october 2, 2015 mr. robert g. rooney chief financial officer

October 2, 2015 Mr. Robert G. Rooney Chief Financial Officer Parking Utility Director Village of Ridgewood 131 North Maple Avenue Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450 Re: Proposed Hudson Street Parking Garage Preliminary Financial Analysis Project #: 18-1330.00 Dear Mr. Rooney: Attached is the Final Hudson Street Parking Garage Preliminary Financial Analysis for the Village of Ridgewood. The study provides a planning-level analysis of net operating income potential for the parking system when the new garage is complete, including rate adjustments that will help maintain a parking utility that is self-supporting. Sincerely, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Carolyn H. Krasnow, Ph.D. Brian J. Bartholomew, CAPP Vice President Senior Consultant

50 West 23rd Street, Suite 704 New York, NY 10010 Tel: 212.288.2501 Fax: 212.288.2543 www.walkerparking.com

HUDSON STREET PARKING GARAGE PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD RIDGEWOOD, NJ Prepared for: VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD PARKING UTILITY OCTOBER 2, 2015

TITLE OF REPORT

PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION Prepared for: CLIENT DATE

HUDSON STREET PARKING GARAGE PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD RIDGEWOOD, NJ Prepared for: VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD PARKING UTILITY OCTOBER 2, 2015

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HUDSON STREET PARKING GARAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 BACKGROUND 4

Scope of Services 4 PHASE 1: SUPPLY & DEMAND EXISTING CONDITIONS 6

1.1 Study Area 6 1.2 Parking Supply 7 1.3 Effective Parking Supply 9 1.4 Parking Occupancy - Weekday 11 1.5 Parking Occupancy - Weekend 16 1.6 Parking Adequacy 19

PHASE 2: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 22

2.1 Income Projections 22 New Revenue Streams 22 Increasing Revenue 24

2.2 Operating & Maintenance Expense Projections 24 Per Space Operational Budget Projections 24

2.3 Financial Pro Forma Projections 28 Operational Pro forma Projections 28

PHASE 3: OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 31

3.1 Rates & Fees 31 3.2 Parking Enforcement 33 3.3 Parking Garage PArking access & Revenue Control Recommendations 33

Conventional Gated System /Pay-on-Foot Stations 34 Multi-Space Parking Meters 35 Systems Overview 35 Projected Parking Control System Costs 37

APPENDIX EXISTING WEEKDAY CONDITIONS - PRIVATE EXISTING WEEKDAY CONDITIONS - PUBLIC EXISTING WEEKDAY CONDITIONS –ON-STREET EXISTING WEEKEND CONDITIONS – PRIVATE EXISTING WEEKEND CONDITIONS - PUBLIC EXISTING WEEKEND CONDITIONS – ON-STREET

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HUDSON STREET PARKING GARAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

ii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Projected System Revenues, 2016-2020, with 350-space Garage 2 Table 2: Projected System Revenues, 2016-2020, with 412-space Garage 3 Table 3: Parking Supply Summary 8 Table 4: Effective Parking Supply Summary 11 Table 5: Parking Occupancy by Block – Weekday 13 Table 6: On-Street and Public Off-Street by Block, Core Area Weekday 14 Table 7: Public Parking, Weekend 17 Table 8: On-Street and Off-Street Occupancy by Block, Core Area Weekend 18 Table 9: Peak Weekday Parking Adequacy 20 Table 10: Peak Weekend Parking Adequacy 21 Table 11: Net New Revenue Streams for the Garage 23 Table 12: Projected Operating Costs – 412 Space Garage 26 Table 13: Projected Operating Costs – 350 Space Garage 27 Table 14: 10-Year Pro Forma - 350-space Garage 29 Table 15: 10-Year Pro Forma - 412-space Garage 30 Table 16: Comparative Parking Rates 31 Table 17: Comparative Overtime Parking Fines in Other New Jersey Cities 33 Table 18: Summary of System Advantages / Disadvantages 36 Table 19: Pay-on-Foot Gated System 37 Table 20: Multi-Space Meter System 38 Figure 1: Study Area 6 Figure 2: Parking Supply by Type 9 Figure 3: Weekday Daytime Parking Demand – Public Parking 15 Figure 4: Weekday Evening Parking Demand – Public Parking 16 Figure 5: Saturday Evening Parking Demand – Public Parking 19

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HUDSON STREET GARAGE PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Village of Ridgewood has proposed to build a garage on the site of the existing Hudson Street Parking Lot on the northeast corner of Hudson Street and South Broad Street. The garage is intended to address crowded parking conditions in the downtown core, and will replace the 76-space lot with roughly 350 to 412 spaces (actual size has not yet been determined). Walker Parking Consultants was retained by the Village of Ridgewood to prepare a preliminary financial analysis of the proposed Hudson Street Garage, to understand the likely fiscal impact of the project. A preliminary financial analysis is an order-of-magnitude assessment for planning and budgeting purposes, but is not a detailed analysis for financing purposes. To the extent there is capacity in the parking system, that capacity is located at the periphery of the downtown area, and Village staff have noted that the peripheral areas are considered by many to be inconveniently far from the majority of downtown destinations. Parking in the core area is very busy. The garage will add a large number of spaces in one location and within a shorter walking distance to many destinations, making it easier to find convenient parking. Easing crowding does not, in and of itself, create a new revenue stream; it transfers revenue from other metered spaces in the Village. The garage will likely encourage people to come downtown who have been avoiding it due to parking constraints, but this is not a quantifiable revenue stream and is not included in our analysis. More conservatively, we project the following net new revenue streams for the garage:

• The 72-space Brogan Cadillac lot on South Broad Street at Essex Street and at the 92-space Ken Smith Motors lot just east of the train tracks and north of Franklin Avenue are going to be demolished for development. Both of these dealerships have closed and lease out their parking. The Ken Smith Lot is permit parking for downtown employees. The Brogan Lot accommodates commuters during the day and is leased out for restaurant valet parking at night. We anticipate these demand streams would transfer to the garage.

• We understand from Village staff that there are other restaurants downtown that use valet services in private lots that would use the garage instead (probably doing away with valet service since self-park options would be easier).

• The Village used to have 120 non-resident commuter permits, but doubled non-resident permit rates because there was not enough space for these commuters. Currently there are very few non-resident commuters parking in the train station area. The Village plans to reduce the non-resident commuter rate to $875/year to increase that demand stream again.

It is typical in downtowns that the revenue stream in a given garage is not sufficient to cover its operating costs and debt service. Downtown parking systems are just that – systems – that rely on pooled revenue from all resources, and especially the on-street meters (which tend to have the highest turnover), to cover the higher cost associated with building and operating a garage. This is the case in Ridgewood, where the net new revenue projected for the garage is not projected to offset its expenses. Therefore, our revenue projection includes all


2

downtown revenue and all expenses associated with the parking system. To operate the garage and have a revenue-positive parking utility (with funds available for other parking lot maintenance projects), we project that the Village will increase meter rates as follows:

• In 2016, meters will be extended until 9 p.m. and meter rates on key downtown streets will increase to 75¢.

• In 2017, 75¢ meters will be increased to $1 and the rest of the on-street and off-street meters will increase to 75¢.

• If needed, rates would increase by 25¢ after five years. • Commuter permit rates would increase by $25 in 2021 and 2025.

The tables below summarize projected system-wide revenue and expenses through 2020, for a 350-space and 412-space garage, respectively. Table 1: Projected System Revenues, 2016-2020, with 350-space Garage

Source: Village of Ridgewood and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.


3

Table 2: Projected System Revenues, 2016-2020, with 412-space Garage

Source: Village of Ridgewood and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.


4

BACKGROUND The Village of Ridgewood currently enjoys a busy downtown with active retail and dining venues as well as a popular NJ Transit train station. With substantial demand for parking, the Village would like to create structured parking on the site of a well-used surface lot on the northeast corner of Hudson and South Broad Streets. As a result, Walker Parking Consultants has been charged by the Village to provide a preliminary assessment of the financial impact of the garage. To properly assess the financial feasibility of this project, it was necessary to develop a conceptual design of a suitable structure on which to evaluate parking demand, operating expenses and financial performance. For purposes of this report, we have used the two self-parking concepts included in Walker’s recently completed site feasibility study. The concepts in Walker’s report are for floor plans only, thus the project costs will be based upon a mid-line architectural façade. This analysis identifies the estimated construction budget, including both soft and hard costs, operational expenses, debt services costs, and a projection of revenues for the parking system as a whole. Revenue projections include potential rate increases to support the added costs; the garage alone is not anticipated to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs and debt service. This study is a preliminary financial analysis that is intended to provide the Village with a conceptual level (order of magnitude) projection of net operating income for budget planning purposes. It is not intended to provide the level of detail required for the process of obtaining financing. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Develop Usage Projections:

Projections for average daily and weekend use will be developed from the completion of a field analysis of current demand. Projected volumes and usage patterns of residents, restaurant patrons, office workforce, commuters and the transient visitors will be estimated for the typical weekday, evening and weekend. Also, the periods of higher than average usage associated with recurring events and special events each year will be accounted for in the annual parking activity for the facility. Based on parking occupancy data field study and existing demand will be projected so that future parking demand projections regarding daily usage for the preferred parking garage site can be developed. All user groups will be identified and the degree to which the groups will contribute to the revenue generating potential of the proposed facility will be analyzed. A model will be developed that will represent the potential share of the parking market that the proposed facility will capture.

2. Identify Parking Rate Schedules:


5

Rate schedules for the proposed parking facility will be identified. The rate schedules will be stratified for short term, daily, monthly, nightly, overnight and special event parkers for both weekdays and weekends. A proposed parking rate structure for the facility will be devised after discussions with the Village as well as analyzing the prevailing parking rates at other nearby competing facilities (market rates) and project how the added parking supply created by the proposed facility will impact future market conditions and rate sensitivity.

3. Prepare Annual Income Projections:

Income projections will be prepared. These projections will be based upon projected estimates of usage and recommended rates and market capture projections resulting from previous tasks. Income projections will be prepared and identified by anticipated user group.

4. Estimate Operating/Maintenance Expenses:

Through consultation with the Village of Ridgewood, Walker Parking Consultants will identify and propose an operations plan for the preferred parking garage concept that will specify the most suitable parking access and revenue control technology and hours of operation given the projected utilization of the facility. An itemized statement of anticipated operating/maintenance expenses will be prepared based on the proposed operations plan and on industry averages adjusted to the local economy.

5. Prepare Pro Forma Statement of Income and Expense:

A multi-year (10-year) Pro Forma Statement of Income and Expense will be prepared and will include the following:

• Development cost projections • Financing cost projections • Annual debt service projections • Total operating expense projections • Total parking income projections • Income before/after debt service projections • Net profit (loss)projections

An inflation factor will be applied to expense projections subject to best represent net profit (loss) and debt service coverage for each year.


6

PHASE 1: SUPPLY & DEMAND EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.1 STUDY AREA The client identified an approximately 23-block Study Area as the focus of this study. The Study Area is generally bounded by Franklin Street to the north, North Maple Avenue to the east, Dayton Street/Brainard Place/Walton Street to the south, and Corsa Terrace/Wilsey Square/Godwin Avenue to the west. The following figure depicts the Study Area. Our analysis also looks at the core area around the proposed site (Franklin Avenue on the north, Walnut Street on the east, Hudson/Dayton Streets on the south, and Broad Street on the west); this is outlined in red in the map below. Figure 1: Study Area

Source: Google Earth and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015


7

1.2 PARKING SUPPLY Parking in the Study Area is available in several forms:

• On-street parking is metered, with a 15-minute to three-hour time limit on most blocks. For the most part, on-street parking is signed and restrictions are clearly marked. On-street parking is enforced between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The rate is 50¢ per hour.

• There are seven public parking lots in the study area. All public parking is metered with a time limits ranging from two hours to 12 hours.

• Private parking is available for specific user groups, generally customers, employees and/or residents of the associated building or business. Some lots have restrictions clearly posted, but we observed several that are used by the public after the associated business has closed. These lots are not available to accommodate overflow public demand.

The effective supply is compared to the parking demand to quantify the existence of a parking surplus or deficit. We conducted this analysis on a block-by-block basis within the Study Area, segmenting the demand by block. Please note that lots with parking inventories of less than 10 spaces were excluded from our analysis. Based on the data collected, there are a total of 3,097± spaces in the Study Area. 530± are on-street and 2,567± are off-street. Of the off-street spaces, 611± are located in publicly-owned lots and 1,956± are located in privately-owned lots. A majority of the privately owned lots are signed and restricted to customers or residents only. However, the signage is inconsistent and sometimes hard to locate. The 530± on-street and 611± public off-street spaces combined represent a total Village-owned public inventory of 1,141± spaces. The table below summarizes the parking supply by block.


8

Table 3: Parking Supply Summary

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015 A summary of the parking inventory by facility can be found in the Appendix. Figure 2 shows the total parking supply by type. The largest percentage of available parking in the Study Area is located in privately-owned off-street surface lots. Privately-owned parking accounts for more than 60% of the available parking in the downtown area. These facilities are typically restricted to the customers and employees visiting a particular business or the residents who live there, and cannot typically be used to accommodate general area overflow.

Private Block Off-Street On-Street Total Off-Street Total

1 150 52 202 172 3742 0 25 25 200 2253 88 39 127 86 2134 68 44 112 30 1425 0 55 55 17 726 109 26 135 0 1357 0 18 18 35 538 27 22 49 207 2569 33 8 41 115 15610 76 25 101 25 12611 60 15 75 0 7512 0 76 76 0 7613 0 28 28 254 28214 0 35 35 22 5715 0 19 19 95 11416 0 7 7 57 6417 0 0 0 92 9218 0 7 7 11 1819 0 0 0 29 2920 0 0 0 164 16421 0 0 0 221 22122 0 0 0 71 7123 0 29 29 53 82

Total 611 530 1,141 1,956 3,097

Public


9

Figure 2: Parking Supply by Type

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015 1.3 EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY The inventory of parking within the Study Area is adjusted to allow for a cushion necessary for vehicles moving in and out of spaces, and to reduce the time necessary to find the last few remaining spaces when the parking supply is nearly full. The cushion also allows for vacancies created by restricting parking spaces to certain users (reserved spaces), mis-parked vehicles, minor construction and debris removal. A parking supply operates at peak efficiency when parking occupancy is 85 percent to 95 percent of the supply. When occupancy exceeds this level, patrons may experience delays and frustration while searching for a space. Therefore, the parking supply may be perceived as inadequate even though there are some spaces available in the parking system. As a result, the effective supply – the inventory less a 5- to 15-percent cushion - is used in analyzing the adequacy of the parking system rather than the total supply or inventory of spaces. Following are some factors that affect the efficiency of the parking system:

• Capacity – Large, scattered surface lots operate less efficiently than a more compact facility, such as a parking structure, which offers consolidated parking in which traffic generally, passes more available parking spaces in a more compact area. Moreover, it is more difficult to find the available spaces in a widespread parking area than a centralized parking facility.

Private Off-Street63%

Public Off-Street20%

On-Street17%


10

• Type of users – Monthly or regular parking patrons can find the available spaces more efficiently than infrequent visitors because they are familiar with the layout of the parking facility and typically know where the spaces will be available when they are parking.

• On-street vs. off-street – On-street parking spaces are less efficient than off-street spaces due to the time it takes patrons to find the last few vacant spaces. In addition, patrons are typically limited to one side of the street at a time and often must parallel park in traffic to use the space. Many times on-street spaces are not striped or are signed in a confusing manner, thereby leading to lost spaces and frustrated parking patrons.

The size of the cushion is dependent on the type of user and facility. On-Street parking is adjusted by an 85 percent effective supply factor (ESF), because of the relative difficulty of finding an open space while negotiating traffic. Public off-street parking is adjusted by a 90 percent ESF to account for user unfamiliarity and the challenges of safely navigating the area while searching for a space. Private off-street parking is adjusted by a 95 percent ESF because employees or repeat users are familiar with the area and generally park in the same location each day. The Study Area contains a total of 3,097± spaces before any adjustments are made to account for an effective supply. After the effective supply factor is applied to the overall supply numbers, the Study Area’s effective supply is 2,860± spaces, as shown in Table 4. The public inventory is 1,002± spaces after effective supply adjustments, a 139±-space reduction from the full public inventory of 1,141±.


11

Table 4: Effective Parking Supply Summary

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015 1.4 PARKING OCCUPANCY - WEEKDAY To determine the parking patterns of patrons in the Study Area, the usage of the majority of parking facilities located in the Study Area was evaluated. An understanding of these parking patterns helps define both patron types and parking locations. Occupancy counts were taken for on- and off-street parking spaces on Wednesday, August 19th, 2015. Three counts were taken, starting at 10:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. and running for roughly 1.5 hours each. The counts represent “snapshots” over the course of the day, but it should be noted that not every block will be caught at absolute peak conditions during any given count. Staff have noted that the afternoon peak is from noon to 1 pm; not all facilities were counted during this period.


12

Because the project was undertaken in mid-August, when late summer vacations tend to reduce the number of commuters, we revisited the area on the Tuesday after Labor Day (September 8) to compare weekday occupancies. Our survey showed a higher daytime occupancy, as expected. Evening demand was lower in September, which is in keeping with restaurant sales statistics that show August to be a busier month. On weekdays in particular, we would expect fewer people to be out for dinner once school is in session. To capture the weekday peaks, the report uses the September daytime data and the August evening data. The following tables summarize the observed occupancy rates for on-street and off-street public parking by block. The first table shows the entire study area by block, including public off-street and on-street parking. The second table shows a further breakdown of on-street by block and off-street by block for the core blocks most relevant to the planned garage.


13

Table 5: Parking Occupancy by Block – Weekday

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015


14

Table 6: On-Street and Public Off-Street by Block, Core Area Weekday


In Figure 3 and Figure 4, the public on- and off-street parking occupancy is shown by block during the 10 a.m. count and 7 p.m. count, respectively. Parking occupancy rates were color coded, with red areas experiencing parking occupancy rates of 85% or greater, and green areas experiencing occupancy rates less than 50%. The areas immediately surrounding the train station and along Ridgewood Avenue experience the highest occupancy levels. The long-term lot at the train station was full until the evening count. Lots further from the station and those streets a block or two from the downtown experienced lower demand levels.


15

Figure 3: Weekday Daytime Parking Demand – Public Parking

Source: Google Earth and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015


16

Figure 4: Weekday Evening Parking Demand – Public Parking

Source: Google Earth and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015 1.5 PARKING OCCUPANCY - WEEKEND Weekend occupancy counts were taken for on- and off-street parking spaces on Saturday, August 22nd, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. As with weekday parking, many of the blocks are above their effective capacity, as shown in red (85% for on-street parking, 90% for off-street parking).


17

Table 7: Public Parking, Weekend


10:00 AM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM1 202 85 84 68 42% 42% 34%2 25 22 21 22 88% 84% 88%3 127 94 97 122 74% 76% 96%4 112 69 89 103 62% 79% 92%5 55 53 53 53 96% 96% 96%6 135 38 50 81 28% 37% 60%7 18 12 12 8 67% 67% 44%8 49 29 42 46 59% 86% 94%9 41 23 36 39 56% 88% 95%10 101 48 54 87 48% 53% 86%11 75 59 70 69 79% 93% 92%12 76 54 67 67 71% 88% 88%13 28 21 27 22 75% 96% 79%14 35 16 19 25 46% 54% 71%15 19 8 8 13 42% 42% 68%16 7 4 3 6 57% 43% 86%17 0 0 0 018 7 6 6 5 86% 86% 71%19 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 021 0 0 0 022 0 0 0 023 29 13 20 18 45% 69% 62%

Total 1,141 654 758 854 57% 66% 75%

Block InventoryDemand % Occupied


18

Table 8: On-Street and Off-Street Occupancy by Block, Core Area Weekend



19

Figure 5: Saturday Evening Parking Demand – Public Parking

Source: Google Earth and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015 1.6 PARKING ADEQUACY The tables below show parking adequacy at the peak hour during our weekday and weekend counts, respectively, for the public parking areas. Large surpluses are evident in areas considered to be peripheral – the train station lot and the Cottage Place lot – but in the core area several blocks exhibit parking deficits.


20

Table 9: Peak Weekday Parking Adequacy



21

Table 10: Peak Weekend Parking Adequacy



22

PHASE 2: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 2.1 INCOME PROJECTIONS NEW REVENUE STREAMS In general, sources of demand for a new parking facility fall into one of the following categories:

• New development that replaces vacant lots or underutilized land uses • Loss of surface parking lots to new development or other purposes • An increase in the parking generation rates of existing land uses, such as when a retail-

oriented downtown increases sees vacant spaces leased out to restaurants, which can generate five times the number of cars that retail does.

• Shifting of demand from another location to the new facility. New Development: Based on our discussions with Village staff, we do not project demand from any new developments. Loss of surface parking: At least two surface lots will be demolished to create residential developments. The two currently planned are the 72-space Brogan Cadillac lot on South Broad Street at Essex Street, and the 92-space Ken Smith Motors lot just east of the train tracks and north of Franklin Avenue. Both dealerships have closed and lease out their parking. The Brogan Lot leases spaces to commuters during the weekdays, and to a nearby restaurant for valet parking at night. There are also cars parked during the day on weekends; these appear to be individual leases as well, perhaps some kind of vehicle storage (we noticed several cargo vans, for example). We project that the new garage could capture the weekday commuter parking and the valet parking. The small number of cars parked on the weekends might go elsewhere for a cheap storage solution. The Ken Smith Motors lot is leased for downtown employee parking. We understand that the monthly rate is $80, of which the Village gets 10 percent and the owner gets 90 percent. We project that this demand would shift to the garage, with the Village getting the full $80 per month. Increase in parking generation rates: The Village core is already built-out, so we don’t project an increase in square footage for commercial uses. The retail is successful and restaurants are already a large component of commercial space, so we do not project a significant shift away from retail and towards dining. Shifting demand from other locations: A convenient new resource can attract parkers from less convenient areas, but this is not necessarily revenue positive. If it attracts parkers who were previously paying a competitor (a privately-owned lot, for example), this is a new revenue stream for the owner. But in Ridgewood, where the private competition is free and generally convenient, there is little reason to assume that demand will shift to the garage. Demand shifting from publically-owned facilities or crowded on-street areas would be revenue neutral at best, and potentially revenue negative if demand shifts from a more expensive resource (e.g., on-street) to a cheaper one.


23

One source of “new” demand shifting from elsewhere is commuter parking for non-resident commuters. In the past, Ridgewood had 120 commuter permits for non-residents at the same $750 annual rate that residents pay. Due to space constraints, the Village doubled the rate to $1,500 and the number of permits dropped to 15. While bringing the rate down will increase the number of non-resident parkers, it should be noted that at $750 per year, the revenue per permit is more than the Village will pay per stall for daily garage operation, but will not contribute significantly to debt service. Another source is restaurants that currently use valet services so that their patrons don’t have to scramble for parking. We understand from Village staff that some restaurants would give up valet service if more self-park options were available, and the garage is convenient to several restaurants. We assume that a few restaurants (other than the one using the Brogan Lot) will shift to the public parking system when the garage is open. We do project some loss of volume to alternative resources such as free parking a little farther away. A summary of the projected new demand for the garage is shown in Table 11. It should be noted that not all of these revenue streams will necessarily go in the new garage; in the 350-car scenario, the new garage would not accommodate all the Ken Smith Lot parkers, some of whom could be shifted to the Cottage Place lot. Our revenue projections look at the system as a whole, so these shifts are not of consequence. Table 11: Net New Revenue Streams for the Garage

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015 In addition to these new revenue streams, the public parking system may gain additional parkers who either are not coming to Ridgewood currently because they perceive parking to be difficult, or who come at dinner hour and park in private lots belonging to businesses that

Number 2018Non-Ridgewood Commuters(1) 135 875 /year 118,125$ Brogan Weekday (Commuters) 68 750 /year 51,000$ Brogan Night (Restaurant)(2) 33 0.75 /hour 16,454$ Restaurants (current valet) weekend(2) 50 0.75 /hour 9,972$ Ken Smith Lot (Downtown Employees)(3) 90 72 /month 77,760$

273,312$ Notes:

3. Ken Smith lot permits are $80. $8 is already included in Village revenue.

Rate

1. Commuter number was 120 prev iously; we assume some increase due to fewer space constraints, but higher rate will limit number of new parkers2. Restaurant parking includes Brogan lot, which will be demolished, plus two other lots that are being used by restaurants for valet parking; per information from the Village we understand that restaurants are interested to revert to self-park once garage is built. Projection assumes some loss to free residential street parking. Assumes 2 turns, 5 days per week for Brogan (valet Tuesday through Saturday) and 2 days per week for others (Friday, Saturday currently).


24

are closed. However, since neither of these is a quantifiable demand stream, they are not included in our assessment. INCREASING REVENUE Given that the new demand stream is not anticipated to cover debt service for the garage, the parking system will need to increase revenue on existing spaces if it is to be self-supporting. There will be a natural uptick in revenue as Parkmobile becomes more utilized. Apps of this sort increase compliance and also disallow “piggybacking” onto a previous parker’s leftover meter time. We have increased revenue in 2015 and 2016 to account for Parkmobile’s impact. While a 15 percent increase is common, we are projecting a five percent increase. Extending meter hours and enforcement until 9 pm is the first recommended step. Since daytime retail and restaurant customers pay to park, it is fair to ask evening restaurant customers to pay as well. In addition, metering the streets in the evening can provide parking management solutions to crowding in the future, should the Village wish to reduce employee parking along streets that should be available to customers. Evening rates alone will not cover the projected debt service; it will be necessary to increase rates as well. In order to achieve a debt service coverage ratio of 1.5, our projections assume the following:

• Evening rates will go into effect in 2016. • On-street meter rates will be increased to 75¢ along key streets (blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10,

and 11) in 2016. • Core area rates will be increased to $1 in 2017, with the rest of the on-street parking and

all off-street parking going to 75¢. This is projected to be the opening year for the garage.

• After five years (in 2022), $1 parking should increase to $1.25 and 75¢ parking should increase to $1 if necessary.

• We assume some reduction in parking demand with each increase as people look for free alternatives (farther away on street, or in private lots) or choose to go elsewhere. We use an assumption of 10%.

• We have not projected a shift in demand away from Ridgewood Avenue and other core streets to the cheaper garage or other off-street lots, as we assume the 25¢ differential will not significantly alter people’s preference for convenient spaces. We further assume that the demand reductions discussed above will cover the limited shift from more expensive to less expensive resources.

2.2 OPERATING & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE PROJECTIONS PER SPACE OPERATIONAL BUDGET PROJECTIONS The following tables identify the projected operating cost for both a 412-space parking garage and 350-space parking garage as identified in the Site Feasibility Study. Cost projections have


25

been identified for a period of ten (10) years. Cost projections are escalated at 3% per year and costs are identified for a precast structure developed in this region.


26

Table 12: Projected Operating Costs – 412 Space Garage


412 Spaces / Pay-By-Space

Operating Expense(3% Increase Per Year Based on Congressional Budget Office CPI Data)

Estimate of Annual Operating Expense Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 7 Year 10

SALARIES (All Estimates Rounded to the Nearest Dollar)

Security Service (Assume Police Patrols) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 89,554 97,858(Interdepartmental Charges)

Services Total 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 89,554 97,858

REPAIR & MAINTENANCE

Snow/Ice Removal (Sweeping/Striping) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Repair & Maintenance (Wear & Tear) 25,000 25,750 26,523 27,318 28,138 29,851 32,619Maintenance Reserve (Structural/$.35 sq. ft.) 58,000 59,740 61,532 63,378 65,280 69,255 75,677Equipment Maintenance 42,000 43,260 44,558 45,895 47,271 50,150 54,800

Repair & Maintenance Total: 135,000 138,750 142,613 146,591 150,689 159,257 173,097

OTHER OPERATIONAL EXPENSESElectric Service 63,000 64,890 66,837 68,842 70,907 75,225 82,201Water Service 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,582 3,914Sewer Service 1,875 1,931 1,989 2,049 2,110 2,239 2,446Waste Disposal Service 2,500 2,575 2,652 2,732 2,814 2,985 3,262Telephone / Internet Service 1,500 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,791 1,957Insurance (Assumes Self-Insured) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Printing (Parking Meter Receipts) 750 773 796 820 844 896 979Office Supplies 1,000 1,030 1,061 1,093 1,126 1,194 1,305

Other Operational Expenses Total: 73,625 75,834 78,109 80,452 82,866 87,912 96,064

Grand Total Operating Expenses $283,625 $291,834 $300,289 $308,997 $317,967 $336,723 $367,019

Cost per space (412) per year $688 $708 $729 $750 $772 $817 $891

Equipment Maintenance Includes:

Elevator Maintenance Contract1 car @ $500.00 per car per month/$6,000 annually

Parking Meter Maintenance Contract10% X total initial installation cost/estimated at $60,000 =$6,000

Balance Lighting, Life-safety systems, etc.


27

Table 13: Projected Operating Costs – 350 Space Garage


350 Spaces / Pay-By-Space

Operating Expense(3% Increase Per Year Based on Congressional Budget Office CPI Data)

Estimate of Annual Operating Expense Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 7 Year 10

SALARIES (All Estimates Rounded to the Nearest Dollar)

Security Service (Assume Police Patrols) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 89,554 97,858(Interdepartmental Charges)

Services Total 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 89,554 97,858

REPAIR & MAINTENANCE

Snow/Ice Removal (Sweeping/Striping) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Repair & Maintenance (Wear & Tear) 25,000 25,750 26,523 27,318 28,138 29,851 32,619Maintenance Reserve (Structural/$.35 sq. ft) 49,000 50,470 51,984 53,544 55,150 58,509 63,934Equipment Maintenance 42,000 43,260 44,558 45,895 47,271 50,150 54,800

Repair & Maintenance Total: 126,000 129,480 133,064 136,756 140,559 148,510 161,354

OTHER OPERATIONAL EXPENSESElectric Service 60,000 61,800 63,654 65,564 67,531 71,643 78,286Water Service 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,582 3,914Sewer Service 1,875 1,931 1,989 2,049 2,110 2,239 2,446Waste Disposal Service 2,500 2,575 2,652 2,732 2,814 2,985 3,262Telephone / Internet Service 1,500 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,791 1,957Insurance (Assumes Self-Insured) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Printing (Parking Meter Receipts) 750 773 796 820 844 896 979Office Supplies 1,000 1,030 1,061 1,093 1,126 1,194 1,305

Other Operational Expenses Total: 70,625 72,744 74,926 77,174 79,489 84,330 92,150

Grand Total Operating Expenses $271,625 $279,474 $287,558 $295,885 $304,461 $322,394 $351,361

Cost per space (350) per year $776 $798 $822 $845 $870 $921 $1,004

Equipment Maintenance Includes:

Elevator Maintenance Contract1 car @ $500.00 per car per month/$6,000 annually

Parking Meter Maintenance Contract10% X total initial installation cost/estimated at $60,000 =$6,000

Balance Lighting, Life-safety systems, etc.


28

2.3 FINANCIAL PRO FORMA PROJECTIONS OPERATIONAL PRO FORMA PROJECTIONS The following tables illustrate the potential financial performance of the two different parking garage development scenarios (350 and 412 spaces) based on the parking rates recommended in earlier parts of this report. Revenue increase assumptions are per the previous discussion. In addition, a $25 per year increase in commuter permit fees is included in years 2021 and 2025. Expenses are projected to increase at 3% annually. Debt service and debt service coverage ratios are provided for 3% and 2.5% interest rates, per the request of Village staff. The pro formas assume the garage opens in July of 2017. Interest payments (1.5%) will begin in April of 2016, with full debt service beginning in July of 2017. The project costs to be financed (hard construction costs plus soft costs such as surveys, design fees and testing) are assumed to be $12,185,000 in the 350-space scenario and 13,040,000 in the 412-space scenario. New revenue for 2017 is shown at ¼ of the first full year, on the assumption that there is a ramp-up period before it accommodates all of the projected demand streams. The pro forma projects that the system will generate surplus revenue, which will enable the Village to make repairs throughout the parking system.

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HUDSON STREET GARAGE PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

29

Table 14: 10-Year Pro Forma - 350-space Garage

Source: Village of Ridgewood and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

30

Table 15: 10-Year Pro Forma - 412-space Garage

Source: Village of Ridgewood and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

31

PHASE 3: OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 RATES & FEES To ensure that the Village of Ridgewood is assessing market rates for commuter, residential, employee and hourly parking, an analysis of similar cities within close proximity to Ridgewood was conducted. The following table identifies the current rates for parking and Overtime Parking ticket rates for cities identified by Village officials as similar to those of the study area. Table 16: Comparative Parking Rates

Municipality Off-Street Hourly Parking On-Street Meter Rates Commuter Fees Westwood $0.10/hour $0.10/hour Westfield $0.50/hour $0.50/hour $636/year & $390/semi-annually at

Southside; $390/year & $195/semi-annually at Watterson

Millburn $10 per day for 12 hour meter $10 per day for 12 hour meter

$560/year & $425/semi-annually for first vehicle per household; $650/year & $475/semi-annual for each additional vehicle per household

Summit DeForest Avenue Parking Lot: $1.00/90 min or less $2.00/2 hours or less $3.00/3 hours or less $4.00/4 hours or less $5.00/5 hours or less $10.00/6 hours or less $12.00/7 hours or less $20.00/8 hours or less $25.00/9 hours or less $30.00/10 hours or less $30.00/10 hours or more $30.00/lost ticket

$0.50/hour $0.25 for 15-min EXPRESS parking

Resident- Lots #6, 7, 8, 9 &13 are $4/day, or $80/month, $228/quarterly, $864/annually. Permit Required. Resident permit is $10 ($5 for seniors). Non-Resident - No permit required for Lot #13 (Broad St. East Lot), $10/day for non-resident commuters. Lot #14 (Park & Rail) $10/day (max 5 days. Lot #15 (Park & Ride bus) $3/day for non-resident commuters.

Montclair $0.50/hour (2007) $0.75/hour (2007) Permits (6 months): Bay Street Station – $360 CBD (daytime)- $300 Grove Street Lot (daytime)- $300 Walnut Station – $360 Watchung Station - $360 Upper Montclair Train Station – $360 Mountain Avenue Station – $300 Montclair Heights Station – $300 Overnight On-Street Parking (5pm-9am) – $270 Overnight Off-Street Parking (5pm-9am) - $270 Crescent Deck at Montclair - $70/month for day $60/month for overnight $130/month for 24/7 Bay Street Station - $7/day Single Use Visitor Permit - $5/day


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

32

Municipality Off-Street Hourly Parking On-Street Meter Rates Commuter Fees *Transit lots open to non-permit users after 10am

Morristown Ann – Bank Parking Garage – $1/up to 30 min; $1.50/30 min to 1 hr $0.75/each addition 30 min up to 3 hrs $6.50/3 to 4 hrs $2.00/each add’l hour up to 9 hrs $19.00/9 to 10 hrs $2.50/each add’l hour up to 24 hrs John L. Dalton Parking Garage – $1/up to 30 min; $1.50/30 min to 1 hr $0.75/each add’l 30 min up to 3 hrs $6.50/3 to 4 hrs $2.00/each additional hour up to 9 hrs $19.00/9 to 10 hrs $2.50/each add’l hour up to 24 hrs De Hart Street Parking Garage – $1/up to 30 min; $1.50/30 min to 1 hr $0.75/each add’l 30 min up to 3 hrs $6.50/3 to 4 hrs $2.00/each add’l hour up to 9 hrs $19.00/9 to 10 hrs $2.50/each add’l hour up to 24 hrs Vail Mansion Parking Deck – $0.50/up to 1 hr $0.50/each add’l hour up to 3 hrs

$0.50/hour for 30 min, 60 min, 90 min, 2 hour and 3 hour meters $0.25/hour for 12 hour meters

Ann – Bank Parking Garage - $75/month John L. Dalton Parking Garage - $100/month De Hart Street Parking Garage - $90/month Vail Mansion Parking Deck - $75/month

Englewood $0.50/hour; $1 each add. hour $0.50/hour $60/month for those who work in CBD; $85/month for commuters

Princeton Spring Street Parking Garage – Under 30 min – Free 30 to 60 min - $1.25 2nd Hour - $1.25 3rd Hour - $1.25 4th Hour and Sub. Hours – 4th, 5th, 6th Hour $1.50, 7th and sub. Hours $2.00, 24 hrs $23.00 Each Hour or any portion - $0.25 Parking Lot Meters same as On-Street

Up to 30 min – $1.25 30 to 60 min – $1.25 2 hours – $1.25/hour or $1.00/hour or $0.75/hour 5 hours – $1/hour 10 hours – $1.00/first hour and $0.60 for each sub. Hour or $0.75 for first 2 hours and $0.40 for each sub. Hour or $0.40/hour 12 hours – $0.30/hour 14 hours - $0.30/hour

Resident Permit – Municipal Lot $25/month

Ridgewood $0.50/hour $0.50/hour $750 – Resident; $1,500 – Non-Resident per Year $80/month for CBD Employee



OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

33

Table 17: Comparative Overtime Parking Fines in Other New Jersey Cities

Municipality Fine Westwood $13 to $17 (OT) Westfield $32 (OT)

$30 (Parking in Permitted Area w/o Permit)

Millburn Not available Summit $25 (OT)

$30 (Permit Parking Violation) Montclair $30 (OT)

$35 (Permit Parking Lots) Morristown $25 (OT) Englewood Not available Princeton $40 (OT)

$40 (Parking Permits Yards and Garages)

Ridgewood $19 (OT) $30 (Parking without Permit)

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015 3.2 PARKING ENFORCEMENT Presently, the Village of Ridgewood Parking Utility maintains a budget line item funding three full-time Parking Enforcement Officers (PEO’s). However, due to employee turnover only two of these positions are currently filled. Parking enforcement is the basis of any successful municipal parking operation. Without proper enforcement levels of parking policies and regulations, the generation of parking income to support current and future parking programs and improvements will suffer. During the course of our field studies for this project, we noted that parking enforcement within the study area was not as visible as we expected. Violations noted during our data collection tours had gone without citations being issued. In addition, it was noted that a small number of vehicles were feeding the on-street meter once their initial time expired had expired. It is assumed that these vehicle belonged to employees of adjacent businesses. It is strongly recommended that parking enforcement levels be increased to promote turnover of spaces and enforce all posted parking regulations and published parking program policies. Naturally, this includes filling the currently vacant position as soon as possible. 3.3 PARKING GARAGE PARKING ACCESS & REVENUE CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS There are several methods of controlling vehicular access and collecting parking revenue available to the Village of Ridgewood for the proposed parking garage. The following identifies the options available which eliminate the requirement for cashier staffing along with the


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

34

projected capital and annual operating cost associated with each alternative. A cashier free environment is recommended to control operating costs and to limit shrinkage. CONVENTIONAL GATED SYSTEM /PAY-ON-FOOT STATIONS A conventional gated parking access and revenue control system provides the greatest level of user accountability available to a parking facility owner / operator. This technology requires the installation of a gate, ticket dispenser and card reader for the control of access and egress for transient and monthly style users. Upon entering the access lane, transient users would be required to interface with the ticket dispenser which would issue a bar coded ticket stub. When the transient user is prepared to exit the facility, they would be required to satisfy the payment due with a fully automated pay-on-foot device. Two devices would be placed at the ground level elevator / stair tower lobby for this purpose. The user would satisfy their fee and retrieve the ticket stub from the pay-on-foot device. When entering the exit lane, the user would then insert their ticket stub in the exit verifier which verifies that payment has been made and the patron is exiting within a predetermined time limit.

Monthly style users would interact with proximity style card reader devices in the entry and exit lanes for access and egress. The advantage to this approach to parking facility management is that the equipment is capable of providing a greater level of operational data than any other style of equipment. The disadvantages of this type of system in the Village of

Ridgewood environment is that the equipment is more expensive to purchase and maintain over its life-cycle and since there is no staffing present at the garage, when malfunctions arise it could create extensive queuing issues until someone arrives to correct the situation.

Photo 1 - Sample Gated Entrance

Photo 2 - Sample Pay-On-Foot Devices

Photo 3 - Sample Proximity Card Reader


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

35

MULTI-SPACE PARKING METERS

The use of multi-space parking meters to manage parking garage demand is becoming more common with the construction of each new garage or garage renovation project. The capital and long-term operating cost of this technology is relatively low compared to a fully gated system. Although the user data that is generated by a multi-space meter system is less robust than its gated counterparts, the information provided is sufficient to analyze the user demand of a facility. The meters are capable of managing an entire parking garage with one meter but this approach is not recommended as it does not account for malfunctioning

devices and does not provide an acceptable service level to users. Instead, one or two devices would be placed on each floor near the elevator lobby or popular pedestrian pathway. Users would enter their space number in the machine and purchase the amount of time

needed. Users may also pay for their parking on any level since devices would be networked and report to a central location. The greatest advantage to this system is that the capital and long-term operating cost is the lowest available. Another advantage is that vehicular entry and exit of the garage is unimpeded by a gate. A future advantage is that the system can easily be converted to pay-by-plate technology. This technology would require the user to enter their license plate number versus a space number in the meter. With the adoption of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) by the Village, parking enforcement staff would simply drive through the aisle to verify payment of each user as the multi-space meters would report, in real-time, the payment status of each vehicle to the ALPR system. The disadvantage to this system is that parking enforcement is required to ensure that payment by users has been satisfied and users are not informed when the facility is full. SYSTEMS OVERVIEW The following table is list of system advantages and disadvantages for each technology identified.

Photo 5 - Sample Space Number System

Photo 4 - Sample Multi -Space Meter


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

36

Table 18: Summary of System Advantages / Disadvantages


Parking Revenue Control SystemsPay-on-Foot Gated vs. Multi-Space Parking Meters (Pay-by-Space)

Pay-on-Foot Multi-Space MeterCustomer Service No "Overtime Parking" Citations Payment Options (coin, currency, ParkMobile, debit & credit cards)

Patron Pays Only for Time Used Technology Requires Sufficient (numerous) Signs With InstructionsPayment Options (coin,currency, check, debit & on-line credit cards) Chance of "Overtime Parking" CitationsTransaction Times Can be Greater (locating ticket, money, etc.) Chance of Paying for Unused Time (left earlier than anticipated)Potential In-Lane Queueing Delays Customer Confusion (may not see machines or understand correct usage)

Accountability Offers Greatest Level of Financial Accountability Possibly Generate Additional Revenue through Citations and Customer OverpaymentDetailed Facility Usage Data (length of stay, peak periods, vehicle counts, Facility Usage Data Limited (# of vehicles parked/amounts)failures, etc.) Possibility of Theft ($$ left in machines overnight)100% Compliance with Rate ScheduleAbility to Control Monthly Style Usage (walk to nearest functioning unit)

Inability to Control Monthly Style Usage (signage system & enforcement required)

Traffic & Safety Efficient Traffic Managment Capabilities Through Use ofEquipment (i.e., lot full conditions) No Internal Queueing When Facility is "Full"

Internal Queueing - Waiting for Available Parking When Full

Equipment Downtime Due to Failure/Vandalism Causes Customer Inconvenience


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

37

PROJECTED PARKING CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS The following two tables illustrate the projected cost of each system based on the conceptual designs supplied as part of the Automated Parking Garage Report. Table 19: Pay-on-Foot Gated System


Gated System - Pay-on-Foot

ESTIMATING LEVEL: SD DD CDITEM UNIT UNIT COST QTY Base Bid

Garage Equipment1 Barrier Gate with Straight Arm Each $3,500 2 $7,0002 Pay-in-Lane Dev ice (Backup for Pay-on-Foot) Each $32,000 1 $32,0003 Dual Channel Loop Detector Each $500 4 $2,0004 Proximity Card Reader Each $4,500 2 $9,0005 Bar Code Ticket Dispensor Each $18,000 1 $18,0006 Pay-on-Foot Dev ice Each $40,000 2 $80,000

Back Office Equipment7 System Serv er(s) with related Software Each $30,000 1 $30,0008 FMS Workstation - Monitor/Keyboard/System Printer/Peripherals Each Inc.9 Central Fee Computer/Validator/BC/Includes Fee Display - For Park Office Each $16,500 1 $16,50010 Remote Workstation Licenses Each $6,000 2 $12,00011 Bar-code Software Each $7,500 1 $7,500

BASE SYSTEM - EQUIPMENT ONLY - SUBTOTAL $214,000

OTHER COSTSSpare Parts and Stock 3% $6,420Network Related EquipmentInstallation (Excluding Electrical) 20% $42,800Documentation, Training, Testing & Warranty 8% $17,120Electrical WorkConcrete & Asphalt Work

BASE SYSTEM - OTHER COSTS - SUBTOTAL $66,340

BASE SYSTEM - EQUIPMENT & OTHER - SUB TOTAL (PROJECTED) $280,340

Design Contingency (10% of Installed Cost) 10% $28,034General Contractor Serv ices 10% $28,034Miscellaneous Construction Allowance (10% of Installed Cost) 10% $28,034

BASE SYSTEM - TOTAL (PROJECTED) $364,442

Optional Maintenance PlanFiv e Year Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-One Under Warranty)

Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-One) 0.0%Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Two) 8.0% $17,120Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Three) 8.2% $17,634Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Four) 8.5% $18,163Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Fiv e) 8.7% $18,707Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Six) 9.0% $19,269

$90,892

DESCRIPTION


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1330.00

38

Table 20: Multi-Space Meter System

Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015 Based on the advantages and disadvantages for both operating systems and the capital and life-cycle maintenance costs, it is recommended that the Village of Ridgewood adopt multi-space meter technology for its parking garage operation. Additionally, since access will be required through the grade level of the garage for the two adjoining land parcels adjacent to the garage, the use of automated gates will prove to be problematic in the day-to-day operation of the facility.

Multi-Space Meter

ESTIMATING LEVEL: SD DD CDITEM UNIT UNIT COST QTY Base Bid

Garage Equipment1 Multi-Space Meters (Assumes 4 Floors) Each $12,000 4 $48,000

Back Office Equipment2 System Serv er with related Software Each $15,000 1 $15,000

BASE SYSTEM - EQUIPMENT ONLY - SUBTOTAL $63,000

OTHER COSTSSpare Parts and Stock 3% $1,890Network Related EquipmentInstallation (Excluding Electrical) 10% $6,300Documentation, Training, Testing & Warranty 2% $1,260Electrical WorkConcrete & Asphalt Work

BASE SYSTEM - OTHER COSTS - SUBTOTAL $9,450

BASE SYSTEM - EQUIPMENT & OTHER - SUB TOTAL (PROJECTED) $72,450

Design Contingency 0% $0General Contractor Serv ices 10% $7,245Miscellaneous Construction Allowance (10% of Installed Cost) 10% $7,245

BASE SYSTEM - TOTAL (PROJECTED) $86,940

Optional Maintenance PlanFiv e Year Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-One Under Warranty)

Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-One) 0.0%Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Two) 4.0% $2,520Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Three) 4.1% $2,596Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Four) 4.2% $2,673Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Fiv e) 4.4% $2,754Maintenance Contract Fee (Year-Six) 4.5% $2,836

$13,379

DESCRIPTION

1

APPENDIX


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1310.00

2

EXISTING WEEKDAY CONDITIONS - PRIVATE

EXISTING WEEKDAY CONDITIONS - PUBLIC

10:00 AM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM1 Cottage Place Lot 150 135 66 67 22 44% 45% 15% 84 83 1283 Walnut Street Lot 88 79 63 37 40 72% 42% 45% 25 51 484 Chestnut Street Lot 68 61 66 61 51 97% 90% 75% 2 7 176 Train Station Lot 109 98 108 111 62 99% 102% 57% 1 -2 478 Train Station Lot (West Side South) 27 24 18 25 27 67% 93% 100% 9 2 09 Broad Street Lot (East Ridgewood

Extension)33 30 17 26 33

52% 79% 100% 16 7 010 Hudson Street Lot 76 68 55 72 76 72% 95% 100% 21 4 011 Prospect Street Lot 60 54 46 52 40 77% 87% 67% 14 8 20

611 549 439 451 351 72% 74% 57% 172 160 260

% Occupied Adequacy

Total

Block Location Inventory Effective Supply

Demand


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1310.00

3

EXISTING WEEKDAY CONDITIONS –ON-STREET

10:00 AM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM1 Cottage Place 24 20 18 18 18 75% 75% 75% 6 6 61 Franklin Ave 5 4 4 0 2 80% 0% 40% 1 5 31 East Ridgewood Ave 23 20 22 22 22 96% 96% 96% 1 1 12 North Walnut Street 9 8 4 7 9 44% 78% 100% 5 2 02 East Ridgewood Ave 16 14 12 10 11 75% 63% 69% 4 6 53 East Ridgewood Ave 9 8 9 7 9 100% 78% 100% 0 2 03 Oak Street 20 17 20 17 19 100% 85% 95% 0 3 13 North Walnut Street 10 9 4 6 9 40% 60% 90% 6 4 14 East Ridgewood Ave 8 7 8 7 8 100% 88% 100% 0 1 04 Chestnut Street 18 15 16 19 18 89% 106% 100% 2 (1) 04 Oak Street 11 9 11 8 10 100% 73% 91% 0 3 14 Franklin Ave 7 6 6 5 7 86% 71% 100% 1 2 05 North Broad St (Restaurant

Side)30 26 29 26 30

97% 87% 100% 1 4 05 East Ridgewood Ave 5 4 5 5 5 100% 100% 100% 0 0 05 Chestnut Street 16 14 15 11 16 94% 69% 100% 1 5 05 Franklin Ave 4 3 3 4 3 75% 100% 75% 1 0 16 North Broad St (Train Side) 26 22 26 24 26 100% 92% 100% 0 2 07 Library Place 7 6 4 4 7 57% 57% 100% 3 3 07 West Ridgewood Ave 11 9 4 9 9 36% 82% 82% 7 2 28 Wilsey Sq/Godwin Ave 22 19 18 16 18 82% 73% 82% 4 6 49 South Broad Street 8 7 5 8 6 63% 100% 75% 3 0 2

10 East Ridgewood Ave 6 5 6 5 6 100% 83% 100% 0 1 010 Prospect Street 9 8 7 5 6 78% 56% 67% 2 4 310 Hudson Street 10 9 3 8 10 30% 80% 100% 7 2 011 East Ridgewood Ave 8 7 8 8 8 100% 100% 100% 0 0 011 Prospect Street 7 6 5 7 5 71% 100% 71% 2 0 212 East Ridgewood Ave 7 6 7 5 7 100% 71% 100% 0 2 012 Dayton Street 13 11 4 5 13 31% 38% 100% 9 8 012 Van Neste Sq 46 39 42 28 46 91% 61% 100% 4 18 012 South Walnut Street 10 9 10 6 7 100% 60% 70% 0 4 313 South Walnut Street 17 14 15 9 11 88% 53% 65% 2 8 613 East Ridgewood Ave 11 9 11 7 10 100% 64% 91% 0 4 114 South Broad Street 6 5 4 3 5 67% 50% 83% 2 3 114 Passaic Street 16 14 3 5 16 19% 31% 100% 13 11 014 Hudson Street 13 11 3 8 13 23% 62% 100% 10 5 015 South Broad Street 6 5 4 2 5 67% 33% 83% 2 4 115 Passaic Street 13 11 3 3 13 23% 23% 100% 10 10 016 South Broad Street 7 6 4 0 5 57% 0% 71% 3 7 218 Franklin Ave 7 6 5 5 5 71% 71% 71% 2 2 223 Dayton Street 20 17 7 4 20 35% 20% 100% 13 16 023 Prospect Street 9 8 6 6 6 67% 67% 67% 3 3 3

530 453 400 362 479 75% 68% 90% 130 168 51TOTAL ALL BLOCKS

% Occupied AdequacyDemandInventory LocationBlock

Effective Supply


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1310.00

4

EXISTING WEEKEND CONDITIONS – PRIVATE

EXISTING WEEKEND CONDITIONS - PUBLIC


OCTOBER 2, 2015 18-1310.00

5

EXISTING WEEKEND CONDITIONS – ON-STREET

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HUDSON STREET PARKING GARAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY SEPTEMBER, 2015 18-1310.00

6

october 2, 2015 mr. robert g. rooney chief financial officer

Documents