Public Work Session Minutes 20151202

A REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HELD IN THE SYDNEY V. STOLDT, JR. COURT ROOM OF THE RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE HALL, 131 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE, RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY ON DECEMBER 2, 2015 AT 7:30 P.M.

 

1. CALL TO ORDER – OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT – ROLL CALL – FLAG SALUTE

Mayor Aronsohn called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M. and read the Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. At roll call, the following were present:  Councilmembers Hauck, Knudsen, Pucciarelli, Sedon and Mayor Aronsohn.  Also present were Roberta Sonenfeld, Village Manager; Heather Mailander, Village Clerk; and Matthew Rogers, Village Attorney. 

Mayor Aronsohn led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and asked for a moment of silence in honor of the American men and women serving in our Armed Forces, as well as those serving as first responders.

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Mayor Aronsohn stated that the Council has been allowing an unlimited time for public comment both at the beginning and at the conclusion of meetings. This has been a departure from past practice, which had restricted public comment to fifteen minutes at work sessions, and thirty minutes at public meetings.  Because recent meetings have been going until late at night or into the following day, public comment will only be allowed for thirty minutes at the beginning of the meeting.  He said that there will be the opportunity for unlimited public comment at the end of the meeting. 

Mayor Aronsohn stated that there would be a presentation by the Village’s design team on the parking deck this evening. The team will review the pros and cons of the three different options followed by Roberta Sonenfeld, Village Manager, who will offer a Village perspective.  Councilmembers will then question the design team members and make comments.  Members of the public will then have three minutes per person to ask their questions of the design team and make their comments. 

Mayor Aronsohn asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. Justin Watrel, 506 Collins Avenue, Hasbrouck Heights, stated that he is a consultant, who runs the Stroke Support Group in Ridgewood on Tuesdays.  He reported that the group has had a successful year, and has added six new members.  They have covered the topics of Medicare, Medicaid, and Open Enrollment.  Mr. Watrel thanked the Village Council for their support and well wishes on this productive year, and he wished everyone a happy and healthy holiday season.  He reminded everyone that this organization is free and open to all senior citizens in Ridgewood, as well as anyone with a disability. 

Changing subjects, Mr. Watrel said he wished Hasbrouck Heights was as diligent as Ridgewood in recognizing parking issues because his town is in desperate need of parking. Mr. Watrel frequents Ridgewood and has become frustrated when trying to find a parking space.  He felt that additional parking would have a positive impact on the Village, especially for the merchants. 

Rick Boesch, 64 Park Slope, said that there is no overall plan which factors the combined impact of the proposed high density housing units, along with the parking garage, on the Village. The size of the lots appropriated for the housing development, the proposed housing units, as well as the parking garage could cause an irreversible negative impact on the quality of life in Ridgewood.  The impact of these two developments will be felt in areas of traffic congestion, and school over-crowding.  This indicates that there is a planning process that has gone array and needs to be corrected.  Mr. Boesch commented that there is no effort to construct a comprehensive plan that addresses these issues.

Mr. Boesch said that the referendum on the parking garage was successful, and the remaining topics for consideration are size and project financing. In their report, The Walker Study devotes a lot of space to financials, parking supply, and occupancy, but there is no explanation of how the study arrived at the number of parking spaces that are needed.  Mr. Boesch noted that the body of the report focuses only on the Central Business District (“CBD”); however, the appendix states that there is no net parking deficit in the Village.  The smallest number of available spaces on public streets is fifty-one, which brings the size of the garage into question.  He indicated that for the number of parking spaces should be based on demand, and not the number of spaces based on the size of the facility.  

Mr. Boesch stated that the study doesn’t take additional housing into account. The Village Council needs to know the correct size of the garage, how it relates to demand, and how that demand is affected by housing.  Everyone realizes that these projects are inter-related, and the correct analysis has to be done to take the inter-dependence of the two projects into account. 

Mr. Boesch pointed out that the vote for the four studies was a vote that was not anticipated by the Village Council, suggesting a deeper problem. The Village Council has been pre-disposed to regard developments such as Valley Hospital, Garber Square, multi-family housing, parking and others in a piecemeal fashion.  This is a dangerous path and an overall plan is needed for the current projects, as well as the desire for future planning as a standard in the Village.  

Saurabh Dani, 390 Bedford Road, thanked the Council for expediting improvements to the steps on Bedford Road. He referred to the financial aspect of the parking garage, and noted that the referendum ballot indicated that some funding will come from New Jersey Transit (“NJT”).  He asked for more specifics relative to the NJT funding.  He noted that before the referendum, it was stated that there would be an increase in parking rates and/or an expansion of meter hours; however, since the referendum no mention has been made of raising the parking rates, or expanding the meter hours.  He asked how the money for the funding of the parking garage would be raised, and if it would come from increased taxes. 

Linda Kotch, 60 North Hillside Place, said that this may be the time to plan more bike paths and pedestrian walkways, which will make it safer and easier for children from the proposed high density housing to get to school. Regarding the parking garage, Ms. Koch asked if it would be used to accommodate residents of the high density housing. 

Jacqueline Hone, 30 Carriage Lane, stated that residents of Ridgewood are facing profound development with the magnitude of projects based on a premature, preliminary concept. Projects are being approved with no independent studies relative to financial implications or overall size.  The vote on the parking garage took place before there was adequate information regarding cost and size, demonstrating that decisions are being made in a backwards order.  There needs to be a more effective, responsible and appropriate way to bring about the required change to fill the needs of the Village.  The size of the parking garage, the housing, the development on the Schedler property, and the North Walnut Redevelopment Zone could cause severe fiscal strain, tax increases, overcrowding of schools, and irreversible negative impact to the environment, safety, quality of life, and the Village charm. Ms. Hone asked if there was a timetable or plan as to when and how these projects will unfold.  These projects will adversely impact the taxpayers in ways that cannot be anticipated, unless thorough studies and analyses are done.  Ms. Hone recommended a comprehensive study that includes every project, including their inter-dependence. 

Ms. Hone recalled that on November 9^th the Village Council agreed to additional studies regarding high density or multi-family housing.  She urged Councilmembers to carry out these studies to explore the multiple projects faced by the Village.  This is an opportunity to have one independent firm conduct studies on all Village projects individually and combined.  She pointed out that using one firm may ultimately save money for the Village.

Rurik Halaby, 374 Evergreen Place, distributed photos of various park areas in Ridgewood to Councilmembers. The photos included pictures of Kings Pond, Twinney Pond, Gypsy Pond, and Dunham Trail, which Mr. Halaby stated are all treasures that should be preserved.  Mr. Halaby included several photos of Schedler Park, which he described as an obstacle course that needs to be cleared and cleaned for safety reasons.  He suggested that the proposed berm be made eight feet high rather than six feet high, with an added sound barrier on top to replace the trees that will be removed.  Mr. Halaby recommended that a footpath be constructed to connect the Old Paramus Reformed Church to the Schedler property, as well as an arboretum consisting of native plants that are pollinators, which will attract butterflies and bees. 

Mr. Halaby referred to resident’s complaints that the Village has not been transparent. There is no basis to this notion, and he cited the fact that there have been numerous meetings, with architects and the Financial Advisory Committee.  He encouraged the Village Council to go forward with a three story parking garage, and to stay the course with their vision for the future of Ridgewood. 

Tony Damiano, 274 South Broad Street, said he is the owner of Mango Jam, and president of the Ridgewood Guild. He spoke about parking and said that when he was President of the Chamber of Commerce ten years ago, a comprehensive study was done of the CBD.  At the conclusion of the study two issues stood out, including the underutilization of Memorial Park at Van Neste Square.  This problem has been solved with events continually taking place at the park, and the Women Gardeners’ beautification efforts.  Mr. Damiano recalled that the study indicated that there was a 1,200 deficit relative to parking spaces, which has only intensified since then.  The issue now is whether or not to bond for the parking garage.  He said that no retail anchor will come to Ridgewood because of the parking deficit, and the out of town shoppers have been lost to Westwood and Woodcliff Lake, both of which have open air parking.  Mr. Damiano reminded the Village Council that they are the voice of the people, and the residents voted in favor of the parking garage. 

Meegan Shevlin, 512 Van Buren Street, said she supported the referendum on the parking garage even though she had reservations regarding the size and scope of the development. She said that in her opinion, the Hudson Street lot is not the ideal location and she would prefer the Ken Smith property.  She thanked the Village for posting so much information on-line relative to parking issues and for responding to resident emails.  Ms. Shevlin posed several questions to the Village Council.  She asked what the Village Council could do differently with this construction project to avoid cost overruns.  She asked if a public/private partnership was considered so that the CBD businesses that will benefit from the parking garage share in the construction costs.  She wondered why residents should bear the brunt of the cost, in the form of increased parking rates and expanded meter hours.  Ms. Shevlin suggested that a short survey be sent to Village residents outlining four options to get an accurate tally of what people are thinking. 

Mayor Aronsohn addressed some of the questions raised by residents. He referred to the question as to whether or not the parking garage would receive funding from NJT, which he said was still an option.  He said that the Walker Study clearly indicated that the Village could fund the parking deck without impacting taxes.  Bergen County has indicated they are willing to be a partner in the construction and the Village Council has considered including downtown businesses in a Business Improvement District.  Mayor Aronsohn stated that there are many options that are open and on the table.  He stated that the garage will primarily serve Ridgewood residents, people who shop and dine downtown, and commuters.  The Ridgewood train station is the busiest line serving 1,500 commuters.  Mayor Aronsohn said that they are approaching this project in a meticulous manner in terms of financing and other aspects.  He noted that the Village Chief Financial Officer is also the Parking Utility Director.   

Ms. Sonenfeld referred to the question of cost overruns and said she has consulted with the staff regarding the Village Hall project. There will be a dedicated Construction Manager for the parking deck project, which was not done for the Village Hall project, and this will ensure that they will be on top of the project daily.  Ms. Sonenfeld said that Walker has been contacted again about doing a proposal on what they feel will be the optimum mix or percentage usage of the parking deck.  Mayor Aronsohn said that before this study is done, Walker would need to know the size, number of parking spaces, and overall cost of the deck. 

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that they will be discussing an integrated traffic study at next week’s meeting. This will include how the four developments together will impact traffic throughout the Village, and will include the parking garage.  A change in the direction of traffic on Hudson Street is anticipated to improve the traffic conditions and details will be on the website shortly. 

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, recently presented a Bergen County study on bike paths across many municipalities, including fifteen recommendations. She wanted to prepare a grant application for more bike paths; however, the Village does not have the resources to prepare the grant at this time given all of the other issues.

Councilman Pucciarelli referred to the findings of a prior parking committee in 1967. The committee at that time concluded that parking in Ridgewood, particularly east of the railroad station was inadequate.  He noted that parking has been a continual problem in Ridgewood and they have never come so close to a solution until now, which is why he doesn’t want this put off to a future date.  

3.            MOTION TO SUSPEND REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING AND CONVENE SPECIAL WORK SESSION

At 8:18 P.M., upon motion by Councilman Pucciarelli, seconded by Councilman Sedon Hauck and carried by unanimous voice vote, the Village Council suspended the Work Session.

At 8:27 P.M., upon motion by Councilman Pucciarelli, seconded by Councilwoman Knudsen and carried by unanimous voice vote, the Work Session was reconvened.

4.            PRESENTATION – HUDSON STREET PARK DECK – SIZE OPTIONS – DESMAN ASSOCIATES

Mayor Aronsohn introduced Tim Tracy, of Desman Associates, who will explain the highlights of the three options. Ms. Sonenfeld will then speak about the options from the Village perspective, followed by questions from members of the public. 

Tim Tracy, of Desman Associates, introduced members of the design team including Bob Wisemore, Project Manager; Ken Schier from S&L Architectural Studio; and Rick Rosebarry from Maser Associates, traffic engineers. Mr. Tracy recalled that Desman Associates was engaged by the Village to assist with the development of a parking deck at Hudson Street in mid-September.  The goal of the parking deck was to increase parking capacity by 300 spaces, while maximizing efficiency. This would result in the lowest cost per space, to allow the Village to finance the project on its own.  They hoped to utilize an architectural design that would respond to the character and history of the Village, and preserve the environmental, scenic, aesthetic and natural values of the community.  The design must respect the Village zoning code, while remaining cognizant of the traffic issues, circulation, and the impact of the proposal on the downtown area.  Mr. Tracy said that the facility must be safe for both the user and the community, and his firm will endeavor to exceed the expectation of all stakeholders, including the Village residents.

Mr. Tracy reported that Desman Associates has met with the Parking Steering Committee once a week for ten weeks. This did not include the seven public presentations where ideas were discussed.  The Parking Steering Committee is comprised of Village staff, the Village Manager, the Parking Utility Director, the Village Engineer, representatives from the Police and Fire Departments, the Village Attorney, and various members of the Village Council.  Desman Associates has tried to develop a program which responds to Village requests, and will work for the next several decades as the Village grows and evolves. 

Mr. Tracy said that three options were presented to the Parking Steering Committee for consideration. The first option stayed within the confines of the site, which is functional and cost effective.  The second option looked at using the Hudson Street right-of-way.  The third option used even more of the right-of-way, but sacrificed some of the existing on-street parking.  Each of these proposals had five levels, and a height between 40 feet and 50 feet, which is in general compliance with the building and zoning code of 45 feet.  Option Three or the cantilever/arcade design would change the geometry of Hudson Street, and was initially favored.  Property surveys have been completed, as well as environmental studies and analysis, geo-technical investigations, soil reports, soil borings, and traffic studies.  These studies have allowed for the understanding of the costs of the various options under consideration. 

Mr. Tracy stated that the Parking Steering Committee selected the option that results in the loss of 100 spaces of existing parking capacity from current spaces in the Hudson Street lot, as well as from Hudson Street and South Broad Street. Traffic studies confirmed that this option would facilitate traffic movement in and around the project, as well as in this section of downtown. It would also allow an opportunity to change traffic flow on Hudson Street and Passaic Street in order to make access to the parking facility, as well as egress from the downtown, more efficient.  

Mr. Tracy described the three options for consideration. The first option, Option A, is a five level, four story facility providing 405 spaces or a net gain of 300 spaces.  The building size is approximately 136,000 square feet, with a parking efficiency of 337 square feet per space, which is an important factor to consider when designing parking facilities.  Mr. Tracy explained that the lower the number of square feet per space relates directly to the cost and the budget. 

Mr. Tracy explained that the definition of the construction budget is the budget to build the facility. The Village will incur additional soft costs, including payment to his firm, and the cost of a Construction Manager.  Desman Associates has prepared an extensive construction budget, consisting of forty line items.  The construction cost for this option, which includes the full build of 400 spaces, five level option is approximately $11.5 million or $28,500 per space. 

Mr. Tracy spoke about the second option, Option B, is a four and a half level option and has the appearance of five levels from Broad Street. In this option, one half of the roof level would be eliminated resulting in the loss of approximately 50 spaces.  This option requires more square feet to be built, in order to gain parking spaces, which impacts overall efficiency, and drives up the cost.  Mr. Tracy stated that this scenario would be approximately $29,700 per space, or $10.5 million in total.  

Mr. Tracy stated that the third option, Option C, is the elimination of one full level of the full build scenario. This plan would reduce the number of parking spaces to 300, and offers a net gain of approximately 200 spaces.  This plan has a cost of $31,500 per space, with an overall construction budget of approximately $9.7 million. 

Mr. Tracy pointed out that there is a fixed amount of dollars associated with the construction of the parking garage under any scenario. This fixed cost work includes the demolition of the existing site, construction of the foundations, protections of the adjoining properties, relocation of utilities, the building of new utilities, and the required work on Hudson Street, which will total approximately $11.4 million.  This cost will be amortized over the amount of spaces built under each scenario.  The ability to amortize these costs over a greater number of spaces, makes the cost per space more favorable and places the Village in a better position to pay off the parking garage through parking revenues. 

Mr. Tracy stated that in order to put the size of the structure into perspective, he looked at the size of existing buildings in Ridgewood. The building is proposed to be 49 feet, 2 inches in height.  The height of Mt. Carmel Church to the peak is a similar height, in terms of the height of the full build scenario of the Hudson Street parking deck.  Mr. Tracy referred to several drawings to describe the height of the five level, four story facility from various lines of site in the CBD, and said it would be visible from some areas, but not all.  The building projects over the sidewalk, with a small cantilever over Hudson Street; however, this is balanced by the openness on the other side of the street. 

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the Parking Steering Committee voted unanimously to recommend Option A. The Committee feels that this option makes the most sense for several reasons, including economic superiority and lowest cost per space.  This option provides more spaces and Ms. Sonenfeld pointed to reports stating that existing spaces will disappear, due to multi-family and commercial development.  Ms. Sonenfeld said that the economics of this project are excellent, and the project has been well planned and well managed by the team.  She recalled that there had been a study done of automated versus traditional parking, as well as a consideration of other locations.  There were independent financial studies and traffic studies conducted, including traffic flow.  There has been significant input from the Police and Fire Departments.  Ms. Sonenfeld added that the Village is working with Walker Associates on the optimum use of the garage, and they are convinced that a Construction Manager is needed to avoid cost overruns.  Ms. Sonenfeld said she is convinced that the difference to the eye between 39 feet and 49 feet is not that noticeable, and for all of the reasons indicated, the Committee endorses Option A.   

Evan Weitz, the Chairman of the Financial Advisor Committee, stated that this committee is comprised of citizens of Ridgewood and provides advice on financial matters to the Village Council. Mr. Weitz said the Committee was asked to provide an independent analysis of the cost and revenue associated with the parking deck.  The Financial Advisory Committee unanimously supports Option A for three reasons.  The first reason is that most of the cost of the building is associated with the first two levels of the building and, once that is constructed, the cost of the other spaces on the other levels becomes much cheaper.  The Committee looked at the ability to add spaces at a later date if a smaller option were to be built initially; however, this is not realistic or financially possibly.  Mr. Weitz referred to the Brogan Cadillac and Ken Smith properties which are privately owned and likely to be developed in the near future.  When the loss of the spaces on these lots are factored in, the smaller parking deck option is only replacing what will eventually be lost, meaning that the Village will be in the same position relative to parking that it finds itself in at the moment, in the not too distant future. 

Mr. Weitz stated that the Committee researched increased revenue and found that it is virtually impossible to decipher how much additional revenue will be generated. Obviously, it is good to attract more businesses and visitors to the Village which will raise property values and sales tax revenues and all of this will help the Village in the long term. 

Councilman Pucciarelli asked if it would be possible to have a modular addition that would allow one option to be built and added onto at some point in the future, if necessary. Mr. Tracy said that this would be possible from a technical and engineering perspective; however, operationally it becomes virtually impossible because of the resulting traffic disruption and the loss of parking capacity.  He added that in order to keep this option open, the initial construction for the foundation would have to be bigger, driving up the cost per space by about 10%.  Councilman Pucciarelli commented that cost goes down as the building becomes higher, which means that the cost of the additional spaces is actually $19,000 per space.  This is an opportunity that would be sacrificed if Option C were selected.

Councilwoman Hauck said Option B has a lower height on Hudson Street, and the same height on Broad Street as Option A. This is a design which some may find awkward.  Mr. Tracy said that Option B does seem unbalanced, when thinking about the traditional building form, but once the Village is committed to a parking structure on this property, the visual impact becomes de minimis.  There is no denying that any one of these options will have an impact because there is no building there now.  Mr. Tracy said he does not feel there will be such a dramatic aesthetic change on Hudson Street with the elimination of one half level on Hudson Street.  He added that the aesthetic automatically reduces the scale of the building, by virtue of the arcade.  It is a four-story building, but the argument could be made that it has the appearance of a two-story building because of the height of the arcade and the fact that the façade is broken down further, adding to the look and feel of a smaller building. 

Councilman Sedon questioned the height of the tallest point in Option A and Option C. Mr. Tracy replied that the elimination of one floor results in a loss of approximately 10 feet.  Councilman Sedon asked Mr. Tracy to describe the feel of South Broad Street if Option A were constructed, since the buildings on South Broad Street are built up to the sidewalk.  Mr. Tracy said that because there are no encroachments in terms of the sidewalk, and the setbacks are maintained, the canyon effect is less of a concern.  South Broad Street is a fairly wide parkway because it consists of two lanes of traffic and a parking lane, and the profile of the road is not being changed.  This, in conjunction with the existing building fabric on the west side of South Broad Street, will not overwhelm the streetscape. 

Councilman Sedon said that The Walker Study indicated that parking rates would have to increase to one dollar per hour, and times for parking meters would be extended to 9:00 P.M. He asked if this scenario would change depending on which option was selected.  Robert Rooney, Village CFO, stated that The Walker Study focused on a garage with 350 parking spaces, but they indicated that the Village would still be able to generate adequate revenue, even though it would be less, with the smaller garage.  Maintenance costs with the smaller facility were slightly less, but the cost for elevator maintenance is the same with all of the options.  Councilman Sedon asked if all of the financial information would be available, relative to parking rates, once an option has been agreed upon.  Ms. Sonenfeld said they would implement increased parking rates and times when construction begins.

Councilman Sedon asked Mr. Tracy if costs are better kept in check through the use of a Construction Manager. Mr. Tracy stated that there are usually unforeseen expenses with any project, but in the case of a parking garage, once the foundation is built and site work is done, fixed costs are fairly predictable.  There are no fixtures or any interiors and the structure is the final product.  The Village has done enough due diligence, which makes him confident that the numbers presented are indicative of the costs.  Mr. Tracy added that they carry a 10% contingency or $1 million in the budget, which is the Village’s money to use and not available to a contractor.  A Construction Manager provides a dedicated set of eyes and checks and balances to assure that unforeseen circumstances are addressed properly. 

Councilwoman Knudsen commended Desman Associates for the fabulous designs they have developed using this undersized and somewhat awkward lot. She asked if it was possible to use a 3D format which would give residents a better sense of the structure.  Mr. Tracy said this could be done from a driver’s perspective.  Councilwoman Knudsen questioned whether or not there is a percentage of capacity that needs to be met in order to maximize efficiency.  Mr. Rooney explained that it is the parking system that generates the revenue and determines the sustainability, and Walker was not asked to comment on that number.  There is an efficiency break point in the mix, which cannot be determined until they know how many cars they will be housed in the garage.  Councilwoman Knudsen indicated she would like more information on this. 

Mayor Aronsohn thanked Mr. Tracy and his team for their responsiveness to the public, as well as to Village staff. He said that the Village Council must make a decision as to the size and cost, to be followed by the decision on how to fund the project.  Walker gave funding suggestions, including raising parking rates in some, but not all, areas of the CBD; increasing the cost for resident and commuter parking passes; a business improvement district; and other sources.  There are many variables, but the Walker report indicated that it could easily be done. 

Mayor Aronsohn said that the Village would bond $12,300,000 for the project, which is $1 million less than indicated in the Walker study. He feels that the arcade successfully mitigates the visual impact of the structure.  Mayor Aronsohn asked Mr. Tracy for his opinion on the approach to this project.  Mr. Tracy said that he feels Option A, with 400 spaces, is appropriate for this site.  This is a long term infrastructure development that the Village needs to consider its long term viability and how the infrastructure can help to sustain current activity as well as how to grow or maintain it.  Since there is a definite demand for parking and the financial analysis supports the plan for 400 spaces, this is his recommendation for the Village. 

Councilwoman Knudsen questioned the length and depth of the building on Hudson Street. Mr. Tracy stated that the building is 170 feet long.  The depth with the sidewalk is 100 feet, which becomes 120 feet with the cantilever.  Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the updated information on the Village website contains these details. 

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that in 2018 and 2019, revenues from the garage are anticipated to be $273,000, with revenues from the rest of the Parking Utility estimated to be $2,114,000. Surplus after expenses and debt coverage will be $400,000.  The cost of the project would still be covered, even if no one parked in the garage because the parking utility is entirely covering the cost.  She added that the Walker study included a decrease in the number of people parking, every time a rate increase was factored in. 

Mayor Aronsohn opened the meeting to the public for questions of the design team and Village professionals. Art Wrubel, 79 Ridge Road, said he supports the garage.  The Mt. Carmel Church, across the street, is 49 feet high and the proposed garage is 49 feet high and 270 feet long, but the volume of the structure is not offered.  This is a big building, and he hasn’t seen anything that allows for people to accurately visualize the structure.  Mr. Wrubel asked for some type of model before going forward, because he feels that this structure could potentially overwhelm the Village.

Claude Bienstock, 39-11B Broadway, Fair Lawn, said that the idea of a parking garage in Ridgewood is an outstanding dynamic decision, which he fully supports. Ridgewood has needed additional parking for the past sixty-five years, and the time for action is now.  This is wonderful for local businesses since parking problems force people to go onto the next town that provides adequate and accessible parking.  He thanked Mr. Tracy for his outstanding presentation on the options that are available. 

Bob Fuhrman, 49 Clinton Avenue, asked if there was information on the number of employees in the CBD who use parking meters. He pointed out that the option offering 400 parking spaces will probably not net as many new spaces as thought at this time.  This is because these spaces must be combined with the cars parked in the Ken Smith and Brogan lots, as well as several small ancillary lots, and increased commuter parking.  Mr. Fuhrman said that the Village needs to put shovels in the ground tomorrow.

Linda Kotch, 60 North Hillside Place, said they must know the “drop dead” number of parking spaces that need to be fully occupied in order to cover the cost of this project. Ms. Sonenfeld reiterated that the entire parking utility will pay for the cost of the garage.  The question for consideration is whether or not the Village can support the bond with the total revenues and the expenses for the whole utility.  Ms. Sonenfeld said that the Village has more than enough revenue to fund this project, based on all of the criteria highlighted in the Walker study.  The study demonstrated a surplus every year in the range of $400,000.  Mayor Aronsohn interjected that they have not made a decision on parking rates or parking passes for commuters.  Councilman Pucciarelli indicated that the drivers for demand are within the control of the Village, and the garage could always be opened up to more commuters parking. 

Ms. Kotch asked whether Desman Associates has the capacity for a 3D video to better demonstrate what the building will look like. Mr. Tracy said they do not.  Councilwoman Hauck said that the best way to visualize this building is to visit a four story parking deck on an average street.  She suggested going to Morristown, which is a smaller community than Ridgewood both population wise and geographically, with old colonial streets.  There are four parking garages in Morristown, providing over 500 spaces each.

Councilwoman Knudsen asked Mr. Tracy for clarification about the 3D video because she understood him to say earlier that this video was available. Mr. Tracy said there is a video available of the inside of the garage facility, but they don’t have the capacity to simulate someone walking around the outside of the structure. 

Robert Kotch, 60 North Hillside Place, said that he is happy with the aesthetics of the garage, especially the arcade, which reminds him of an area of Paris. He pointed to the revolution of crowd sharing that is taking place in the area of transportation, and he asked the Village Council to consider that there may not be a need for these types of parking facilities in the near future.  Uber is very affordable and the cost could decrease even more with the advent of self-driving cars. 

Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road, agreed with Mr. Wrubel regarding the volume of the structure. Mr. Slomin said that over the past few years, he has been advocating that Ridgewood remain a Village, and he asked whether the economies of scale are right for Ridgewood.  The smallest of the three options is $2 million less and he would like that $2 million to be used for other needs within the Village.  Mr. Slomin noted that there are two lots behind the movie theater, which are assessed for slightly less than $800,000.  These lots could be repaved for approximately $60,000 and could accommodate 60 to 80 cars.  Mr. Slomin said that the larger option for the garage is behemoth versus the smaller garage that would be a better fit.  He urged the Village Council to make an offer on the properties behind the theater because bigger is not always better.

Mr. Slomin is concerned, due to the manner in which the financial decision is being made, and the fact that the Financial Advisory Committee is comfortable with their assessment based on a slight increase in parking rates. Raising the rates from 25 cents to a dollar could force people out of Ridgewood, and Mr. Slomin encouraged the Village to raise the rates before the garage is bonded.  He reminded them that the last attempt at increasing the time for metered parking didn’t work, and the Chamber of Commerce asked the Village to return to the 6:00 P.M. cut off time.

Rick Boesch, 64 Park Slope, referred to Mayor Aronsohn’s comment that Ridgewood is a hub. Mr. Boesch indicated that he doesn’t want Ridgewood to become a hub, and he questioned the Mayor’s vision.  Mayor Aronsohn explained that his reference was attributed to a statement by NJT that Ridgewood is the busiest train station on the line at the present time.  He added that the parking facility is being built primarily to serve Ridgewood residents, many of whom use the train.  He pointed out that several years ago, there were about a hundred out of town commuters that bought monthly commuter passes, but because of the parking crisis in Ridgewood, the cost of the passes were doubled for out of town commuters and those purchasing the passes were required to park in the Cottage Place lot.  This was done to make more spaces available for Ridgewood residents who are commuters. 

Councilman Pucciarelli said that taking care of Ridgewood residents includes taking care of attributes of the community that have made the Village special, including a thriving central business district. He added that many customers of local businesses are not Ridgewood residents, which is a good thing.

Mr. Boesch asked how the Village is determining the number of spaces needed from information presented in the Walker Study. Ms. Sonenfeld said that the core groups and core statistics are being utilized at 99% during both peak and non-peak times.  The parking facility is proposed in the core area because that is the area with the greatest need. Seventy to one hundred parking stickers have been issued for the Ken Smith facility; valet parking takes place in remote locations throughout the Village; and commuters are parking on the Brogan lot.  Ms. Sonenfeld explained that development will eventually lead to the loss of these parking areas. 

Mr. Boesch said they should consider developing an application that would guide someone looking for parking to the closest available space. He added that he sees no correlation between the Walker Study and three hundred spaces. 

Drew Watson, 300 Allen Avenue, said that there seems to be an emphasis on the development side of the parking facility, and he asked if there were any members of the Planning Board on the Parking Steering Committee. Ms. Sonenfeld said that the Committee includes Mayor Aronsohn; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; and Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer.  Mr. Watson said that there had been a proposal before the Planning Board for a parking facility on the Brogan Cadillac property, which was 100 yards long and 50 to 55 feet high and it was rejected by the Planning Board, due to its size.  This new proposal calls for a building that is 68 feet high, which is 18 feet above what is allowed for commercial buildings.  Mr. Watson said he supports a parking garage and would prefer Option C because Option A is too big, and Option B doesn’t fit well on the property.  He said that there wasn’t enough emphasis given to the size of the building.  He pointed out that the Planning Board took time to consider how the multi-family housing units would fit into the community, and he wished they had been involved in the development of this structure.  Mayor Aronsohn said that the design team presented their options to the Planning Board, which was followed by dialogue, and a favorable response from the Board. 

Ed Feldsott, 67 Heights Road, said that although parking is needed, he is concerned about the appearance of the building. He is not sure whether any of these options fit in with the Village, and he agrees with Mr. Slomin’s recommendation to look into the parking area behind the movie theater.  He realizes there is not a lot of foot traffic in the CBD, with the exception of Friday or Saturday nights.  Mr. Feldsott asked whether the contractor would be paying for cost over runs and if the contractor would be fined or penalized if the project is running late.  He noted that many surrounding towns offer free parking and Ridgewood is going in the opposite direction.  Mr. Feldsott asked if the garage height would set a precedent for the height of the high density housing. 

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the construction costs and penalties for running late will be incorporated into a construction bid, which has not been compiled yet. Mr. Tracy added that the contractors are responsible to deliver the project within the confines of the bid and unless there is an unforeseen circumstance, the contractor is not entitled to additional funding.  Every attempt at a change order will be fully scrutinized by the professionals and the construction manager to ensure that if there is no entitlement for cost overrun, the contractor would not be permitted to seek retribution.  Regarding the schedule, Mr. Tracy explained that they could include damages connected with schedule overruns, but incentives to the contractor need to be provided with liquidated overruns.  He concluded that Desman Associates represents the Village, and all of these points will be vetted in bid documents.

Ms. Sonenfeld commented on the parking rates, and said that the Walker Study looked at other municipalities similar to Ridgewood and found Village charges for parking to be appropriate.

Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue, said that it is too soon to make a decision without a 3D type of model, because all of these options appear to be out of place. She referred to last night’s Planning Board meeting where Mr. Brancheau commented that the Master Plan Re-examination should be on-going, and not conducted once every ten years.  He suggested on-going comprehensive studies in order to make decisions that are right for the Village.  Ms. Reynolds reiterated the need for a 3D video so residents can get a realistic idea as to the appearance of the structure.

Anne Loving, 342 South Irving Street, referred to the idea of adding on to the parking garage in the future, which had been discussed earlier. The answer was that it could be done, but the final cost would be higher, even though the initial cost would be less.  Ms. Loving suggested trying out this option.  She said she didn’t understand how the current surface lots would be lost if the parking facility was built.  Ms. Sonenfeld indicated that this is a reference to the net number of existing spaces which would become part of the deck.  Ms. Loving asked if the fees being paid to the architect increase based on an increase in the size of the building.  Ms. Loving was told that there is no change in the fee for the architect.

Ms. Loving said that she sees a potential for trouble around these businesses at night, and she asked about lighting, and cameras in this pocketed area. Ms. Sonenfeld said that the Village is in discussions with the property owners of these buildings relative to easements and lighting.  Mayor Aronsohn said that Sgt. Chuck has discussed these safety concerns with the Parking Steering Committee.  Ms. Loving pointed out that the Council Chambers is about 30 feet high, and this may help give people a perspective on how cavernous the proposed structure will be.

Councilwoman Knudsen asked about the possibility of moving the cantilever to the reverse side, or the rear of the building. Mr. Tracy said that this would result in a net loss of parking spaces due to a relocation of the driveway and aisles.  Councilwoman Knudsen said there is a lot of concern about visual impact.  She asked Mr. Tracy what would be seen if one stepped off the curb into the street and looked up.  Mr. Tracy indicated the cantilever would be seen and Councilwoman Knudsen agreed with Mr. Wrubel that the bulk is significant and moving the back of the building could remove some of the adverse visual effects.  Mr. Tracy did not see any benefit from this suggestion because of the jog in and out.

Melanie McWilliams, 431 Bogert Avenue, agreed with the recommendation for a test run relative to increased parking rates and she asked if this was possible. Mr. Rooney said that this suggestion as well as the suggestion to look into making the area to the rear of the movie theatre into a parking lot was not considered as part of the Walker Study.  He pointed out that people complain when they have to walk two blocks and the goal is to try to keep everything centralized.  Regarding the rate increase, Mr. Rooney said that it doesn’t seem fair to impose a rate increase for a few months to see if it is tolerable.  The Walker Study included the 10% walk away factor and he does not think it would be beneficial, but he is willing to discuss this possibility with Walker.  Mayor Aronsohn said he needs more information as to the number of cars that could park in this area, what kind of mix would be put into the garage and how much it will cost.  Ms. Sonenfeld said that in the CBD, all of the 546 parking meters would need to be changed to reflect the new rates, and then changed back to the former rates. 

Ms. McWilliams said that she doesn’t like any of the parking garage designs, but understands that parking is needed, and would chose Option C. She urged the Village to look at what exists already because this massive structure doesn’t fit into the Village CBD.  She recommended fixing the parking problem with a holistic approach to make it more welcoming and to encourage walking into town. 

Saurabh Dani, 390 Bedford Road, asked for some clarification on the increased parking rates. Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the Walker Study recommended an increase from 50 cents per hour to 75 cents per hour on the core streets, with the potential of going to one dollar per hour.  Park Mobil would remain as is and the Village has not decided whether to go forward with that scenario.  Mr. Dani said the Walker Study looked at towns with parking garages such as Princeton; however, these towns are some distance away.  He pointed out that his wife goes to Ho-Ho-Kus, because there is an abundance of free and convenient parking, and the idea of increasing the parking rates may not work. 

Mr. Dani has lived in Ridgewood for a year and has noticed that the Village Council is either urging or being urged to make big decisions “now” because the details can be worked out later. He recommended that the Village Council have all the details worked out before they make those big decisions.  Mayor Aronsohn agreed and stated that this is why he hopes a decision on one of the parking options will be made tonight.  He said he would have Paul Vagianos, President of the Chamber of Commerce, speak to the issue of free parking in surrounding towns and whether it is a good idea to raise parking rates in Ridgewood.

Jacqueline Hone, 30 Carriage Lane, asked for clarification about the “big decision” that is being made tonight. Mayor Aronsohn said that the Village Council will be voting on a bond ordinance next week regarding the option for the parking facility that is chosen tonight.  Ms. Hone asked about the distance between the proposed garage and the multi-family housing project.  She questioned plans for security at the parking garage.  She noted that there is an elevator in the facility, which will need maintenance, and there could be a liability issue involved as well.  Ms. Hone questioned the income needed to cover the cost of the garage, including a break-down of the number of spots that need to be filled per month.  She asked how the 10% walk away factor would impact the number needed to cover this expense.  Ms. Hone wondered what the garage would do for the taxpayers and Village residents who will guaranty the bond, and what is the bond process.  She asked if the public would be given the opportunity to weigh in and vote on it.

Mr. Rooney said the 10% walk away figure mentioned in the Walker Study is not unusual and is conservative. He explained that when the Village Council determines which option to accept, a cost is then determined based on information from Desman Associates, along with the amount for construction management.  The Village Council will introduce a corresponding ordinance, which is expected to be adopted in January.  When the ordinance is adopted, the Village can proceed with construction.  Introduction of the ordinance requires a positive majority vote and adoption of the ordinance requires a super majority vote.  Mayor Aronsohn explained that, for the past two years, the Village has been discussing a partnership with Bergen County if the Village decides not to bond the project on its own.

Ms. Hone was confused because she thought the Village Council was still in the process of considering a premature design and she indicated that other studies need to be done. Ms. Sonenfeld referred to the housing question and said that a traffic study had been done for the deck.  They are looking into an integrated traffic study for all four developments, which is predicated on the completion of the deck. 

The owner of 22 Prospect Street, said his building is mixed use, with a business downstairs and an apartment upstairs. He also has one parking space to the rear of his building.  He supports the parking facility, but is concerned about the size of the structure.  He doesn’t think there is enough space between the back of the buildings and the structure.  He asked Councilmembers to consider the impact on people in his position.  He asked whether a fire truck could fit into this space.  Mayor Aronsohn said that from a safety perspective, everyone seems to feel the building is safe and there is adequate room to maneuver equipment.  Councilwoman Knudsen asked about the height of this gentleman’s building and he said it is 50 feet high.

Matt Guetler, 375 Glenwood Road, said he supports the parking garage and his only concern is how the size pertains to the proposed high density housing. He asked if the height of this garage will set a precedent for future housing considerations in the Village and whether this could be used in the future against people who oppose certain heights for buildings in the CBD.  He suggested that the parking garage be built first and, after the impact on the area has been gauged, work could begin on the multi-family housing.

Paul Vagianos, 280 Rivera Court, President of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke about the potential increase in parking rates. He reported that he met today with five past presidents of the Chamber of Commerce and the President of the Ridgewood Guild.  They unanimously agree with increasing the parking rates if that is what it takes to get a parking garage.  Upon questioning by Councilwoman Knudsen on the number of members of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Vagianos said there were about 350.  He explained that an individual is elected President of the Chamber of Commerce by the membership, along with five Board of Directors, and Mr. Vagianos is speaking on behalf of the membership. 

Leonard Eisen, 762 Upper Boulevard, said that anyone can go to the second floor of the Library and see photos of what Ridgewood looked like a hundred years ago. This will demonstrate that change is constant and the parking garage is needed.  He thinks that people won’t even notice the garage or think about it a year after it is built. 

Dana Glazer, 61 Clinton Avenue, stated that there is a lot of construction and potential development going on or about to happen in the Village. He questioned whether or not this is all manageable.  Mayor Aronsohn said that when the studies are done for multi-family housing, they will factor in the parking garage and the impact on traffic.  Mr. Glazer suggested that the studies look at all of these things at the same time in a larger holistic study, in order to avoid problems. 

Ms. Sonenfeld said that the intent is to get shovels into the ground by March, with the project expected to last between nine and ten months. Large equipment will be needed for the first few months in order to construct the foundation, but after that, the impact will be contained.  Ms. Sonenfeld indicated that she would not expect there to be any conflict with construction relative to the multi-family housing development.  Mr. Glazer said that unforeseen things happen and there could be delays.  Mr. Tracy indicated the project from start to finish shouldn’t take any longer than seven months. 

Meegan Shevlin, 512 Van Buren Street, referred to the loss of parking spaces at the Ken Smith and Brogan Cadillac properties. She asked if there would be parking at the locations after they are developed.  Mayor Aronsohn explained that these properties are privately owned and something will eventually be constructed on this land.  When these lots are developed, he expects they will only accommodate parking for the use of that development. 

Councilwoman Knudsen questioned the status of Kensington Assisted Living. Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the Village has not been in discussions with Kensington Assisted Living over the past several months because most of the time has been consumed with the proposed parking garage and multi-family housing.

Ken Schier, 326 Mastin Place, said he is the architect for the project, a professional planner, and has been a Village resident for over 30 years. He commended the Village Council for the handling of the proposed garage which has been open and inclusive.  The Committee meetings have been fruitful and the time has come to move forward.  Mr. Schier has reviewed several studies by previous Village Councils, all of which conclude that parking is needed and he does not think any further studies are warranted.  Several studies indicate that 1,200 spaces are needed and if the largest of the proposals are built, it will go a long way to fulfilling that need.  Mr. Schier pointed out that the building height is only 10% higher than what is allowed by ordinance, which is de minimis.  He stated that this project is an investment in the future of the Village, and he strongly urged the Village Council to approve the largest of the proposals because it is the best investment for the lowest possible cost. 

Rurik Halaby, 374 Evergreen Place, commented that things don’t stay the same forever and that change is never forgiving. He urged the Village Council to look at change enthusiastically. Mayor Aronsohn agreed, adding that he hopes that the Village Council can make a decision this evening so that a bond ordinance can be introduced at the next meeting. 

Councilwoman Hauck stated that support of the parking garage in the recent referendum was overwhelmingly positive. There are three four to consider which include economic, aesthetic, financial and the intangibles.  Councilwoman Hauck said that after considering the options, she would choose Option A.  This option provides the most parking and the interest rate at this time is only 3%.  The fourth deck provides $9,000 in additional revenue if it is full, which means that it can quickly be paid off.  Councilwoman Hauck referred to aesthetics and said that this parking garage should be an experience.  Because this is a parking garage, it will be a massive structure and the Village should take the opportunity to add substantial detailing that will soften the look and strengthen the integrity.  She pointed out that any big investment carries with it a fear of risk and anxiety, but it is not daunting in this case. 

Councilwoman Hauck stated that the empty lot on Hudson Street reflects benign neglect and, sometimes, leadership and courage is necessary to move forward into the future. It is incumbent upon the Village Council to manage the development that will take place in the best way possible.  They don’t know if people will leave Ridgewood due to increase in the parking rates, but people must realize that Ridgewood is a destination, with abundant shopping and restaurants.  Councilwoman Hauck pointed out that Morristown has four parking decks containing over 600 spaces each or 2,174 parking spaces.  She concluded that this facility will enhance the CBD, and for these reasons she has selected Option A.

Councilman Sedon said that he was concerned about rate increases and people going to other towns to shop and dine. He prefers the smaller of the options because it gives the Village more flexibility, with the parking rates and enforcement times and in the end, the taxpayers will have to pay for this garage.  He suggested making most of the streets in the CBD one way streets and removing and replacing parallel parking with diagonal parking.  This suggestion, along with a smaller garage, could generate as much or possibly more revenue while leaving more options open.  Councilman Sedon stated that the Village Council needs to come to an agreement on enforcement times and parking rates before any construction is started.  Councilman Sedon reiterated that he would like to see more flexibility with financing regarding rate increases and enforcement time, which is why he is choosing Option C.

Councilwoman Knudsen said that she sees this facility as an investment in the community, the CBD and local businesses by making on street parking more available; however, she is very concerned with the mass of the building. She met with several local business leaders today who urged her to choose the option that nets the most parking spaces possible.  She finds herself struggling because of the bulk of the building, which will impact one of the oldest portions of the historic district of Ridgewood.  She agreed with Councilwoman Hauck’s comment on neglect but did not feel that this was a good reason to move forward with the largest possible deck, since plantings and proper paving could improve the appearance of this parking lot. 

Councilwoman Knudsen said that she would prefer the less intrusive, lowest profile design which she has indicated to the design team at their weekly meetings. She is troubled by the overhang into Hudson Street and would feel better about it if she could get a better sense of what it would look like.  She echoed Councilman Sedon’s comments that going with the smaller option would cap some expenses and provide the opportunity to look elsewhere for parking. Councilwoman Knudsen concluded by stating that she prefers the lowest profile option that provides some wiggle room, while addressing parking needs and giving them the opportunity to look elsewhere.  

Councilman Pucciarelli stated that the Village Council needs to be enthusiastic and make bold decisions. He noted that several speakers said that the Village Council has to do holistic planning, but the reality is that communities and cities are developed in the most haphazard and eclectic way and Ridgewood was developed as it is now over the past 100 years.  He doesn’t believe that the charm and character of Ridgewood will be lost as the result of 12 feet of construction. Councilman Pucciarelli said that Option A is the best from a financial standpoint and it also offers more flexibility, such as the opportunity to dedicate one level to commuter parking.  

Councilman Pucciarelli referred to aesthetics and said that aesthetics are very subjective. In his opinion, it appears that Option C is very long, and gives the structure a stretched out look.  If the structure is lowered, it looks like a pedestal without a statute.  He agrees with Mr. Schier who stated that the arches work better with the taller structure.  Councilman Pucciarelli said that the higher tower proposed in Option A demarcates the beginning of the intensive CBD.  He stated that this tower, while large, will become iconic and the building itself is attractive.  For these reasons, he supports Option A, which is the practical choice and he finds more aesthetically pleasing.  He said that the Village must move forward and make the most out of this project.

Mayor Aronsohn said that this has been an incredible process and the Village Council should take pride in the fact that they have tackled this tough issue as a collective body. The Village Council and Village staff have been meticulous in their approach in order to do things the right way.  Land surveys and environmental studies were conducted, as well as the decision for a referendum to engage the community.  The Walker Study was completed, along with a financial study, and designs were put forward to encourage public engagement with the community.  Mayor Aronsohn stated that 65% of residents who voted in the referendum voted in favor of a parking facility.  The entire process was honest and transparent including forums with the Planning Board, Historic Preservation Commission and the CBD. 

Mayor Aronsohn said that the positive vote on the parking facility must be honored. Initially he wanted to look at smaller proposals; however, he now feels that the case is strong for Option A, from a financial and practical perspective.  It has taken almost nine decades to get to this point and this is an opportunity of a life time.  Mayor Aronsohn explained that four affirmative votes for Option A are needed to bond the project or the Village will have to go to the Bergen County Improvement Authority to ask them if they will build it.  He would prefer this project be done in-house and recommended the introduction of a bond ordinance next week and he hoped this could be done collectively, as a team.    

5.          DISCUSSION

              a.            Parking

1.)           Bond Ordinance for Hudson Street Parking Deck

Ms. Sonenfeld explained that Councilmembers have a package with information on the three proposals. This has been covered in great length this evening.

                b.            Budget

                                1.)           Award Contract – servicing and Repair of Electric Source – Ridgewood Water

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this is the notice of an award for electrical services to Roberge Electric. This company was the sole responsible bidder and parts and materials have been added to the contract.  

2.)           Award Contract – Furnishing and Delivering Sludge Dewatering Polymer – Water Pollution Control Facility

Ms. Sonenfeld said that this is a recommendation for an award of bid for polymer for the water Pollution Control Facility. This is the dewatering polymer used to condition the sludge before it is hauled offsite for final disposal.  George S. Coyne Chemical Co. has agreed to extend their bid price for 2016. 

                                3.)           Award Contract – Steam Cleaning

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this contract is for the de-silting and de-snagging of the Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River. Residents in the area will be happy about this because it helps with flood control.  Three bids were received, with the lowest bid from DTS Services also known as Downes Tree Service, in the amount of $100,000, which will be covered by a grant.

                                4.)           Award Contract – Community Health Programs and Nursing Services

Ms. Sonenfeld reported that this will award a contract to Valley Community Health for public health and nursing services for items such as immunizations, blood pressure clinics, infectious disease reports, etc. The price remains the same as last year.

                                5.)           Award Contract – Laboratory Analysis Services – Ridgewood Water

Ms. Sonenfeld said that this is the annual award for laboratory analysis services. Aqua Pro-Tech Labs, the sole bidder, is awarded year one of a two year bid, and the amount is lower than the past two years.

                                6.)           Award Contract – Preparation of 2016 Village Council Meeting Minutes

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that two bids were received for preparation of the 2016 Village Council Meeting Minutes. There was a large difference between the two bids that were received and Ms. Mailander is recommending the bid of $8.50 per page.  Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that earlier this year, the charge was $3.00 per page resulting in a large increase for this service. 

                                7.)           Award Contract – Sewer Sludge Hauling – Water Pollution Control Facility

Ms. Sonenfeld said this award is the second year of a two-year contract for sewer sludge hauling services for the Village’s Water Pollution Control Facility. She recalled that the Village Council had decided to outsource this service last year to avoid the purchase of another truck.  This year’s bid has an extension opportunity with the consent to go forward by both parties. 

                                8.)           Award Contract – Financial Software Support

Ms. Sonenfeld reported that this award authorizes renewal of the software support for Edmunds and Associates which runs tax collection, financial accounting, payroll, escrow, and human resources.  

9.)           Award Extraordinary, Unspecifiable Services Contract – Field Investigation Study and Purchase of Replacement Parts for Non-Potable Water System – Water Pollution Control Facility

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that there was a failure of the Water Pollution Facility’s non-potable water system. This involves the use of reclaimed water rather than regular Ridgewood Water, which would cost $229,000 per year.  

                                10.)        Authorize Shared Services Agreement – 2016 Health Officer Contract

Ms. Sonenfeld said that this is an annual Shared Services Agreement with Fair Lawn for the Health Officer. There is a slight increase in price of 1.4%. 

                                11.)        Removed from Agenda

12.)        Award Change Order – Cleaning of Concrete Water Storage Tanks – Ridgewood Water

Ms. Sonenfeld reported on the Change Order for the cleaning of the concrete water storage tanks. The extra work covers additional debris removal in the amount of $2,800.  There is more room in the tanks to store water as a result of this debris removal.

13.)        Approve Amendment to Contract – Pipe, Appurtenances and Materials for Water Distribution Maintenance

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this is the second revision of an initial contract for water appurtenances and pipes, etc. These items need to be repaired for the maintenance of the water distribution system.  The contract was awarded to two vendors in 2014, Water Work Supply Company and HD Waterworks Supply.  The original award was not to exceed $115,000 for both vendors.  At this time, the increase is $107,000 for a total of $222,846, which increase is necessary to maintain operability of the system.  The increase from last year is due to the pro-active approach to system maintenance with the repair of more mains, hydrants, and more servicing than was done last year.  Ms. Sonenfeld added that this amount will probably be increased again before the contract expires in 2016. 

14.)        Establish 2016 Interest Rates on Delinquency of Taxes, Other Municipal Liens, Significant Sewer Discharge Bills, and water Utility Bills

Ms. Sonenfeld said that this is the annual resolution establishing interest rates on delinquent taxes, other municipal liens, significant sewer and water utility for 2016.

                                15.)        Ridgewood Water Annual Maintenance Fee

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this is an annual resolution for water administration maintenance fees that the Water Department pays to the Village. This resolution is the calculation of the annual water maintenance fee.

                                16.)        Budget Transfers

Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that the $6,600 indicated as going to the Village Manager is to cover TV technicians’ salaries due to extended meetings of the Village Council. The total of the budget transfers is $154,000 between the various accounts.

                                17.)        Establish 2016 Cash Management Plan

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this is the annual Cash Management Plan for 2017 and is a guide for depositing and investing Village funds. It must be approved annually by the Village Council.

                                18.)        2016 Temporary Budget Appropriations

Ms. Sonenfeld explained that this is the annual Temporary Budget Appropriations to cover the Village during the first quarter. This resolution establishes temporary appropriations, so that financial obligations can be satisfied for operation expenses estimated through the first three months of the year, or 26.25% of the 2016 budget. 

                                19.)        Cancellation of Grant Balances – 2012 Fire Safer Grant

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this resolution will cancel the grant fund receivable and reserve appropriation.

                                20.)        Water Capital Ordinance – Rehabilitation of Water Tanks

Ms. Sonenfeld said that this is a capital ordinance for $1,312,500 to cover the required rehabilitation of the two water tanks located in Midland Park. Repairs are necessary to the structural steel, as well as installation of safety and access devices, stripping and repainting of both the interior and exterior of the tank walls. 

                c.             Operations

1.)           Establish Stop Signs – California Street/Fairmount Road and Highland Avenue/Gardner Road

Ms. Sonenfeld outlined a request from Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, for stop signs to be located at the intersection of California Street and Fairmount Road; and Highland Avenue and Gardner Road. Mayor Aronsohn asked if the Citizen’s Safety Committee had been consulted relative to these recommendations.  Councilman Sedon wasn’t sure and Councilwoman Hauck said that the crossing guard at Willard School has been working on this for the past year.  She assured Mayor Aronsohn that this request has been reviewed by the Citizen’s Safety Committee. 

                                2.)           Habernickel Park – Traffic Study

Ms. Sonenfeld explained that this traffic study is a result of the discussion on Habernickel Park relating to the new tenant for the Gate House. Residents in the neighborhood indicated their safety concerns and the team were eager to address the issues that had been pointed out.  Ms. Sonenfeld stated that short term solutions include a striped crosswalk across Hillcrest Road from the eastern edge of Norman Drive to the Park; striped crosswalk from the eastern edge of Norman Drive to its western edge across the streets throat with Hillcrest Road; the installation of a double yellow centerline on Hillcrest Road from North Monroe Street to Morningside Road; “tic” marks along Hillcrest Road at Driveway openings; and a revision to the current parking regulation at Chapter 265-67 which prohibits paring on either side of the road from 1013 Hillcrest Road to Andover Terrace between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. every day.

Ms. Sonenfeld suggested that this list be sent to the Habernickel Park neighbors. Ms. Sonenfeld noted that long-term solutions are connected with the installation of sidewalks in the area, which requires discussion from a financial aspect.  These suggestions have been forward to the Citizen’s Safety Advisory Committee for discussion at their meeting of December 17, 2015. 

                d.            Policy

                                1.)           Revision to OPRA Special Service Charge

Ms. Sonenfeld reported that Ms. Mailander attended a seminar on OPRA recently and found that the Village could not charge for attorney’s fees because it is considered fee shifting. Therefore, the resolution on the revision to OPRA Special Service Charge will have to be revised to exclude the charge for attorney’s fees.  The other charges adopted in Resolution #15-334 will remain the same.

6.            REVIEW OF DECEMBER 9, 2015 REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

Ms. Mailander stated that the meeting will include a Proclamation for Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over – 2015 Year End Holiday Statewide Crackdown.

Ordinances for introduction include: Bond Ordinance for the Hudson Street Parking Deck; Amend Chapter 265 – Vehicles and Traffic - Stop Signs at California Street/Fairmount Road and Highland Avenue/Gardner Road; Amend Chapter 265 – Vehicles and Traffic – Parking Restrictions – Hillcrest Road; Water Capital Ordinance – Rehabilitation of Water Tanks.

The scheduled Public Hearings include: Amend Various Salary Ordinances; Amend Chapter 105 – Animals – Cats – Establish a 3-Year Cat License; Amend Chapter 145 Fees – Fees for 3-Year Cat License; Amend Valet Parking Ordinance; Non-Union Salary Ordinance; and Management Ordinance.  Ordinances for Continued Public Hearing include the five zone changes for multi-family housing. 

Resolutions include: Approve Village Cash Management Plan; Designate Official Newspapers for 2016; 2016 Annual Meetings Statement; Establish Interest Rate for Non-Payment of Taxes; Establish Interest Rate for Delinquent Payments to the Water Utility; Establish Interest Rates for Delinquent Payments for Significant Sewer Discharge; Approve Budget Transfers; Title 59 Approval and Award Contract for Servicing and Repair of Electric Source; Title 59 Approval and Award Contract for Furnishing and Delivering Sludge Dewatering Polymer; Title 59 Approval and Award Contract for De-silting and De-snagging Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River; Title 59 and Award Contract for Laboratory Analysis Services – Ridgewood Water; Title 59 Approval and Award Contract for Sewer Sludge Hauling Services; Award Contract for Financial Computer Software; Award Contract for Preparation of 2016 Village Council Meeting Minutes; Award Contract for Valley Hospital, Department of Community Health – Public Health and Nursing Services; Award Extraordinary Unspecifiable Services Contract for Field Investigation Study and Purchase of Replacement Parts for Non-Potable Water System – Water Pollution Control Facility; Authorize Shared Services Agreement for Bergen County Municipal Court Teleconferencing (Northwest Bergen Shared Services); Authorize Shared Services Agreement – Heath Officer Services (Fair Lawn); Authorize Amendment to Contract for Pipe, Appurtenances and Materials for Water Distribution Maintenance; Authorize Change Order for Cleaning of Concrete Water Storage Tanks; Approve Cancellation of Grant Balances for 2012 Fire Safer Grant; Accept Ridgewood Water Annual Maintenance Fee; Appoint Joint Insurance Fund Commissioner; Appoint Public Agency Compliance Officer (P.A.C.O.); Appoint Risk Management Consultants; Revise Special Charge for Extraordinary OPRA Requests; and Appoint Clean Communities Coordinator.

7.            MANAGER’S REPORT

Regarding the valet parking, Ms. Sonenfeld reported that 160 cars used this service on Friday night, and 180 cars used the service on Saturday night.

Ms. Sonenfeld said that they have received a response from Bergen County relative to a letter that was read into the record on behalf of a resident at the October 7, 2015 Village Council meeting regarding the Schedler grant application. The letter contained allegations relative to action by the Village in connection with the Schedler acquisition grant of 2007, 2008, and 2009, as well as the latest grant.  Ms. Sonenfeld highlighted several parts of the letter and asked Ms. Mailander to include the entire letter in the minutes of the meeting.  The County studies the issues raised in the letter, and concluded that “the application complies with the requirements and practices of the Trust Fund Program subject to additional, ongoing review”.  The writer alleges that the Village’s application was used to obtain approximately $2 million in grant money were completed with intentional false and misleading information without municipal endorsement and public notification as required.  The County responded that they “find no evidence of the submission by the Village of intentional false or misleading information in supports of the application to acquire the Schedler property”.  There was an accusation that the 2015 grant was erroneous and the County states “applicants to the Trust Fund are given opportunities to address incorrect and incomplete applications”.  There was a further accusation that public meeting notifications were not executed as mandated and the County found that the Village has since held the required Public Meeting on October 14, 2015, complying with the appropriate meeting notification.

Ms. Sonenfeld said that the County has indicated that they will not opine on many of the other charges as they have no jurisdiction over local government policies and will not supersede, local, municipal or government jurisdiction of its Parks and Recreational facilities. The County concluded that “based upon our review, the Division of Open Space does not find any irregularity in the Village’s current Trust Fund grant application or with the previous land acquisition application for the property in question”. 

Ms. Sonenfeld indicated that there was a public meeting on Monday night of the County Trust Fund and the grant for Schedler Park was approved for a lesser amount of $48,000. There were many funding requests, and all of the requests were cut back.  The application will go to the Bergen County Freeholders in January for approval in March or April.

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the Village was just recertified by the Community Rating Center. The Engineering Department maintained the CRS rating of 7 which is important to residents in the flood areas, and gives them a 15% savings on their premiums.  

Ms. Sonenfeld thanked Gary Cirillo and Project Pride who arranged for the lighting of the trees on East Ridgewood Avenue. The Ridgewood Guild and the Women Gardeners teamed up to decorate a section of the park and stairways with evergreen gardens and brightly colored packages.  The Hanukkah Menorah and Crèche are both placed in their designated areas.

Ms. Sonenfeld referred to the leaves and said two weeks ago, many leaves came down after a significant rainstorm. This year, as of December 1^st, 31,544 cubic yards of leaves have been picked up.  During the same time last year 20,567 cubic yards were picked up.  This represents a 15% increase, and Ms. Sonenfeld said that the Village is running behind schedule.  New leaf pick-up dates have been posted on the Village website. Ms. Sonenfeld noted that there is a problem with enforcement even though there has been a significant increase in the number of summonses that have been written.  She added that a Court appearance is no longer required when a summons is written.  She has discussed the leaf issue with several other towns experiencing the same problems with collection and enforcement to try to come up with a solution.

Ms. Sonenfeld announced the following upcoming events: Meet the Manager is scheduled for December 16^th from 4:30 P.M. to 7:30 P.M.  There is a meeting with North Murray Street residents to discuss the on-going issue of leaf and snow removal.  Downtown for the Holidays is scheduled for December 4^th with the tree lighting at 6:45 P.M.  Valet parking will be suspended until 9:00 P.M. at the conclusion of the festivities.  On December 5^th, Breakfast with Santa will take place at The Office from 8:00 A.M. until 10:00 A.M., with reservations required.  Photos with Santa and the Fire Truck at the Columbia Bank from 10:00 A.M. until 1:00 P.M., and free movies for the kids at the movie theater from 2:00 P.M. to4:00 P.M., and visit Santa in his house at Memorial Park at Van Neste Square.  The Mayor will hold office hours from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon on December 5^th and she recommended calling to make an appointment.  There will be a lighting ceremony on December 6^th to mark the first night of Hanukah at Memorial Park at Van Neste Square at 5:30 P.M.  The clean-up of Twinney Park is scheduled for Sunday, December 6^th. 

8.            COUNCIL REPORTS

Planning Board -- Councilwoman Knudsen reported that the Planning Board met last night to continue their Re-Examination of the Master Plan addressing the development regulations relative to the residential zones.  The last Master Plan, dating back to 1983, had undergone several amendments including recommendations for classification of the boundaries of several zone proposals and zone districts.  The Planning Board reviewed and discussed changes recommended by Village Planner, Blais Brancheau.  They will review and evaluate recommendations from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, including regulations of the use, size, scale and distance of buildings as they relate to the overall neighborhood.  This will ensure that these buildings continue to respect the neighborhood, character, and rights of the adjacent property owners.  Also under review will be the coverage and floor area ratio provisions for undersized lots to determine if a more practical and reasonable standard is warranted or variance relief sought for under sized and or non-conforming lots should be addressed on a case by case basis.  

Councilwoman Knudsen said that the Planning Board is considering the amendment of the zoning map and regulations to address residential properties split by different zone boundaries. There was a discussion relative to the need for Master Plan updates and she has notified Ms. Sonenfeld of the need to include this cost in an upcoming budget.  The next part of the Master Plan Re-examination will address the non-residential zones such as office/business, highway commercial, business including the B-1 and B-2 zones.  Councilwoman Knudsen stated that Wendy Dockray, who is the Planning Board liaison to the Open Space Committee, reported that the Committee has worked diligently on the Open Space survey and administration of the survey through Survey Monkey will cost just over $1,000.  She is hoping for a commitment to fund this amount because this is a wonderful opportunity to assess Village open space use and needs. 

Library – Councilman Pucciarelli reported that he attended the meeting of the Library Board of Trustees.  The Library is preparing their budget for 2016, and they are still working on an exciting capital project.

Councilman Pucciarelli said he attended a breakfast held by Young Life, and he read a Proclamation from the Council naming this Tuesday as Giving Tuesday in the Village of Ridgewood. Later the same day, he attended a media event in Village Hall by the Ridgewood Arts Council showcasing the art of various local artists.

Community Center Advisory Board – Councilwoman Hauck reported that the Community Center Advisory Board met on November 16^th where they learned that Jim Griffith is stepping down from the Committee.  Mr. Griffith has been a civil volunteer for 35 years, has two keys to the Village and has twice received commendations from Bergen County.  Councilwoman Hauck suggested that the Village Council find a way to thank Mr. Griffith for everything he has done for the Board and she added that they are now looking for a new treasurer. 

Councilwoman Hauck reported that the Community Center is working on a Needs Assessment Survey, and she hopes that next week’s Ridgewood News will have a story on the survey. They have collected 450 surveys with a goal of collecting 1,000.  On December 8^th they will find out if they have been successful in receiving a large grant from the Taub Foundation.

Councilwoman Hauck stated that there is a new segment of the Community Center Advisory Board consisting of five young people who are interested in civic activities. This group is planning fund raisers and awareness events for the community center with the next events being a cookie competition on February 29th.  These are inter-generational events with senior citizens.  A Kasschau Shell music night is planned with music that will appeal to all generations. 

Councilwoman Hauck said that another “Let’s Stay Acquainted” Senior Citizen Lunch will take place on January 7^th, in the Community Center from 12 noon to 2:00 P.M. focusing on How to Find the Services You Need in Ridgewood if you are a Senior Citizen. 

Fields Committee – Councilwoman Hauck reported on the Field Use Meeting this morning.  The status of Schedler Park was discussed, as well as different configurations of 90-foot baseball field.  Ed Seavers is trying to determine the number of trees that would have to be removed, if there are flood plain issues, and generally looking at every field again.  This fits well into the field’s assessment program.  Councilwoman Hauck referred to the Veterans Field Dugout proposal which came from an individual who thinks it would be beneficial to have dugouts at the field.  He showed the Fields Committee the drawings of his proposal and the Committee discussed the pros and cons.

Field Policy Changes – Councilwoman Hauck noted that the Parks and Recreation Committee will meet next Tuesday to evaluate recommendations from the Fields Committee which is an offshoot of the Civilities Committee.  They are hoping to encourage better behavior in order to change the culture of the sports committee.  The Committee unanimously agreed that any and all changes should apply to all schools and Village properties with any groups similar to sports groups.  There was a discussion of the enforcement of the new rules, which will be discussed further with the Parks and Recreation Committee.   

Veterans Field Baseball – Councilwoman Hauck said a sunscreen behind the dugout area was recommended, so that pitchers can pitch without being blinded by the sun.  She isn’t sure how they will progress with this.  The Committee questioned the possibility of resting a field to help the grass grow healthier and lush.  It was decided that this is not possible since there is already a shortage of fields in Ridgewood. 

Open Space Committee – Councilman Sedon reported that Wendy Dockray and Jim Bostler have been working hard on the survey to update the Open Space plan.  The additional $1,000 cost covers the mailing, although the responses will be generated randomly.  Respondents will be directed to Survey Monkey followed by a reminder to be sent out a few weeks later, in order to receive as many responses as possible.  The Committee is looking at ways to raise money to cover these costs or have money budgeted for this purpose next year.

Citizen’s Safety Advisory Committee – Councilman Sedon said that capital budget discussions will be coming up shortly and the Committee wants to look at the possibility of the installation of sidewalks on Glen Avenue.  There is a list of fifty items in the Engineering Department, and the Committee wants to look at the possibility of using outside people in an attempt to shorten the list. 

REAC – Councilman Sedon stated that REAC met on November 10^th.  Earth Day will be held at Memorial Park at Van Neste Square on Sunday, April 17^th from 11:00 A.M.to 2:00 P.M. in conjunction with the Ridgewood Conservancy for Public Lands.  There will be vendors, booths, and information, as well as some new things. 

Shade Tree Commission – Councilman Sedon reported that the Shade Tree Commission also met on November 10^th, and he thanked Timothy Cronin, the Parks and Recreation Department, and everyone in the Shade Tree Division.  They were able to plant 35 trees this year.  He reported that the grant application for a five-year community forestry plan is moving forward.  Paperwork form the NJDEP will be forwarded to the Village for the appropriate signatures and a resolution is required to accept the grant.  He hopes to have this on next week’s agenda with a resolution for approval.  Pam Zipsey has been approached to be the consultant on this project, and she did the core training for different Shade Tree Commissioners, volunteers and employees at the Shade Tree Federation conference in Atlantic City.   Councilman Sedon said that having a plan in place would offer liability protection and tree wardens could be trained to identify problem trees and direct the arborist to look at the tree before it is blown over in a storm. 

Green Team – Councilman Sedon reported that the Green Team has officially received the bronze certification through Sustainable Jersey.  The goal is to get more points towards the next levels which will open up the possibility of different grants to do smaller projects throughout the Village. 

Mayor Aronsohn referred to the letter from Bergen County on the Schedler property and asked if the letter was on the Village website. Ms. Sonenfeld indicated that it was. Mayor Aronsohn commented that accusations were made about Ms. Sonenfeld and other Village professionals regarding the handling of these many applications.  This letter is clear vindication and needs to be read by everyone interested in the Schedler property. 

Mayor Aronsohn mentioned the wonderful interfaith service at the Old Paramus Church that was held to commemorate the Thanksgiving holiday. Mayor Aronsohn noted that the Ridgewood Guild held “Winterfest” last week and there was a great turn out for the ice sculpture, horse drawn carriage and other events.  Mayor Aronsohn described Jim Griffith as one of a kind who will continue to do a lot for the community.

10.          COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Mayor Aronsohn stated they would again have comments from the public and asked anyone wishing to address the Village Council to come forward.

Boyd Loving, 342 South Irving Street, said he couldn’t understand why the phrase “parking deck” is always being used to describe what is clearly a parking garage. A deck would be a one level or ground level building and he suspects the word deck is being used for perception purposes.  Mr. Loving questioned the percentage of parking revenues that will go into the general fund.  If the garage is built, he wondered what percentage of the revenues now going into the general fund would be prevented from going into the general fund because the Village will have to use these revenues to pay off the parking garage.  Mr. Loving said that revenue shifted to pay for the garage will affect property taxes, due to the loss of revenue directed into the general fund.  

Mr. Loving said that tonight’s presentation included photos showing lighting conditions at the Hudson Street lot. As a photographer himself, Mr. Loving noted that the photos were taken on a dismal day when there were a lot of empty parking spaces.  He agreed with Councilwoman Knudsen’s comment that the parking lot area could be easily beautified.  Mr. Loving was surprised that the Village would be willing to bond $13 million for this project, but not spend some extra money to develop a 3D model so that people can see what this looks like. 

Mr. Loving referred to an earlier comment relative to parking on private property and that the Village can’t force a developer to provide a public parking lot. Mr. Loving suggested giving the developer an incentive to make parking available to the public.  He agreed with speakers who were concerned that the height of the parking deck would set a precedent, which would be used by the developers of the multi-family housing.  Regarding Mayor Aronsohn’s statement that the Village might have to go the BCIA to fund construction of the garage if it was impossible to garner four positive votes from the Village Council, Mr. Loving cautioned that there would be a lot of fees associated with going in this direction.  The public needs to know how much more money this would cost.

Ms. Sonenfeld said no one has avoided answering the question relative to parking revenues going into the general fund. She stated that parking revenues do not go into the general fund; instead, they remain in the parking utility.  If the parking utility was in trouble, as it was during 2011 and 2012 due to theft the Village would have to pick up some of the expenses.  In the last two years, the parking utility has paid the Village back because of the surplus. 

Ms. Sonenfeld read a definition of a parking deck, which states “an open air parking structure with stacked floors connected by ramps”. The reason it has been called a parking deck is not to cause confusion, but because it sounds better. 

Councilman Sedon referred to the parking utility fund and pointed out that salaries and wages for various Village staff comes from that fund. Ms. Sonenfeld disagreed and explained that these are allocations of costs that are spent on behalf of the parking utility that migrate from the Village to the parking utility.  These are expense and not revenues.  The offset or alternative would be to build the entire infrastructure within the parking utility on its own with its own CFO, Manager, etc.  Because the Village does not want to do that, expenses are allocated to the parking utility. 

Anne Loving, 342 South Irving Street, asked for clarification of the need for four affirmative votes when the Village Council is voting on a bond. Mr. Rogers indicated that this is a statute.  Ms. Loving said that she understood Mayor Aronsohn to say that if there are not four affirmative votes, the Village will go to the County in order to get the money to build the garage.  She asked who would pay for the County bond.  Councilman Pucciarelli explained that the County would be the issuer of the bond who would be primarily responsible for the debt service.  The Village would be leasing the garage from them in lieu of the debt service.  Ms. Loving indicated that this appears to be a circumnavigation of the general rule regarding the super majority vote. 

Mayor Aronsohn said that this is not the case and he is pointing out that the Village could take another route to go forward with the garage. Councilman Pucciarelli explained that the law allows an alternative route that is permissible by majority vote of the Village Council.  Ms. Loving said she finds this unacceptable and circumnavigation would be a polite description of what could be taking place in this instance. 

Councilman Pucciarelli thanked the employees of the Village for the terrific job they did to move the Hudson Street parking deck project to this point. They value their recommendation as independent, intelligent and a result of their hard work. 

11.          RESOLUTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION

Ms. Mailander read Resolution #15-374 to go into Closed Session as follows:

12.          ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Village Council, on a motion by Councilwoman Hauck, seconded by Councilman Sedon and carried unanimously by voice vote, the meeting was adjourned at 12:42 A.M. on December 3, 2015.

                                                                                                                ____________________________

                                                                                                                                Paul S. Aronsohn                                                                                                                                                                                     Mayor

_________________________________

                Heather A. Mailander                                                                                                                                                                           Village Clerk