the city again someday. At $700 (or $1000) they might sing a different tune.

If the goal is for the parking spots to go to the people that value them the most, then charge whatever the market would allow. I do think that there should be additional permited parking on certain South Orange streets like done in Maplewood. People would still pay to be closer to the RR.

I believe the Village has been undercharging for that parking for a long time. And instead of taking cash for the sale of the municipal property at third and Valley, South Orange negotiated with the developer to pay us in parking spots in this garage... And quite a few more parking spaces than we had on that property. I would consider that publically subsidized.

For me, when I look at it without considering what the fees were before $58 a month to park a car for most or all daylight hours in the center of town five days a week seems like a pretty fair deal. I'm having trouble understanding why the town and taxpayers should accept less for property and services that are in such high demand. And while I know that the Jitney doesn't service every single neighborhood in town, is it not a less expensive option for those who have the ability to use it?

Somethingz_Fishy said:
...And instead of taking cash for the sale of the municipal property at third and Valley, South Orange negotiated with the developer to pay us in parking spots in this garage... And quite a few more parking spaces than we had on that property. I would consider that publically subsidized.

I beg to differ. Torpey and Company used smoke and mirrors to create this misleading impression. The number of public parking spaces in the new deck DO NOT exceed the number of spaces in the former commuter lot and potential spaces in the adjacent unutilized lot on Valley Street.

In the final analysis, the Village is getting a seemingly good development in exchange for a massive, prime redevelopment site. But, it's not getting more parking than it otherwise could have had with a few truckloads of crushed stone and asphalt. (And, don't get me started on how the Rescue Squad got screwed as a by-product.)

Trans_Parent said:

In the final analysis, the Village is getting a seemingly good development in exchange for a massive, prime redevelopment site. But, it's not getting more parking than it otherwise could have had with a few truckloads of crushed stone and asphalt.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the village is getting more parking now than it otherwise "could have had" if it just turned the entire area into a giant parking lot. The village got more parking spaces from this deal than it had before-- plus a large mixed-use development. Would anyone have ever been in favor of taking "a few truckloads of crushed stone and asphalt" and just turning all of 3rd and Valley into a big parking lot? Doubt it... so it doesn't make sense to compare the parking spaces to that hypothetical.

Thats all fine, but the village should have been able to get that without an overly generous PILOT. It basically gets nothing from the mixed use development outside of added costs.

EricH said:

Trans_Parent said:In the final analysis, the Village is getting a seemingly good development in exchange for a massive, prime redevelopment site. But, it's not getting more parking than it otherwise could have had with a few truckloads of crushed stone and asphalt.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the village is getting more parking now than it otherwise "could have had" if it just turned the entire area into a giant parking lot. The village got more parking spaces from this deal than it had before-- plus a large mixed-use development. Would anyone have ever been in favor of taking "a few truckloads of crushed stone and asphalt" and just turning all of 3rd and Valley into a big parking lot? Doubt it... so it doesn't make sense to compare the parking spaces to that hypothetical.

EricH said:

Would anyone have ever been in favor of taking "a few truckloads of crushed stone and asphalt" and just turning all of 3rd and Valley into a big parking lot? Doubt it... so it doesn't make sense to compare the parking spaces to that hypothetical.

The southeast lot was acquired by the Village almost 10 years ago, and routinely was used for parking by the towing company across Valley Street and by various entities for construction equipment staging. It's ludicrous to analyze the existing parking capacity of this site without considering that quadrant of it.

The Village chose not to pave it, because it contemplated for many years seeing it redevoped. But, as we saw occur at Church and W. South Orange Ave, it easily could have been converted to parking.

For my money, selling that lot amounted to also selling those potential parking spaces.

It's my understanding that $500 of the $700 annual fee will be going to the owner of the garage. From the 3rd and Valley Redevelopment Agreement:

"Rates for the Public Parking Spaces will be regulated by the Township, but the fees for the use of the Public Parking Spaces will be set at a rate that will be sufficient to, along with any other funds paid by the Township or the Township Parking Authority, fund all garage operating expenses allocable to the Public Parking Spaces including, but not limited to, reasonable reserves, capital improvements, repairs and replacements, taxes, service charges and payments in lieu of taxes all as set forth in the Parking Agreement."

I would be interested in a cost breakdown of the $500/space to see which of the above items are included and to what amount. Nonetheless, at $700, this only leaves $200 "profit" for the Parking Authority per space. They used to get $300. This is why the other spaces and jitney service will also have to increase, to make up that shortfall.

bog said:
Thats all fine, but the village should have been able to get that without an overly generous PILOT. It basically gets nothing from the mixed use development outside of added costs.

EricH said:

Trans_Parent said:In the final analysis, the Village is getting a seemingly good development in exchange for a massive, prime redevelopment site. But, it's not getting more parking than it otherwise could have had with a few truckloads of crushed stone and asphalt.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the village is getting more parking now than it otherwise "could have had" if it just turned the entire area into a giant parking lot. The village got more parking spaces from this deal than it had before-- plus a large mixed-use development. Would anyone have ever been in favor of taking "a few truckloads of crushed stone and asphalt" and just turning all of 3rd and Valley into a big parking lot? Doubt it... so it doesn't make sense to compare the parking spaces to that hypothetical.

We could talk about some details that happened in the developer negotiation that I disagree adamantly with but still... We get more revenue than costs.Even with the PILOT as it is and before increases kick in at certain benchmarks and fill rates, I believe we're getting about 600K a year from this project. PLUS parking. That's pretty good for what use to just be an ugly, bare parking lot.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/98034-3rd-Valley-Development-s-Deceptive-Fuzzy-Parking-Math

Is this still true?

michaelgoldberg Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15am Edited

Susan,
The PILOT is already done. They pay the Village $570k per year. And then we pay them back $125k per year for maintenance of the parking deck.

Trans_Parent said:
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/98034-3rd-Valley-Development-s-Deceptive-Fuzzy-Parking-Math

Is this still true?
michaelgoldberg Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15am Edited
Susan,
The PILOT is already done. They pay the Village $570k per year. And then we pay them back $125k per year for maintenance of the parking deck.

Yes and no. That was based on $500/space for the 255 spaces. Since the PA raised the parking rates, the developer pays the Village $570k and the commuters pay them back $125k.

michaelgoldberg said:

Trans_Parent said:
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/98034-3rd-Valley-Development-s-Deceptive-Fuzzy-Parking-Math

Is this still true?
michaelgoldberg Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15am Edited
Susan,
The PILOT is already done. They pay the Village $570k per year. And then we pay them back $125k per year for maintenance of the parking deck.

Yes and no. That was based on $500/space for the 255 spaces. Since the PA raised the parking rates, the developer pays the Village $570k and the commuters pay them back $125k.

Not all of the 255 spaces are for commuters. I think that 70 spots are open to the public, for which I assume they will be paying. It might be 30, which of course is a big difference. I don't recall. I don't know if any of the spaces are going to be used for employees, who used to park at Third/Valley. (If they're not going to park there, where are they going to park?)

eta - Changed to "employees" from "municipal employees."

RobB said:

BubbaTerp said:
Let's face it, people would pay $1,000 for a parking spot there, if not more. South Orange residents are (statistically speaking) very affluent.

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the problem. I know of people that kept their $300 commuter spot because hey - one of us might work in the city again someday. At $700 (or $1000) they might sing a different tune.

RobB: Can't say that that would be a problem.

Just like the cost of housing and the Real Estate and School taxes. Put it on the market and someone will move from the City and pay it, and be happy. Perhaps the price should start at $2,000 per spot per year, and go down until the fill point is found.

Does anyone know what the cheaper "secondary" permit is?

Its for parking at thee Waterlands, Third St, Mews, OLS, and North Ridgewood Rd locations.

sbr said:
Does anyone know what the cheaper "secondary" permit is?