The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of February 3, 2015.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. The following members were present: Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Councilwoman Knudsen, Mr. Joel, Ms. Altano, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Mayor Aronsohn, and Mr. Abdalla were absent at this time.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward.

Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli said there was none.

Chairman Nalbantian made opening remarks regarding safety issues and the hearing process.

Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan – AH-2, B-3-R, C-R & C Zone Districts – Chairman Nalbantian discussed the procedures for public comments, stating this was the second of two nights for public comment. He instructed the audience that those who wished to comment would need to write their name on the signup sheet. He gave a brief history of the 14 months the Board heard expert testimony and held public hearings. Mr. Nalbantian said speakers would have three minutes to make their comments.  

Ms. Jane Remis, 118 Madison Place, stated her concerns about traffic, safety, and accuracy of the estimate of school children from the traffic study. She said there are more children and is concerned about the walking route mentioned in the study. She thinks it is an unsafe route. Ms. Remis stated there are many questions that were not answered and she would like the Board to conduct a review of the Master Plan. Ms. Remis said if the developments are approved she would like the density not to exceed 20 units per acre and that the Board makes it conditional that developers make traffic improvements.

Mr. Bosley and Ms. Eva Smith were called and no one responded.

Ms. Ajanta Kumar, 248 Palmer Court, said she thinks Ridgewood should have luxury apartments that meet the actual demand. She said the demand has been overstated and questioned how many empty nesters would want to move into the apartments. Ms. Kumar said she was concerned about the impact on the overall Ridgewood housing market if the empty nesters do rent the units will there be an excess in homes for sale and possibility that property values would go down.          

Mr. Frank Mason, 971 Salem Lane, said he has been a resident for 45 years and recalls the cutting of the ribbon for Valley Hospital however, he has waited 40 years for a garage to be built, yet he has written it off but hopes the Village will move forward with the proposed housing developments.

Ms. Cynthia Halaby, 374 Evergreen Place, said she is disappointed in the lack of inertia with Ridgewood's inability to reach a hard decision. She stated the paralysis in building a garage, Valley Hospital and now the apartments. She said residents are making statements about density, height, and have no foundation for their comments. She believes developments will have a negligible effect on the number of school children and traffic will be less than if retail was build.

Ms. Jastrzebska Elzbieta, 215 Walton Street, said the developments will increase traffic and that there are many families that move to Ridgewood solely for the schools and when their children graduate, they leave. Ms. Elzbieta quoted Ridgewood statistics back to 1913. She said it is dangerous to walk in town and stated on several occasions she and or her husband were almost hit by a car and asked the Board to assess the safety issue.

Mr. Oliver Beiersdorf, 50 South Murray Avenue, stated his mother was an empty nester and she did not think the developments were for her because she wanted green space and a pool. Therefore, he questions if the developments will meet the real need. He questioned if residents want to remain a village or give up the small town feel. He said 50 units per acre are beyond 12 that were in the original Master Plan. He said the proposals made are driven by the developers. He discussed traffic, the impact on schools, and potential legal costs. He urged the Board to proceed with caution.

Ms. Karen Latimer, 53 Heights Road, said that 50 units per acre is too much and she thinks there should be a place for empty nesters but does not think small apartments by the railroad will serve the purpose. She said there has been talk about the CBR being called racist, classist, and crackpot laymen by those with an ax to grind and she feels this is and not true. She would like to see the developments but no more than 20 to 25 per acre.

Ms. Amy Nidds, 272 W. Ridgewood Avenue, said she feels that the discussion should be about scaling up from 12 and not down from 50 units per acre. She said it is the Board's responsibility to keep the town a Village as this will set a precedent for everyone who lives in the zoned areas.

Ms. Mary Pat Boron, 174 Union Street, said she is strongly in favor of multi-family development in the Central Business District, and especially The Enclave in the former Sealfon's location. She stated if it were not for the School House complex, she would not be able to have remained in Ridgewood. Ms. Boron said there is a long waiting list for people who want to get into the School House. She said that without the proposed multi-family development many seniors would be forced to leave Ridgewood.

Ms. Dockray asked Ms. Boron if the waiting list is only for two bedrooms. Ms. Boron said it was for both. Ms. Dockray said she noticed a sign for an available apartment and Ms. Boron said that was because the unit needed renovations.

Ms. Peters asked if there was a reason Ms. Boron only mentioned the Enclave and Ms. Boron said she thought the location was desirable as opposed to being backed-up to the train tracks.

Ms. Casey Harris, 138 Sheridan Terrace, said she feels that Ridgewood does have a need for multi-family and luxury apartments and is concerned about the parking, public schools and that the proposal is a zoning change.

Ms. Ellen McNamara, 120 W. Ridgewood Avenue, asked the Board to consider two questions, why so many units per acre and why all at once? She stated the issue is the number of people who would be moving into the large developments and the effects of the extra citizens on the infrastructure of the community. She stated her concern about the traffic, congestion, pedestrian accidents, and high school kids having to eat lunch in the hallways because there is no room in the cafeteria.

Ms. Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue, said she heard other residents say they would be comfortable with 20 to 25 units per acre where she would prefer 20 units per acre. She said she did not know how the amendment grew to 40 to 50 units per acre. She stated the Ken Smith property is in the amendment as well as other properties. Ms. Reynolds stated other residents said the school superintendent indicated the schools would not be impacted. She said the superintendent testified before the Planning Board hearings and quoted the superintendent stating redistricting is a real possibility. She mentioned a couple who wanted to downsize, could not find anything in Ridgewood and purchased a four bedroom, two and a half bath home in Glenrock which she compared to a similar luxury apartment in the new development that she did not think would work for them. Ms. Reynolds said she and her husband own rental property and have a single one-bedroom apartment that is difficult to rent because it only has one parking space. She asked the Board to proceed with caution.

Mr. Edward Sullivan, 27 Chestnut Street, said the process is akin to how residents probably felt when the first apartment building was going up for development and subsequently the Garden apartments. There probably was concern then about how it might affect the character of the town, but it did not. He said one of the driving forces for the apartments is the millennials who are showing a preference for rental housing and seniors looking to downsize. He stated the impact of the new developments would be minimal and not affect the town, as the other developments did not influence the Village. He said the higher the number of units would skew to smaller apartments, as the smaller number of units would tilt towards larger apartments where families are more likely to have children.

Mr. Mike Andrews was called and no one responded.

Mr. Tom Hillmann, 133 E. Ridgewood Avenue, said he thought the meeting was about building additional parking. He mentioned property was taken from his family by eminent domain for parking and today there still is no parking garage. He said residents keep talking about waiting unit they get additional parking. With apartments he said most for it are about his age while those against are younger and have children. Ms. Hillmann said he saw the development of several other housing complexes and every time residents complained about traffic and more school children. Looking back now people are saying it was a good idea and it had a negligible impact on the school system.

Ms. Dorys Fernandez Obergon, 233 Bogert Avenue, said the main reason she and her family moved to Ridgewood was for the schools and that Ridgewood has a center of town where the communities can gather. She said she thinks the problem businesses are having is because the economy has not fully recovered. She discussed the difficulties finding parking when she travels downtown and that she and others are using the Internet. She said Ridgewood needs to make decisions keeping in mind surrounding towns, yet the largest problem is parking. Ms. Fernandez Obergon said with the increase of residents in a specific area will also increase the need for more police, there would be a greater need for ambulances and other emergency services.

Mr. Bennett Smith, 320 Brookmere Court, discussed his family's search looking at homes in Long Island, Connecticut, New York, and other parts of New Jersey and finally deciding on Ridgewood. He said he purchased his home from a couple that raised four boys were empty nesters and they purchased a condominium in Montvale. He said he understands the need for housing in Ridgewood. He said he was dumfounded to learn the discussion happening is in the context of a Master Plan amendment. He said the real issue is leadership and planning using the parking challenge that has been going on for more than 40 years. He stated he was told his children would board a bus to school only to find there were no buses and they had to walk to school because there was no funding for the buses. He questioned the service impact for the planned communities and if they are paying for the same services and how it is being addressed from a planning perspective.

Mr. David Dessel, 140 Lincoln Avenue, said he is unequivocally for the development of the planned housing. He asked that the Board make an intelligent, balanced, and wise decision.

Ms. Dolores Carpenter, 319 Steilen Avenue, asked if residents were writing to the Village beseeching them to create high-density luxury apartments or did the builders approach the Village with plans for these developments. She questioned if Ridgewood really needs the apartments. She said she and her husband did their own survey of senior friends and found only two were in favor of living in rental apartments. She asked that the Board exercise extreme caution in their decision on the proposed high-density complex and Master Plan amendment.

Mr. Andrew Joseph, 17 N. Murray Avenue, said he would like the Board to reject the application to amend the Master Plan. He said he does not see how the amendment to the Master Plan benefits residents as opposed to the developers. He also asked how the Village would deal with traffic, the potential burden on the schools, and public services. He also stated his concern about other developers due to an amendment to the Master Plan.

Ms. Linda Kotch, N. Hillside Place, said she wanted to discuss transient's verses diversity. She said while she is for diversity in the case of transients – she wants to know her neighbor. She cited a home with two apartments one had a single resident while the other had seven residents to make her case that there is no guarantee one can designate the maximum number of people that can live in a unit. She said she was concerned about the Master Plan, the density issue, and the likely drain on public services.

Ms. Amy Junger, 8 4 Ridge Road, she said she was concerned about traffic and the schools. She is a three-time renter from which she purchased a home in the Village. She stated in all rentals she and her roommates had more cars than their leases stipulated. She questioned how a decision could be made about the developments before solving the parking problem. Ms. Junger said no one could predict the number of children who will move into the apartments.

She said Ridgewood is attracting many local and international students and many families are renting to enroll their children in the schools.

Ms. Tess Giuliani, 174 Union Street, Apt. 2D, said she returned to the microphone to answer a question posed by Ms. Peters. She said Ms. Peters asked a question about open space and she answered in terms of design, but as a rented, she said open space is necessary. She stated examples of renters and duration of their time in the apartments in the different buildings she rented apartments.

Mr. Thurston asked Mr. Slomin if he said he owned many apartments none of them greater than 20 to 25 per acre and he made lots of money from the units. Mr. Slomin said it was anecdotal, what he said was in suburban towns. Mr. Thurston asked if the units are similar to what is being proposed and Mr. Slomin said some are but they vary. There was a discussion about Mr. Slomin's properties and comparisons to the proposed developments.

The meeting was continued to February 19, 2015.

Mr. Nalbantian said the meeting on February 19 would be for summations. Mr. Weiner asked if after the Board summations, the remainder would be for the Board discussion and there would not be any additional public comment. Mr. Nalbantian replied in the affirmative.

Ms. Price stated that some of the attorneys are planning to submit legal memos prior to the meeting on February 19, 2015.

Ms. Dockray asked Ms. Price if the Boards discussion have a substantial change to the amendment that might require more work, would the public have an opportunity to comment.

Ms. Price said if this amendment is amended requiring notice, then the Board would have to have a continued hearing with new publication and the board would need to receive the amended amendment. Ms. Price further clarified the process in response to Ms. Dockray's question.

Ms. Peters asked who was photographing the Board and for whom. Mr. Nalbantian said it was video recording on behalf of the Citizens for a Better Ridgewood (CBR). Mr. Glazer, the videographer said he is not working for CBR. There was a discussion about the volunteer work he is doing and who has access to the video.

The multi-family housing meeting was continued to March 17, 2015.

.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 P.M.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date approved: August 4, 2015

PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE/AGENDA

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Ridgewood High School Student Center

627 E. Ridgewood Ave., Ridgewood, NJ – 7:30 P.M.

(all timeframes and the order of agenda items below are approximate and subject to change)

1. 1.7:30 p.m. – Call to Order, Statement of Compliance, Flag Salute, Roll Call - In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4-8d of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location, and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers, and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village municipal offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website, all in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.

         Roll call: Aronsohn, Bigos, Knudsen, Nalbantian, Joel, Reilly, Dockray, Peters, Thurston, Altano, Abdalla

1. 2.7:35 p.m. – 7:45 p.m. – Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board

1. 3.7:45 p.m. – 7:50 p.m. – C

1. 4.7:50 p.m. – 7:55 p.m. – Correspondence Received by the Board

1. 5.7:55 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. – Public Hearing Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C Zone Districts

1. 6.10:00 p.m. – 10:10 p.m. – Adoption of Minutes: January 20, 2015

1. 7.10:10 p.m. – 10:40 p.m. – Executive Session (if needed)

1. 8.Adjournment

         In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, all meetings of the Ridgewood Planning Board (i.e., official public meetings, work sessions, pre-meeting assemblies and special meetings) are public meetings, which are always open to members of the general public.

         Members: Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Nancy Bigos, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, Charles Nalbantian, Richard Joel, Kevin Reilly, Wendy Dockray, Michele Peters, David Thurston, Isabella Altano, Khidir Abdalla

         Professional Staff: Blais L. Brancheau, Planner; Gail L. Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher J. Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary

A REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD HELD IN THE SYDNEY V. STOLDT, JR., COURTROOM OF THE RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE HALL, 131 NORTH MAPLE AVENUE, RIDGEWOOD, NEW JERSEY, ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015 AT 7:30 P.M.

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

Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli called the meeting to order at 7:30 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, and Sedon. Also present were Roberta Sonenfeld, Village Manager; Heather Mailander, Village Clerk; and Matthew Rogers, Village Attorney. Mayor Aronsohn was absent. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli mentioned that Mayor Aronsohn was currently performing at Benjamin Franklin Middle School as a participant in Jamboree.

Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli 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.

2.         COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli asked if anyone from the public wished to speak regarding any of the agenda items.

Jim Griffith, 159 South Irving Street, commended the Village for using the brine solution on the roads. He also had some comments relating to parking. Mr. Griffith wondered if the new County Executive, James Tedesco, has been given information about the Village’s discussion with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) about a joint venture for a parking garage. Ms. Sonenfeld responded that Mayor Aronsohn would be the one to answer this, because he has met with the BCIA, and he has provided status reports at Village Council meetings. Mayor Aronsohn and Councilman Sedon met with representatives from the BCIA. Ms. Sonenfeld emphasized that the Village and the BCIA are taking parallel paths, so that even if things do not work out with the BCIA, the Village will still move forward with its own course of action. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli noted that Mr. Griffith is the one who pointed out several months ago that there should be a discussion about parking at every Village Council meeting, and that is now the practice at every meeting.

Boyd Loving, 342 South Irving Street, noted that on his way to this meeting, he observed that there are still commercial property owners who are not clearing their sidewalks of snow and ice in a timely fashion. He asked if the Ridgewood Code permits the Village to place escalating fines on those individuals, or if a daily fine could be imposed. Mr. Loving believes it is unfair that the business owners could be issued a summons, and three days later, the sidewalks are still not clear. He asked what could be done to encourage business owners to clear their sidewalks. Ms. Sonenfeld noted that there is an issue with some of the sidewalks in the CBD, and several phone calls have been received at Village Hall. The Village has the ability to issue summonses to offending owners after 24 hours. One of the issues encountered with this particular snowstorm is some of the employees who issue summonses are involved with cleaning up the snow. Therefore, in the next couple of days, Ms. Sonenfeld plans to send some people out to issue summonses, as she did today. Complaints have also been received from the residential areas. However, Ms. Sonenfeld feels that the way the Village handles Code compliance, enforcement, and property maintenance must be looked at from an enhancement standpoint, which will be discussed during the budget reviews at the end of February. Mr. Loving suggested that escalating fines might be a good idea. Ms. Sonenfeld answered that some ordinances do provide for escalating fines, although she is not sure if this particular ordinance does.

Rurik Halaby, 374 Evergreen Place, complemented Ms. Sonenfeld on behalf of himself and his wife, saying that since she came, there has been a palpable difference in the way the Village is run. Mr. Halaby also wondered if money could be put into the budget for a part-time equivalent of a corporate development person that a CEO would have, which in her case could be a municipal development person, such as a Ph.D. candidate from Rutgers. That person could work 2-3 days a week to review long-term issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Halaby wants to emphasize the infrastructure of Ridgewood. He mentioned that PSE&G is a horribly bureaucratic organization, and he wondered if it would take bringing in the Federal government, the State government, or other legislators at the State and Federal levels to take care of the underground utilities. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli noted that Mr. Halaby’s comments are very timely, because the Village Council is entering the budget season, with a full-day budget meeting scheduled for Saturday, February 28^th. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli also pointed out that most organizations find it tempting to kick the strategic planning/capital expenditure can down the road while they deal with immediate problems, and Ms. Sonenfeld has certainly reported on the capital process.

Ed Sullivan, a local commercial landlord, also commended Ms. Sonenfeld on the job she is doing as Village Manager, which he said is wonderful. He also commented on the recent parking changes that were adopted. Mr. Sullivan believes they are working. The changes have caused some relief to be seen in the Walnut Street parking lot, although the Chestnut Street parking lot is a bit overcrowded, because people are moving in that direction. Mr. Sullivan is happy to see the parking is being addressed in a serious way. He has not seen the ordinances, but he thinks they demonstrate that serious thought is being given to an interim parking solution. Mr. Sullivan encouraged the Councilmembers to remember what Paul Vaggianos said several years ago: “Regardless of what we do, we are basically just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic, unless and until we get a parking garage”. Everyone should remember that the parking garage is the ultimate goal, and it appears that the Village is making progress toward that goal. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli noted that everyone is mindful of the need for more parking, and he added that while everyone is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, it has been discovered that there is room for more chairs. Last week, over 40 additional parking spaces were found in the park-and-ride lot on Route 17 by rearranging the spaces, and similar plans will be discussed this evening.

There were no other comments from the public at this time, and Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli closed the time for public comment.

3.         DISCUSSION

Ms. Sonenfeld commented that, as was introduced last week, a new section called “Parking” is now included as a specific category on Council Meeting agendas.

a.         Parking:

1.)        Amendment to Vehicles and Traffic Chapter – Allow Loading Zone Space on Oak Street to Be Used for Valet Parking

Ms. Sonenfeld explained that this is a proposal to create valet parking space in a loading zone for Park West Tavern on Oak Street. It would make an additional two parking spots available, near the driveway for the parking lot. The spots are needed to allow safe pedestrian visitor passage entering and exiting the restaurant.

Councilman Sedon noted that this will create an additional 40-50 spaces for the restaurant. Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the manager from Roots Steakhouse told her that on Saturday, they were able to park 80 cars. Councilman Sedon noted that the loading zone at Roots is also two spaces, which Ms. Sonenfeld confirmed.

Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli added that obviously, allowing the loading zones to be used for valet parking keeps the traffic moving along the streets. Ms. Sonenfeld agreed, and she also stated that valet parking at a couple of the restaurants has been closely monitored, and the Village has worked with them to change the way they operate their valet parking service, and the restaurant management has been quite supportive. There was a tendency to understaff the valet parking service, causing backups in the streets. Now, both Roots and Park West Tavern have supervisors and four valets present for parking, which has caused everyone to realize that increased staffing is needed for this project so that cars are not waiting.

Councilwoman Hauck asked where the cars will be moved to, and Ms. Sonenfeld responded that she thinks the address is 116 East Ridgewood Avenue. Councilwoman Hauck pointed out that this is a work in progress, and the Village Council reserves the right to monitor, tweak, and change the program, as necessary. This is certainly an improvement to overloading the streets. Councilwoman Hauck believes it is safer and better for the public overall, and can be changed if it is not working. Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that the Village can also revoke permits if necessary. She wondered how many valet parking operators could be in Ridgewood, and Ms. Sonenfeld and Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, are watching the routes used by the valet parking operators very closely to keep them from having intersecting paths. The service is also limited by the number of off-site parking areas that are available. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli pointed out that parking capacity is increased, because private lots are now available for public parking, which was not available previously. Valet parking has incentivized private lot owners to make the spaces available.

Councilwoman Knudsen asked if any kind of daily report is available about the number of patrons using the valet parking service, such as the 80 cars previously mentioned at Roots. Ms. Sonenfeld responded that she does not get daily reports, but she received the information about Roots because she happened to be there. Councilwoman Knudsen asked if it would be possible to ask for such reports to be given on a daily basis so that some kind of monitoring is done on these services and their effectiveness. Ms. Sonenfeld said that could be done, but she believes it is rather bureaucratic to ask them to do so. There is no staff available in Village Hall who could evaluate such reports, but it would be helpful from an informational standpoint. Councilwoman Knudsen said it would be helpful in trying to make good decisions and putting together comprehensive packages.

The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

2.)        Ordinance to Allow for Automated Parking Technology

3.)        Ordinance for Infrequent Resident Commuter and Parking in CBD for Extended Period of Time

4.)        Ordinance for Extended Parking for CBD Employees

Ms. Sonenfeld explained that these ordinances are being handled together. They involve wireless cellular communication devices, which were discussed last week, as well as the infrequent Ridgewood resident commuter, and the part-time CBD employees. She noted that Christopher Rutishauser, the Village Engineer, spent a lot of time and did a great job working on these ordinances to include all of those things, and he added the possibility of issuing day passes to non-residents, which will be discussed. One of the things provided in the ordinance is to allow the use of a cellular phone provider, Parkmobile. The ordinance also includes a provision for a Ridgewood resident day pass for infrequent commuters, for people who want to go into the city once or twice a month to see a show or do other activities, as previously discussed. In addition, part-time CBD employees are covered in the ordinance by allowing repeat parking in the Cottage Place lot. Moreover, some of the discussions were about non-Ridgewood residents who might want to park for a day. Although there is no desire to tie up the lots with those types of people parking, it might be feasible to allow them to use Parkmobile for a day pass.

Ms. Sonenfeld commented that a part-time CBD employee would purchase an annual CBD employee sticker for $25. The sticker would allow the employee to park at the Cottage Place lot and take advantage of repeat parking, using quarters. That would necessitate the employee leaving his/her place of employment to insert additional quarters into the meters. However, through Parkmobile, there is a possibility that the same part-time CBD employee could go on-line and purchase a daily pass. The suggested price for that daily pass is $7, which includes the $2 Parkmobile rate, as well as the credit card fees incurred by the Village. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli noted that a full-time CBD employee or employer would pay $80 per month for a pass, or $40 for a half-month, but there would be no separate payment made in the parking lot, which Ms. Sonenfeld confirmed. The part-time CBD employee would pay $25 for the sticker, which would provide him/her access to the lot, and would then feed the meters, or use Parkmobile to pay $7 per day. The $25 fee does not pay for any actual parking, but only provides access to the lot. It is also an annual fee, as Ms. Sonenfeld noted. Councilwoman Knudsen pointed out that the CBD sticker would ensure that the part-time CBD employees are not ticketed for violating the repeat parking ordinance. Ms. Sonenfeld commented that there are other automated ways to identify part-time employees, and she will be working with Parkmobile to do that, including the use of license plate technology and other alternatives. This is simply a starting point.

Councilman Sedon stated that something similar was in effect years ago, before the parking limits were set to 12 hours. Councilman Sedon was a CBD employee at that time, and took advantage of that opportunity. He recalled that it cost $15 to purchase a CBD employee sticker which identified that driver as one who worked in the CBD and would use repeat parking. After reviewing the proposed ordinance, Councilman Sedon asked if perhaps the fee for the annual sticker could be decreased, because the part-time employees are still paying full rates for parking, and he recalled that approximately 431 CBD employee stickers were issued in 2007, at the height of the parking “crisis”. He suggested that perhaps the annual fee could be reduced to $15, as in the past. Ms. Sonenfeld responded that, as far as pricing is concerned it might be better to come back to this after the rest of the discussion. The pricing was based on the fact that it is necessary to ensure that the Parking Utility does not go into deficit. Ms. Sonenfeld believes a study of the total pricing is necessary, to compare it to the expenses of the Parking Utility. There has not been time to perform such a study, and in trying to put all this together so quickly, this is the best estimate that she and her team were able to formulate.

Moving forward, Ms. Sonenfeld noted that the Ridgewood resident, who is not required to purchase a sticker because they can get them for free, would pay $10 to park all day. That is still higher than the rate paid by the part-time CBD employee, because that rate takes into account the $25 fee the part-time CBD employee pays for the sticker. It also allows for the fact that the Ridgewood resident can park in any lot in Ridgewood, because they are not restricted to parking in the Cottage Place lot. Ms. Sonenfeld emphasized that the prices can be changed. The all-day rate for a non-Ridgewood resident, keeping in line with the Ridgewood Parking Permits (RPPs) available to non-Ridgewood residents, is double that of the Ridgewood resident, or $20. It is also important to remember that Parkmobile receives a portion ($2) of all of the daily pass fees. On top of that, the credit card fees must also be deducted. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli pointed out that only $6 of the $10 parking fee goes to the Village. Ms. Sonenfeld also stated that the Village is trying to encourage full-time employees to purchase the monthly CBD passes.

Regarding full-time CBD employees, Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli asked if there was any dissatisfaction with the proposed rate, or anything else in that category. Ms. Sonenfeld stated that there is already an ordinance covering the full-time CBD employees, and Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli recalled that it is $80 per month, or $40 for a half-month. Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that the full-time CBD employee pass is fungible, so that it can be shared between two part-time employees, or people who work on alternating days. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli noted that use of the pass is restricted to the Cottage Place lot. Ms. Sonenfeld said that positive feedback has been received from many of the employees in the CBD, who are glad to find that they have parking spots in the morning when they arrive for work, and spots are still available for them if they have to run errands during their lunch hours.

Councilwoman Hauck stated that she has received feedback from employees who are accustomed to taking advantage of street parking, which is no longer available to them. Councilwoman Hauck does not believe that it is wrong to make the parking unavailable, and she reminds people who complain that those employees were using up all of the street spots, and the new parking policy is an effort to make parking fair and equitable for everyone. As phases two and three are implemented, people will realize that repeat parking will be available, and they will be able to depend upon having parking spaces available, especially for infrequent commuters.

Regarding the part-time CBD employees, with the current suggested rate of $25 for an annual CBD employee sticker (which Councilman Sedon would like to decrease to $15), which will allow them to repeat park in the Cottage Place lot by paying seven dollars per day or feeding the meters, Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli asked if there is any limit to how long the meters can be fed. Ms. Sonenfeld answered that they will be allowed to park for as long as they wish, once they have the CBD employee sticker.

Councilwoman Knudsen noted that the $15 that was paid in 2007, as mentioned by Councilman Sedon, was probably a simple cash or check transaction, while the $15 fee in 2015 would be deducted by the $2 paid to Parkmobile, as well as the credit card fees. Ms. Sonenfeld corrected this, saying that any of the fees can be paid by cash, checks, or credit card. They can be purchased at the reception desk in Village Hall. The credit card fee only applies if Parkmobile is used, which is for the daily passes. The $25 stickers are not purchased through Parkmobile. The Village is absorbing the credit card fees for purchasing the $25 stickers.

Finally, Ms. Sonenfeld stated that she thinks the sticker fee should be $25, because it is necessary to ensure that the Parking Utility does not run into a deficit, and the funds are also being used toward financing a new parking garage.

Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli moved on to discuss the issue of infrequent commuters, or daily passes for residents and non-residents. The proposal is that Ridgewood residents can pay $10 per day to park in any of the commuter lots, $6 of which would go to the Village; $2 would go to Parkmobile; and the other $2 is an administrative fee to cover the credit card charges. The proposed fee for non-residents is $20 per day, and they would be limited to parking in the Cottage Place parking lot, or in the park-and-ride lot on Route 17.

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that if the Councilmembers want to decrease the cost of the sticker for part-time employees to $15 per year, she strongly suggested that the daily parking fee be increased to $10 per day, because at this time, the proposal is that the Ridgewood resident pays more per day than the part-time CBD employee, under the rationale that the part-time CBD employee must also pay the $25 sticker fee. An alternative would be to drop the $25 fee completely and require that part-time CBD employees pay $10, just as Ridgewood residents would pay. Councilwoman Knudsen estimated that a part-time employee makes approximately $10-$15 per hour, from which taxes are deducted, so they do not make a tremendous amount of money. That is why it is important to keep the fees as reasonable as possible, because part-time employees are vital to business in Ridgewood. Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that reducing the fees for part-time employees puts more of the burden on Ridgewood taxpayers. Councilman Sedon noted that the Parking Utility has shown a surplus for the past several years, and Ms. Sonenfeld reminded him that there was a surplus because there were no quarter thefts. In three out of the four years before there was a surplus, the Parking Utility showed a deficit. Ms. Sonenfeld thinks that the parking meter rates in Ridgewood are very low, especially when compared to those in other municipalities. Furthermore, she has sympathy for part-time employees who are on the lowest end of the pay scale.

Councilwoman Hauck asked if any studies have been performed to date, or if any of the employers in the CBD have been questioned about what percentage of their employees come from outside of Ridgewood. Councilwoman Hauck believes that most of the CBD employees come from other municipalities. Ms. Sonenfeld said she did not know, and reminded Councilwoman Hauck that Mr. Vaggianos was asked how many employees actually drive to work, but that information is not available.

Councilwoman Knudsen said it occurred to her that it would be helpful to have a breakdown of the different types of shops, restaurants, salons, and other businesses in the CBD to better understand the sheer numbers of operations occurring in the CBD. From that data, demographic information about the people who work in the CBD can be extrapolated.

Councilwoman Hauck noted that any employees that earn $80 per day are probably taking home $60 per day after taxes, and she surmises that most of them are minimum-wage workers, although Ms. Sonenfeld pointed out that some of them are professionals. The minimum-wage workers might be giving up a large percentage of their salaries to pay for parking. That is why she would support cutting the price of the daily passes for non-residents. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli reminded Councilwoman Hauck that the discussion was about the fees paid by the part-time CBD employees, and he pointed out the $7 per day for parking that they would have to pay, in addition to the $25 for the annual sticker. Ms. Sonenfeld emphasized that the $7 is paid if they choose to use Parkmobile. If they choose otherwise, it is $.50 per hour for the parking meters. Councilwoman Hauck said she supported that fee structure. Ms. Sonenfeld also noted that the part-time CBD employees can use quarters for the initial payment in the parking meters, and use Parkmobile to pay for the rest of the day at $3.50 per hour, plus a $.35 transaction fee. Ms. Sonenfeld reminded everyone that she suggested that if the $25 sticker fee is reduced or eliminated, the part-time CBD employees should pay $7 per day for parking, so that the Ridgewood residents are not shouldering the burden.

The next discussion was about the infrequent commuters, including residents who would pay $10 per day for a daily parking pass, and non-residents who would pay $20 per day for a daily parking pass. Councilwoman Hauck said she could not understand why the fees were being doubled for non-residents, including the fees for the RPPs. Ms. Sonenfeld explained that the reason is because the downtown lots are getting full, and it seemed that non-residents were using up most of the parking spaces in the parking lots. Now that the fee for the RPP is $1,500 for non-residents, 20 people from outside of Ridgewood are paying $1,500 each to park in the municipal parking lots. The infrequent commuter parking fee allows those who wish to go into the city to see a show or engage in other activities to do so.

Councilwoman Knudsen pointed out that infrequent commuters are allowed to park at the park-and-ride lot on Route 17. She asked if they would be required to use quarters at that lot, and Ms. Sonenfeld responded that the park-and-ride lot would be open to people using RPPs or Parkmobile. As a result, the lot was reconfigured to add over 40 spots with no parking meters. Due to the fact that the meters are becoming obsolete, parking meter parts from the park-and-ride lot would be harvested for use in repairing other meters. It was also thought that people who use the park-and-ride lot tend to be commuters who are a bit more savvy with smart phone use, as well as minimizing quarters, and that is why the decision was made. Councilwoman Knudsen said she asked because there have been so many emails regarding the use of Parkmobile from people who are not yet ready to embrace this technology, especially senior citizens, and she asked if it could be scrutinized more closely and make quarter use an option as people acclimate to the new system. Ms. Sonenfeld said that option is available in all other parking lots, although she would have preferred removing parking meters in all of the parking lots and only allow use of RPPs and smart phones. The pilot program is making two parking lots meter-free. Many other municipalities have done away with their parking meters and use only smart phone-paid meters, including Glen Rock.

Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli stated that there seems to be a consensus among the Councilmembers about these proposals, although Mayor Aronsohn’s opinion has not been heard, and Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli believes that Mayor Aronsohn participated in the formulation of the proposals, so he would presumably be in favor of them. Therefore, Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli suggested moving forward with introducing the ordinances and amended ordinances.

The Village Council agreed to put these ordinances on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

5.)        Establish Additional Parking Spots in CBD

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that approval from the Village Council is not needed for the proposed additional parking spots in the CBD, and various alternatives have been devised. Currently, 16 additional spaces are proposed, and most of them only require paint. Two of them may require ordinances to be adopted, and they will all require signage. The proposed parking spots can only be paid with a smart phone, because no meters will be installed there, requiring additional signage to that effect.

Councilman Sedon asked about the spaces on Franklin Avenue, because he was concerned about whether there would be enough room for traffic to pass. Ms. Sonenfeld explained that Mr. Rutishauser and his Department measured everything out, so there is no problem with passing traffic.

Councilwoman Hauck said she is concerned that some of the spaces are close to corners, and seem a bit tight. However, she applauded Ms. Sonenfeld for her efforts in doing this. She noted that each parking space is worth approximately $20,000 in a parking garage, so these additional spaces represent approximately $350,000. These are the types of things that have been recommended in parking studies dating back to the 1950s. Ms. Sonenfeld stated that in some cases, adding parking spots would have required amending ordinances, so they decided to forgo those spaces. She emphasized that Mr. Rutishauser and his team were very diligent in measuring all of the spaces and the areas around the spaces to address safety concerns.

Councilwoman Knudsen had a concern about the additional parking space in front of It’s Greek to Me on East Ridgewood Avenue, because she is concerned that a passenger exiting a car will hit the wall with the car door and cause damage. Ms. Sonenfeld said they realized that, and it is not an ideal location, but most people who have passengers pull out to allow the passengers to enter or exit the vehicle at that location.

Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli thanked Ms. Sonenfeld, Mr. Rutishauser, Janet Fricke, Assistant to the Village Manager, Councilman Sedon, and Mayor Aronsohn, who are part of the team that put this parking proposal together. He reminded everyone that it has already been conceded that the new parking policy is a work in progress, and can be tweaked as needed.

The Village Council agreed to put this resolution on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

b.         Budget:

1.)        Award Contract – Financial Software

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this is an annual award of contract for the renewal of the Edmunds system that is used in the Finance Department. The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

2.)        Award Contract – Line Stop and Valve Insertion Services

Ms. Sonenfeld noted that this award is the second year of a two-year contract to Carner Brothers for line stop and valve insertion services that allow the Village to avoid extended shutdowns and “boil water notices”. Funding for this is in the 2015 capital budget. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli pointed out that the Councilmembers receive backup materials for all of these items that are discussed, and they are not learning about this for the first time at this Council Meeting, since they have read the backup materials.

The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

3.)        Award Contract – Log Truck with Hook Lift and Forestry Grapple

Ms. Sonenfeld explained that this is the award of a contract for a log truck with a hook lift and forestry grapple. The funds for this are in the capital budget, and have been put aside for the past couple of years. The current vehicle is 15 years old, and does not meet OSHA safety standards.

Councilwoman Knudsen noted that the bid that was received included a trade-in value for the vehicle being replaced of $10,000, or the Village could use an on-line auction, with a minimum bid of $17,000. Councilwoman Knudsen asked how the on-line auction works, and if it might be wiser to just take the $10,000. Ms. Sonenfeld explained that Ms. Fricke gets the information and puts the item out to bid for the on-line auction. Ms. Fricke stated that a threshold is identified, and it is hoped that the item will bring in more than that. If it does not sell for the higher price, the auction will be stopped, and Timothy Cronin, Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, can still trade that vehicle in, so that the opportunity is not lost.

The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

4.)        Award Contract – Concession Refreshment Service Graydon Pool

Ms. Sonenfeld noted that this will award the contract for the Water’s Edge Café Concession at Graydon Pool. Five bid packets were sent out, and only one submission was received, for a rental revenue of $12,300 for the pool season. Ms. Sonenfeld noted that the concession stand was outsourced beginning in 2012. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli asked why the prior concessionaire was not among the respondents, and Ms. Sonenfeld explained that the reason was because they did not recoup the amount of money that they paid to Ridgewood. The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

5.)        Budget Reserve Transfers

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this is an annual practice, in which funds are moved from departments where there are extra funds to departments which do not have sufficient funds to give everyone a flat budget. Approximately $93,000 is moving each way. One of the larger items is $35,000 going to the Streets Department as a result of the December snowstorm. There is an additional $20,000 going to the Central Garage for various pieces of equipment. The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

c.         Operations:

1.)        Amendment to Streets and Sidewalks Chapter – Replacement of Sidewalk Slabs

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this is an amendment to the streets and sidewalks chapter. She reminded everyone that last year complaints were being received, particularly around Halloween, that there were sidewalks that had been removed and not replaced. The problem was assessed, and it was determined that the cause of the problem was annual permits that were being provided for sidewalk openings. It would not be cost-effective to do away with the annual permit process, but the Village will now require that the permit holder notify the Village each time a sidewalk is to be opened. Previously, the Village was not notified, and it created a problem with respect to removing trees and cutting their roots. After notification, the work must be done within seven calendar days. It is hoped that this will resolve the issue that occurred last year.

Councilman Sedon thinks this is a good solution to an old problem. He and Councilwoman Knudsen noticed that Walthery Avenue was particularly bad, with a lot of yellow tape everywhere and sidewalk slabs stacked on top of each other.

Councilwoman Knudsen noted that the sidewalk work was being done because the residents received notification of raised sidewalks, but the company performing the replacement of the sidewalk slabs did not complete the work in a timely manner. Ms. Sonenfeld said she does not believe that is what was happening, but that it was because one or two of the contractors were going in and opening up several slabs at the same time, and the Village could not keep up with the tree work that needed to be done relating to these sidewalk slabs. Moreover, Ms. Sonenfeld explained that notices that are being sent to residents are being staggered to avoid having so many sidewalks open at one time.

The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

2.)        Amendment to the Traffic Chapter – Designation of Emergency “No Parking Areas” and Setting Penalties for Violations

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this proposed ordinance recognizes that snow is not the only reason for closing streets, and it gives the Village Manager the discretion to close streets during emergencies.

Councilwoman Hauck asked if this only goes into effect during emergency situations and bad weather conditions, how residents are notified that such emergencies exist. She asked if they will be notified via e-notices, or in some other way. Ms. Sonenfeld answered that, as is done now, any time work is to be done that requires closing streets a notification is sent in the morning, and the information will be posted on the Village website. It is possible that e-notices will be sent, and the Police Department will be on the affected street to notify the residents.

Councilwoman Knudsen asked if it would be prudent to have the same emergency rules in effect for parking meters, such as when the snow is piled so high that people cannot get to the meters to pay them. She believes that is something that would go with this type of resolution, and would allow Ms. Sonenfeld to waive parking fees. Ms. Sonenfeld answered that there are some issues with snow piling up around the meters, and an extra $6,000-$7,000 was spent to remove that snow. Therefore, she thinks that the parking meter issue should be carefully considered, and she pointed out that no Parking Meter Enforcement Officers were sent out during the snow storms, so tickets were not written.

The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

3.)        Authorize Refund of Planning Board Escrow – Dr. Cerf

Ms. Sonenfeld stated that this is a resolution to refund a cash bond to the applicant, Dr. Cerf, in the amount of $11,670, because the work has been completed on this project. The Village Council agreed to put this on the agenda for the February 11, 2015 Public Meeting.

4.         REVIEW OF FEBRUARY 11, 2015 AGENDA

Ms. Mailander announced that the Public Meeting would include the following Proclamations: Dads’ Night at Hawes School in Summerville School; Read Across America Day; and Super Science Saturday.

The ordinances to be introduced are: Amend Chapter 265 – Vehicles and Traffic – Parking Prohibited on Section of Franklin Avenue; General Capital Ordinance – Paving, Technology, and New Ambulance; Established Valley Parking on Oak Street for Park West Tavern; Amend Chapter 249 – Streets and Sidewalks – Replacement of Sidewalk Slabs; Ordinances Establishing Resident Daily Parking, Non-Resident Daily Parking, Using Wireless Cellular Mobile Devices for Parking; Ordinance Establishing Fees for the Daily Passes for Residents, Non-Residents, and CBD Employees; Payment through Technology; Establishing Emergency No Parking Areas and Penalties for Violations; Revised Parking Meters Ordinance; Establish Additional Parking Spaces in CBD; Establish Daily Parking for Resident Commuters and Parking in the CBD for Extended Period of Time by CBD Employees.

The scheduled Public Hearings include: Salary Ordinance – Fire Department; Amend Chapter 258 – Towing – Investigative Towing, Removal, Storage, and Fees; Amendments to the Parking Ordinances – Modification of Terms of Permit Application and Violations and Penalties.

Resolutions include: Award Professional Services Contract – Risk Management Consultants; Award Professional Services Contract – Financial Software; Award Professional Services Contract – Environmental Engineering Services for Hudson Street Parking Lot; Award Professional Services Contract – 2015 Land Surveying Services - Retainer for Preparation of Tax Assessment Map; Award Professional Services Contract – Physician for Child Health Conference; Title 59 Approval – Servicing and Repair of Potable Water Pumping Facilities; Award Contract – Servicing and Repair of Potable Water Pumping Facilities; Title 59 Approval – Servicing and Repair of Electric Source; Award Contract – Servicing and Repair of Electric Source; Title 59 Approval – Line Stop and Valve Insertion Services; Award Contract – Line Stop and Valve Insertion Services; Title 59 Approval – Log Truck with Hook Lift and Forestry Grapple; Award Contract – Log Truck with Hook Lift and Forestry Grapple; Title 59 Approval – Furnishing and Delivering Sodium Hypochlorite Solution; Award Contract – Furnishing and Delivering Sodium Hypochlorite Solution; Title 59 Approval – Laboratory Analysis Services; Award Contract – Laboratory Analysis Services; Title 59 Approval – Maintenance of Irrigation Systems/Water Fountains; Award Contract – Maintenance of Irrigation Systems/Water Fountains; Title 59 Approval – Graydon Pool Food Concession; Award Contract – Graydon Pool Food Concession; Title 59 Approval for Additional Parking Spaces in Park-And-Ride Parking Lot; Award Extraordinary Unspecifiable Contract – Emergency Replacement of Police Department Camera and Audio System; Authorize Agreement with Parkmobile USA, Inc.; Declare Property Surplus – Parks Department Vehicle; Declare Property Surplus – Police Vehicles; Approve Shared Services Agreement – Sanitary Sewer Services for 248 Franklin Turnpike (Ho-Ho-Kus); Approve Shared Services Agreement – Child Health Clinic (Glen Rock); Approve Shared Services Agreement – Bergen County Police Chiefs Association Mutual Aid Plan and Rapid Deployment Force; Authorize Refund of Planning Board Escrow – Dr. Cerf.

5.         MANAGER’S REPORT

Ms. Sonenfeld noted that eight inches of snow fell in the last snow storm, and the roads were prepared in advance. Estimated cost for the storm cleanup is approximately equal to, or slightly more than, the costs for the prior storm. However, the makeup of the costs are a bit different. During the anticipated blizzard, people were on standby around-the-clock. In the last storm, the labor costs were a bit lower, but due to the nature of the storm, the material costs were higher. In addition to the two snowstorms, there was a black ice event in January. The cost of the last snow storm was over $100,000.

After the storm, there were some additional garbage pickups. Ms. Sonenfeld asked residents to refrain from throwing snow into the streets, because it causes problems. She also reminded everyone that garbage cans should be brought out to the ends of the driveways, because some of the driveways are still very slippery.

The new flood hazard area maps for Bergen County have been issued, which determine whether a home is included or excluded from flood insurance requirements. Unlike previous years, when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) underwrote the premiums for homes and flood hazard areas, they have stopped that practice. Homeowners must now bear that burden. Bergen County is holding two meetings, on February 10^th and February 11^th, and anyone who believes his or her property is in a flood zone can attend one or both of those meetings and the County will confirm whether the property is in a flood zone or not. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli asked if the maps are available on a website, and Ms. Sonenfeld responded that the Village website has more information available, although there are no maps available on-line. Mr. Rutishauser has copies of the maps. Ms. Sonenfeld has been contacted by several residents who wanted to know if there properties are in the flood zone, and this information would help them.

In her “Response to Residents,” Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the next Meet the Manager event will be on Tuesday, February 24^th, from 5:00 P.M.-7:30 P.M. There were some issues with the crosswalk at the corner of Franklin Avenue and Broad Street, and concerns expressed by the owner of the Ken Smith site as to their safety. Ms. Sonenfeld and Ms. Fricke met with him, as well as the manager of the Whole Foods store, whose employees park at that site. They have discussed some ways of upgrading that site, including better lighting and countdown equipment for the crosswalks at that location.

Some residents on Melrose Place contacted Ms. Sonenfeld with respect to the removal of a tree. The Village said that it would remove the tree, but no one showed up to do it. Ms. Sonenfeld said that the tree will be removed.

Today, the Bergen Record had a story about salt and the fact that many communities and municipalities were not getting enough salt, or their salt deliveries were 2-3 weeks late. Ridgewood is not one of those communities, and by the end of the day today, Ms. Sonenfeld stated that the Village would have enough salt to cover two storms.

Upcoming events include first-quarter taxes, which are due February 1^st. Jamboree starts tonight, and continues through February 7^th at Benjamin Franklin Middle School. Tonight, senior citizens are special guests for the performance, and the bus service was invited to take the senior citizens to the performance. The next CBD parking forum will be on February 9^th at Roots Steakhouse to discuss parking issues with CBD employees. At this point, Ms. Sonenfeld believes a tenable solution has been formulated, although there may not be enough funding. Village Hall will be closed on Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, February 12^th, and on Presidents’ Day, February 16^th. The first set of budget reviews will be on Saturday, February 28^th, from approximately 9:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M.

6.         COUNCIL REPORTS

Fourth of July Committee – Councilwoman Knudsen stated that the Fourth of July Committee is always looking for more volunteers, and anyone who wants to join them is encouraged to attend the next meeting on Monday, February 9^th, at 7:30 P.M. at the Ridgewood Firehouse. Planning this event takes a considerable amount of energy and effort, and this is a great opportunity to join in and participate.

Historic Preservation Commission – Councilwoman Knudsen mentioned that the Historic Preservation Commission has canceled its meeting scheduled for next week, and the next meeting is scheduled for March 12^th.

Planning Board – Councilwoman Knudsen said the meeting last night was a continuation of the downtown housing applications and the Master Plan Amendment currently before the Planning Board. Residents had the opportunity for public comment, and there was a tremendous amount of interest and a great deal of public input, which helps the Planning Board. The next meeting for that application is scheduled for Thursday, February 19^th, at Ridgewood High School. It will be continued on Tuesday, March 17^th, at Ridgewood High School. The next regular meeting of the Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, March 3^rd, at Village Hall. Public input is always welcome, and although the process seems arduous, Councilwoman Knudsen said it is time well spent to get things right.

Ordinance #3066 Subcommittee – Councilwoman Knudsen stated that the Ordinance #3066 Subcommittee is looking forward to wrapping up its activities. The final product will hopefully be on the next Village Council Work Session agenda, and Councilwoman Knudsen looks forward to that discussion, so that it can move forward.

Abandoned Properties Committee – Councilwoman Hauck stated that the Abandoned Properties Committee meets monthly. The Committee consists of the Tax Assessor; the Director of the Building Department; the Assistant to the Village Manager; the Property Maintenance Manager; the Village Attorney; and Councilwoman Hauck. The Abandoned Properties Ordinance was enacted seven months ago, and to date, the abandoned property list, which had 11 properties on it, is down to six properties. That shows that enacting a strong ordinance gives the Village the ability to move some of these projects forward. The ordinance is used for fair and equitable administration of law, and to protect the community from the dangers and devaluation of declining properties. Only after repeated violations, resulting in multiple penalties, will such properties be made known to the Abandoned Properties Committee. The houses are placed on the list if they meet certain criteria, which include being in need of rehabilitation; being in arrears of at least one tax installment; being vacant or abandoned; and being a nuisance to the neighborhood and the community.

The two highest-priority properties on the list are the ones at 205 Lotte Road, where the owner has been duly notified, and the Committee is in constant contact with the property owner. An inspection was completed on January 28^th, and a work plan and cost estimate are pending. When the necessary work is proposed and presented to them, the property owners have 12 months to complete a rehabilitation. The property owner has stated that he has every intention to complete this project and meet all the necessary standards.

The other property is at 505 Fairway, where an inspection has revealed that there are multiple property maintenance violations, as well as past taxes being due. However, the Committee has not been able to make contact with the property owner, so they are currently seeking some sort of contact. Discussions are on-going to declare the structure unsafe.

The house at 442 Van Buren Avenue has been on the list since 2014. Because work was started and not completed, it is unfit for occupancy, and there are many other violations. There were applications on this house pending before the Zoning Board which have been rescinded, and the house is now listed for sale as an abandoned property. It is hoped that someone will purchase it and rehabilitate it.

The property at 25 Daniel Court also has multiple violations, and the property is in the process of foreclosure, so the Village will ultimately have to take action against the bank. Councilwoman Hauck said they are seeking contact information to ensure rehabilitation and repairs are completed.

Finally, there is a house on Stonycroft Court, where the owner has expressed a desire to get off the abandoned property list by complying with maintenance issues. A subcontractor of the management company has said that they will set up an inspection with Village inspectors, and Councilwoman Hauck said they will ask for two inspections, one for the interior, and the other for the exterior, to ensure compliance with the rehabilitation plan.

Councilwoman Hauck also mentioned that there had been some discussion about lead in the water, and the EPA announcement had been made about some of the testing. Councilwoman Hauck bought an over-the-counter water analysis kit, and she received her results from Pro-Lab on January 21^st. The report showed that all of the tested areas meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s health-related drinking water standards. The lead results were .003, and the acceptable range is .015, so the determination was that Councilwoman Hauck’s water passed.

Ridgewood Arts Council– Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli stated that the Ridgewood Arts Council is working in the background, and he hopes that they will be making a presentation at a Village Council meeting very soon.

Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli added that he had intended to attend a conference last week of the Northern New Jersey Community Foundation on the role of arts in the downtown, but the meeting was postponed due to the weather. It has been rescheduled for Wednesday, March 4, 2015, from 5:30 P.M.-7:30 P.M., at Bergen Community College.

Ridgewood Public Library Board of Trustees – The Ridgewood Public Library Board of Trustees met last week, but Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli could not attend the meeting due to a conflict with the Ridgewood Arts Council.

As previously mentioned, there will be a parking forum on Monday, February 9^th, for CBD employees, which Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli did not want to confuse with the CBD forum that will occur on Wednesday, March 18^th, at Christ Episcopal Church. The subjects of the CBD forum will be parking and blue laws.

7.         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, noted that there were not very many people in attendance at this meeting. He also commented that the previous concessionaire at Graydon Pool, who is not returning this year, tended to close before the scheduled closing time. On days of inclement weather, when Graydon Pool would open later in the day, the concessionaire did not come in at all to open the stand. Mr. Loving hopes that whatever contract is prepared by the Village Attorney will take that into consideration, and the concessionaire will be held to the contract, which provides that the stand must be open when Graydon Pool is open. Mr. Loving raised this issue a couple of years ago at a Village Council meeting, and Mr. Cronin agreed that the contract does stipulate that, and that he would speak to the concessionaire about the situation.

Regarding parking, Mr. Loving recalled that several years ago, the late Nicholas Russo sued the Village because he thought they were too many parking spaces on the streets, and some parking spaces were removed as a result. Apparently, some of the parking spaces were not in compliance with State law. Mr. Loving hopes that the newly-proposed parking spaces are not the same parking spaces which caused this lawsuit, because it might bring about another lawsuit in the future. Mr. Loving suggested that Mr. Rogers could get further information about that lawsuit. Mr. Rogers said he was not aware of that litigation. Mr. Loving specifically recalled that there were some spaces near the Rite Aid that had to be removed because they were too close to the corner, and another at the Post Office which had to be removed. Some spaces were too close to fire hydrants.

Mr. Loving asked Ms. Sonenfeld about the new valet parking, and the fact that they were going to be using the spaces behind 179 East Ridgewood Avenue for the cars. That was one of the lots that Mr. Loving had identified a while ago as being under-utilized, and he is pleased that someone will be utilizing it. However, he asked if the Village is involved with trying to find spaces, or trying to identify businesses that might benefit from using valet parking in an attempt to get cars out of municipal parking lots. Ms. Sonenfeld said there is nothing formal, and the Village does not go out to find places for valet-parked cars. However, informally, when talking to business owners, Ms. Sonenfeld will often give them thoughts and ideas about what is available. Off-site parking is something that the business owner has to find for him or herself. Mr. Loving asked if the Village is looking for businesses that could generate a high volume of cars to suggest that they institute valet parking to park the cars elsewhere. Ms. Sonenfeld answered that two restaurants that are doing that are already using valet parking service.

There were no other comments from the public at this time, and Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli closed the time for public comments.

8.         RESOLUTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION

The following resolution, numbered 15-26, to go into Closed Session, was read in full by the Village Clerk, as follows:

10.       ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Village Council, on a motion by Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli, seconded by Councilwoman Knudsen, and carried unanimously by voice vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 P.M.

                                                                                                _____________________________

                                                                                                           Albert J. Pucciarelli

                                                                                                               Deputy Mayor

_________________________________

            Heather A. Mailander

               Village Clerk

REVISED

THE RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL’S

PUBLIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

FEBRUARY 4, 2015

1.         7:30 pm – Call to Order – Mayor

2.         Statement of Compliance with Open Public Meeting Act

            Mayor: “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by a posting on the bulletin             board in Village Hall, by mail to the Ridgewood News, The Record, and by submission to all persons entitled to same as provided by law of a schedule including the date and           time of this meeting.”

3.         Roll Call – Village Clerk

4.         Flag Salute/Moment of Silence

5.         Public Comments (Not to Exceed 5 Minutes per Person)

6.         Discussion:

            a.         Parking

1. Amendment to Vehicles and Traffic Chapter – Allow Loading Zone Space on Oak            

                 Street to be Used for Valet Parking

            2. Ordinance to Allow for Automated Parking Technology      

            3. Ordinance for Infrequent Resident Commuter and Parking in CBD for Extended                        Period of Time

            4. Ordinance for Extended Parking for CBD Employees

            5. Establish Additional Parking Spots in CBD

            b.         Budget

1. Award Contract – Financial Software
2. Award Contract – Line Stop and Valve Insertion Services
3. Award Contract – Log Truck with Hooklift and Forestry Grapple
4. Award Contract - Concession Refreshment Service at Graydon Pool
5. Budget Reserve Transfers

            c.         Operations

1. Amendment to Streets and Sidewalks Chapter – Replacement of Sidewalk Slabs
2. Amendment to Vehicles and Traffic Chapter – Designation of Emergency “No Parking Areas” and Setting Penalties for Violations

c.         Operations (Continued)

1. Authorize Refund of Planning Board Escrow – Dr. Cerf

7.         Review of February 11, 2015 Public Meeting Agenda

8.         Manager’s Report

9.         Council Reports

10.       Public Comments (Not to Exceed 5 Minutes per Person)

11.       Resolution to go into Closed Session

12.       Closed Session

            A.        Legal – Engineering Department

            B.         Personnel – Appointments to Boards and Committees

13.       Adjournment