October 2022

If you’re wondering what the hell is up with an eight-story parking structure in the middle of historic downtown Kalispell, you’re not alone. I too have issues with this mammoth project approved by Kalispell City Council at its October 4th meeting.

This project was presented to redevelop the original four storey parking garage previously approved by Council. At that time, it was really a parking lot located on the Eagles property, owned by the city, at the corner of 1st Street West and 1st Avenue West. The structure was to be built by the same developers who were building the Charles Hotel on the city-owned parking lot at 3rd Street and Main Street. With 242 parking spaces and some retail space on the ground floor, the main purpose of the garage was to provide much-needed parking for the city, as well as the parking required for the new Charles Hotel. The hotel was to be owned by the developers, but the four-story garage was to be owned and operated by the city.

These projects have been approved by City Council and enthusiastically supported by the Kalispell community. Of the two parking lots in question, the 3rd and Main Street lot has approximately 60 spaces, while the Eagles lot has 50, so a total of 110 parking spaces currently exist across both lots.

A 242-seat structure, was a 132-seat increase in the four-story design. But, the developer still needed 90 of those spaces for the Charles Hotel’s valet parking services, leaving an additional 42 spaces, for the city, in the four-story garage.

Then the developers came back to the table with a “better plan”. The new plan increased the “parking garage” from four to eight floors, with four additional floors above the parking floors, housing 78 market-priced luxury apartments. People then started wondering how many more parking spots Kalispell was really going to end up with?

With only 42 spaces available and 78 additional apartments added, it is obvious that we are returning to an increasingly pronounced parking shortage. The 42 places available are far from sufficient to accommodate the luxury apartments added, each requiring at least one place, and possibly more. It is no longer a parking garage project but an apartment development, with far fewer parking spaces in Kalispell town center for shopkeepers, office workers, restaurant owners and tourists than we currently have with the two car parks. What was once a much-needed parking garage is now a large luxury apartment complex in the heart of historic downtown Kalispell, offering fewer parking spaces than before.

To make matters worse, the developers persuaded our city council to use the funding from the tax increases to reimburse them, over time, for the full cost of the parking/apartment structure. In addition, they will be reimbursed for the initial land cost for the hotel and parking/apartment structure, courtesy of the City of Kalispell and its ratepayers. What a great deal for the developers, at the expense of Kalispell taxpayers.

Our city government supports these projects 100% for the simple reason that the parking lots around the city do not generate any tax revenue for the city coffers. Now, however, the tax generated from these projects will be used to repay developers over the next 20 years, until they are fully reimbursed for the $9 million structure and land they will own.

In the meantime, our quality of life in downtown Kalispell will be severely degraded.

So beware of Kalispell, you get a massive eight story development in the heart of downtown Kalispell, completely out of character with our historic neighborhood, and ultimately paid for by taxpayers. And beware, other city-owned land is being considered for similar misguided developments.

If you’re not happy with that, raise your voice. Attend council meetings and call your councillor. The character of our downtown and our city for future generations depends on it.

—John Hinchey, Kalispell

CHICAGO (CBS) –An additional alarm fire engulfed a parking garage in the Illinois Medical District in the city’s Near West neighborhood on Tuesday afternoon.

The fire started in a truss-roofed parking garage for Place Garibaldi on the Park townhouse complex at 711 S. Ashland Ave., between Flournoy and Polk streets. One car caught fire and the fire spread to nearly 30 other cars.

The garage roof collapsed onto the vehicles, potentially setting other cars on fire.

A 2-11 alarm has been raised for additional equipment and manpower. Just under 100 firefighters were mobilized to fight the blaze.

The stage is just steps from the campus of Rush University Medical Center. A report from the Citizen app said staff could smell smoke from a hospital building.

The University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center is also nearby. St. Basil’s Greek Orthodox Church is located just south on Ashland Avenue.

The fire was also visible from the Eisenhower Expressway just to the north.

Neither the townhouses in Garibaldi Park nor any other nearby buildings were damaged or threatened.

Firefighter video showed dark orange flames shooting from the single-story brick building as plumes of smoke rose.

The alarm was raised and the fire was brought under control by 4:37 p.m. As night fell, many cars lay in burnt-out ruins.

Under the ashes in a fine rain, the horn of a burnt-out vehicle sounded in the night. Indeed, the losses were enormous for the inhabitants of Place Garibaldi.

“My wife saw from the kitchen that there was smoke,” says Nadim Mahmud.

It soon became apparent that all the cars in the garage were damaged.

Some residents of the Garibaldi Park complex told CBS 2’s Jermont Terry that about 40 cars are parked in the garage every day. As it was the middle of the day when the fire broke out, they estimated that around 20 cars were probably in the garage at the time.

As firefighters worked to bring the blaze under control, many people watched in horror as their vehicles burned.

“You don’t expect to see your house, or anything of yours, in flames,” said Garibaldi Square resident Piper Hawkins-Green.

Hawkins-Green was at home when the fire broke out.

“I heard shouting and loud voices,” she said.

The noise she heard was tires and car engines exploding. By the time she got out, firefighters were already on the scene.

“Fortunately, all units were spared,” Hawkins-Green said.

The fire department brought the blaze under control, preventing it from spreading to any of the 42 townhouses surrounding the garage.

“I really appreciate the effort,” said Jitin Srivastava, “because if they weren’t there in time, the fire would have reached our houses – and we would probably have evacuated, or we would have been in danger.”

While it took just under 100 firefighters several hours to douse the flames, residents were unhappy to see their cars reduced to charred shells.

“It’s very sad for me,” Srivastava said. “I lost my car.”

But they’re grateful no one was inside the garage when the roof collapsed – and more importantly, when the first car caught fire.

“It’s devastating to see, but when you think about it, it’s just a car and not lives, it’s okay,” added Hawkins-Green. “But it’s very traumatic to see all this.”

No injuries were reported and everyone was grateful that no one was inside the garage when the first car caught fire or when the roof collapsed.

Many car owners were on the phone with their insurance companies on Tuesday evening to start making claims after their cars were destroyed.

CHICAGO — Firefighters are investigating what started a two-alarm parking garage fire on Chicago’s Near West Side.

According to the Chicago Fire, the a fire broke out in a parking lot of a multi-residential complex in the 700 block of S. Ashland near Rush University Medical Center.

The fire destroyed more than a dozen vehicles. Firefighters said the blaze likely started as a single-vehicle fire, with flames quickly spreading to the roofs of nearby cars.

“Our guys launched an aggressive attack to put out the fire, but it went into the roof of the parking lot, so we had to get our guys out and raise the alarm,” Assistant Deputy Fire Commissioner Donald Walker said.

The parking lot roof collapsed as a result of the fire. Although the parking structure is not attached to neighboring residential units, residents feared the fire would spread to their homes.

Witness Piper Hawkins-Green said she heard an explosion, prompting her to come out of her home.

“I thought the car was recovered and thought it was strange to hear the banging, coupled with the cries of the firefighter,” she said. “When I opened the door, I saw the truck and the flames spitting out.”

Resident Malvika Shree told WGN News she bought a car about three months ago.

“Now it’s all gone,” Shree said.

The fire also destroyed Jitin Srivastava’s vehicle, but he said he was grateful no one was injured.

“The car is gone, but we are safe,” Srivastava said. “The family is safe.”

Beginning January 1, 2022, New York City requires garage owners to hire a specially designated professional engineer to perform an assessment and file a report at least once every six years. Here are tips and best practices on how to comply with NYC Local Law 126 parking garage inspection rules. (Download a PDF version of this guide from Hoffmann Architects + Engineers.)

Why does New York City require parking lot inspections?

In 2018, New York State enacted a rule requiring periodic condition assessments, performed by a professional engineer, of all parking structures statewide – except in New York City. Exempt from state code, NYC has developed its own rules to keep garages and their outbuildings safe and well maintained. With the passage of Local Law 126 of 2021 and RCNY §103-13, NYC has codified the requirements of this ambitious safety initiative.

Who should perform the parking inspection?

A Qualified Parking Structures Inspector (QPSI) must assess the garage and file the report. A licensed engineer with at least three years of parking structure experience, a QPSI earns New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) parking structure unit certification.

What is required?

Any motor vehicle parking/storage space, other than an unfenced outdoor lot, 1 or 2 car garage, service station or showroom, must be appraised by a QPSI certified.

1. Document review. The QPSI reviews previous reports, structural designs, repair drawings, violations, and other records.
2. Condition assessment. The QPSI designs an assessment program specific to the parking structure, based on construction type, age, exposure and other characteristics, as well as maintenance and repair history. The physical examination may include sounding, load testing, noninvasive scanning, and/or core extraction, in addition to visual inspection. When evaluating structural components, waterproofing, fireproofing, and wear surfaces, the QPSI may need to order additional inspections, probes, or tests to identify probable causes of observed defects.
3. Immediate response to hazardous conditions. Upon identifying an unsafe condition, the QPSI promptly notifies the owner and the DOB and advises on appropriate protective measures.
4. Documentation of deficiencies. Photos, sketches or other means are used to identify the location and extent of defects.
5. Annual observation checklist. When assessing condition, the QPSI creates a checklist with items to inspect on an annual basis, tailored to that specific garage.
6. The final inspection. In a comprehensive tour of each parking level, the QPSI verifies that the reported results reflect actual conditions.
7. Filing of report. Following a prescribed format, the QPSI prepares a compliance report with findings and recommendations, classifying the garage as safe, unsafe, or “safe with repairs and/or technical oversight” (SREM). The report is filed with the DOB.

What should be included in the report?

According to the code, the report must contain:

• A summary of conclusions and recommendations.
• Classification as safe, SREM or dangerous.
• Building address, block and lot number, building identification number (BIN), landmark status and owner contact details.
• Description of the building, including size, dimensions, use, age, type of construction, materials and structural systems.
• Description of any distress, repair or modification.
• Procedures used to assess conditions.
• Extent and location of physical examinations, contractor contact information, location diagram and date of assessment.
• Description, classification and mapping of each significant condition, classifying each as safe, SREM or unsafe.
• Recommendations for the protection of the public (Hazardous conditions).
• Photographs of SREM and hazardous conditions, associated with location drawings, as well as photos of each parking elevation and level.
• Assessment of guardrails and railings for positive securing.
• Analysis of the causes of observed SREM and unsafe conditions.
• Up-to-date maintenance work and maintenance plan.
• An annual observation checklist.
• SREM parking structure monitoring program project.
• Recommendations for repairs or maintenance.
• Time frame within which repairs must be completed.
• Work permit possibly required.
• Seal and signature of the supervising QPSI.

Reports describing the same condition at the same location as the SREM cannot be filed for two consecutive filing cycles. If a previous SREM condition remains uncorrected, the QPSI should classify the parking structure as unsafe.

What happens if there is a dangerous condition?

As soon as the QPSI reports an unsafe condition, the owner must take action to protect public safety. This may include cordoning off hazardous areas, erecting sheds and sidewalk fencing, installing safety nets, and starting repair and reinforcement work.

Unsafe conditions must be corrected within 90 days, unless the IQPS determines that it is not possible to do so and indicates a different time frame in the report. Any deviation from this deadline requires supporting documents justifying the change.

Within two weeks of completing the repairs, the QPSI must inspect the garage and file an amended report. The protective measures must remain in place until the report is accepted or the IQPS certifies that the conditions have been corrected and requests the withdrawal.

What about SREM terms?

All conditions described in the report as SREM must be corrected within the time frame recommended by QPSI. Requests for additional time must be accompanied by supporting documents from the IQPS justifying the new time limit.

Within three years of the initial filing, a QPSI must undertake another condition assessment and file an amended report, indicating the extent of ongoing monitoring, the status of conditions identified in the initial report as SREM, and the classification of any new conditions. Prior to the next rating cycle, all SREM conditions must be repaired, as they must be flagged as unsafe if not corrected.

When should reports be completed and filed?

Owners are required to file a report at least once every six years, within the staggered filing windows of the diagram. Reports must be filed within 60 days of the condition assessment.

If the garage is located in a building subject to the Facade Safety Inspection Program (FISP), the owner may choose to change the parking structure rating window to align with the FISP rating window . To do this, the owner must notify the date of birth at least 180 days before the end of the subcycle of the assigned parking structure.

Owners of new garages must maintain a QPSI to file a report six years after the first certificate of occupancy or, if this falls outside the applicable filing window, within the window of the next cycle.

In addition to required repairs, what should owners do between deposit cycles?

Each year, car parks must be subject to an “annual observation”, based on the checklist prepared by QPSI in the inspection report. The person performing the annual observation is responsible for informing the owner and the DOB of any potentially unsafe condition. Completed annual compliance checklists should be kept on file and made available to the DOB upon request.

What are the penalties for non-compliance?

Late filing carries a heavy penalty of $1,000 per month. Not filing at all earns an extra $5,000 per year, in addition to the late payment penalty of $1,000 per month. Unsafe conditions not corrected within 90 days result in a penalty of $1,000 per month until the condition is corrected and an amended report is filed (unless an extension has been granted). If an owner lets an SREM condition languish and become unsafe in the next cycle, they will face a $2,000 penalty, plus risk further penalties if the condition continues unresolved.

Waivers may be requested where a change in ownership, state of emergency, bankruptcy or demolition prevents compliance.

What is the main takeaway?

If you own a parking structure west or south of Central Park in Manhattan, you need to take immediate action. Garage owners in these districts only have until December 2023 to retain one of the few professional engineers currently certified by the NYC Department of Buildings as a QPSI, then to schedule the inspection and allow time for the QPSI to file a compliance report.

Garage owners in Upper Manhattan and Brooklyn don’t have much time to waste either, with those districts’ filing period opening in 2024. For all the parking lot owners in the city, it doesn’t hurt plan ahead, as the demand for limited QPSI resources and looming deadlines will likely lead to a last-minute scramble to meet inspection and filing requirements.

Resources
NYC Building Parking Structures Resource Page
Local Law 126 of 2021 – see section 323, p. 229-232
RCNY §103-13: Periodic Inspection of Parking Structures

Hoffmann Architects + Engineers was among the first to have a certified QPSI. We are one of the few currently licensed to perform parking garage inspections under NYC Local Law 126. Contact us at (212) 789-9915 or hoffarch.com/contact-us.

The material provided is for informational purposes. Before acting, consult a design professional.

If you are a Berkeley taxpayer, have a child in the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), or are simply someone who cares about climate change, you should oppose BUSD’s plans to spend $27.5 million. of measurement G to build a parking lot with tennis courts on top, directly across from Berkeley High School (BHS). The measure, passed in 2020, is a $380 million school construction bond.

We support our teachers and the needs of the BHS tennis team, which has not had a home court for 20 years. But, for at least three reasons, it is a serious mistake to pursue this project.

First, there is already an abundance of empty parking spots in downtown Berkeley. And most of the spots belong to the city. In 2018, the city built a 720-space garage on Center Street using borrowed money. Since its opening (even before the pandemic), the Center Street garage has been 40% empty on weekdays. That’s more than 280 free places. Two other private garages close to BHS have 610 and 262 places, of which 250 and 80 are also free. Because Center Street revenues are lower than expected, the city is paying general fund bondholders $3.8 million last year and another $10 million by 2024. In other words, taxpayers have already paid twice for many downtown parking spaces. We don’t need to pay to build more.

Second, we need to stop encouraging car driving and pouring money into an unsustainable transportation system. As climate change ravages our planet, we must take bold action. BUSD already recognizes that “transportation is the number one source of climate emissions in the City of Berkeley” and its sustainability plan aims to cut single-family car trips in half by 2025. BUSD’s important staff must do part of that plan, especially in Berkeley. the richest district in terms of public transport, cycling and walking. Some staff have to drive, but by offering free parking we subsidize driving and sabotage our own climate goals. Instead of building parking lots, BUSD should develop a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program, just like other major employers in Berkeley. CT scans encourage people not to drive. For BUSD, this could mean providing a travel allowance and charging market prices for parking. TDM programs typically reduce parking demand by around 25%.

Finally, improving classrooms and helping students thrive should be a focus of Measure G funds. The proposed site is directly opposite BHS and is a unique opportunity to preserve space for our students. We should not waste this precious resource on permanent car storage when we have other current and future needs that would better serve our students. In 50 years, passenger cars may be a thing of the past. But we will always have children who deserve a world-class education.

Implementing a robust TDM program, opening the court for tennis, and not building that garage is a $25 million gift to our students that preserves our options in the future (assuming tennis courts would cost around $2.5 million). BUSD should instead negotiate with the city and private garages to buy or lease replacement parking for 610 vacant places nearby. It is important to note that these negotiations should not be conducted by the BUSD facilities department. You don’t let the fox guard the chicken coop.

If you agree with any or all of these points, please contact the school board and let them know that you are also against the construction of a garage and that you prefer to use the G measure to improve our rooms class and our support spaces. Our achievement gap is still wide. We should dedicate measure G to its closing, not to the storage of cars. We’re smart at Berkeley. We can understand both equity, environment and economy.

Liza Lutzker is a BUSD parent, public health researcher at UC Berkeley, Safe Routes to School Parent Champion, and member of the Walk Bike Berkley Coordinating Committee. Ken Berland is a parent of BUSD, a software development manager at Amazon Music, and a member of the Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee for Measure G. Damian Park is a parent of BUSD, a professor of economics at Santa Clara University and president of Citizens’ Bond Oversight. Measurement Committee G. Douglas Legg is a BUSD parent and Deputy City Administrator for the City of San Francisco, overseeing capital planning, assets, and infrastructure. Cielo Rios is a parent of BUSD, Chicana, Vice President of Equity at Emerson PTA, and an advocate for children in our community.

the United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsU.S. Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth ofCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People’s Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People’s Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory south of 60 degrees S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People’s Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People’s Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People’s Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People’s Republic ofchristmas islandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union ofCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People’s Republic ofthe cook islandsCosta Rica, Republic ofIvory Coast, Ivory Coast, Republic ofCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic ofGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadeGuadeloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, Revolutionary People’s Republic ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People’s RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran (Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofDemocratic People’s Republic of KoreaKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofRepublic of KyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People’s RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People’s Republic ofBurmaNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom ofNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic ofNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofnorfolk islandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauOccupied Palestinian TerritoryPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic ofPitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People’s RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPorto RicoQatar, State ofMeetingRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Republic of RwandaSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)Sloveniasolomon islandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSt. LUCIASaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic ofSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelaou Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandstuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

West New York is moving forward with plans for a fourth parking lot in town.

A direct mail was sent out by the city in September touting the parking spaces that would be created by the garages. The city had previously submitted plans for parking garages at the existing 51st Street, 54th Street and 57th Street parking lots.

The 51st Street Parking Garage will be eight stories high with 495 parking spaces at 51st through 52nd Streets between Bergenline Avenue and Kennedy Avenue. The structure is expected to be fully completed by December 2022 and to open shortly thereafter in January 2023.

The 57th Street Parking Garage will be three stories high and provide 270 parking spaces on the lot located between 57th and 58th Streets behind the former Modell’s off Bergenline Avenue. The city plans to open this garage after the 51st Street Garage opens to the public in January 2023.

The 54th Street parking garage is still in the design phase, but will provide 235 surface parking spaces at the corner of Park Avenue and 54th Street. The city also announced that a new three-story parking garage on the surface lot between 66th Street at 67th Street and Park Avenue is in the design phase and will provide 270 parking spaces.

In total, the municipality will add 1,000 parking spaces, according to Mayor Gabriel Rodriguez. This includes not only garages, but also other parking projects in the city.

“Parking has been a challenge for many years in Western New York and my administration is committed to dramatically increasing the number of parking spaces available by maximizing our existing spaces in creative ways, partnering with private entities and by investing heavily in new parking infrastructure. “Rodriguez said in the post.

“I’m thrilled to report that when complete, our parking plan will have created over a thousand new parking spaces for residents and visitors to Western New York!”

West New York also touted the corner parking lot the city has completed and plans to implement. In December 2021, it completed the transition to corner parking on Broadway from 50th to 52nd Street.

The city continues to explore where it can convert the existing parking lot into corner parking. West New York already has designs for Park Avenue from 62nd Street to 66th Street, Park Avenue from 52nd Street to 54th Street, Dewey Avenue from 62nd Street to 63rd Street, 60th Street from Broadway to Hudson Avenue and Hudson Avenue from 50th Street to 59th Street.

The move comes as Western New York was already implementing corner parking in town. He also followed calls for steeper parking at the August Board of Commissioners meeting by resident Frank Miqueli.

Miqueli is behind a petition calling for steeper parking in town, also including Anthony Valdes, Anthony DeFino, Doeinne Auriemma and Vipul Parekh. Auriemma and Parekh recently ran unsuccessfully for the school board, and Parekh frequently criticizes the current administration at board of commissioner meetings.

Western New York officials did not respond to Hudson Reporter requests for comments on the subject.

For updates on this story and others, visit www.hudsonreporter.com and follow us on Twitter @hudson_reporter. Daniel Israel can be reached at [email protected].

the United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsU.S. Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth ofCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People’s Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People’s Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory south of 60 degrees S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People’s Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People’s Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People’s Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People’s Republic ofchristmas islandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union ofCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People’s Republic ofthe cook islandsCosta Rica, Republic ofIvory Coast, Ivory Coast, Republic ofCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic ofGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadeGuadeloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, Revolutionary People’s Republic ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People’s RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran (Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofDemocratic People’s Republic of KoreaKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofRepublic of KyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People’s RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People’s Republic ofBurmaNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom ofNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic ofNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofnorfolk islandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauOccupied Palestinian TerritoryPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic ofPitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People’s RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPorto RicoQatar, State ofMeetingRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Republic of RwandaSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)Sloveniasolomon islandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSt. LUCIASaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic ofSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelaou Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandstuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Have you ever experienced something you couldn’t explain? I mean something that defies the rules of reality. The kind of thing that makes you question everything around you? I had a moment like this leaving work in the apartment building parking lot.

It was like a bug in matrix. I was blown away by what I saw and seriously just wanted to collapse into a fetal position. It made me numb and blew my mind.

Before telling you what happened, I want to make sure that we both agree on what a bug in the matrix means.

What is a bug in matrix sense?

I can honestly say that is exactly what happened to me. Here is my story.

A woman experiences a real glitch in the womb as she leaves a parking lot.

When I’m at work, I have to park at the very top of the parking lot on the sixth floor. As I was leaving work the other day, I passed a vehicle with its headlights on. The vehicle was a large white GMC Yukon Denali SUV.

I was afraid he wouldn’t see me and would start pulling back, so I slowed down and looked at the vehicle to see if the driver knew I was there. What I saw were two men in the SUV. The passenger had dark hair and a light-colored button-up shirt and the driver had light hair in a similar light-colored shirt. The driver had one leg in the SUV and one leg out of the SUV with the door open. I couldn’t tell if he was getting in or out of the vehicle.

As I slowly walked past, they both looked at me with no expression on their faces, no movement.

I kept circling around the levels of the parking lot until I approached the second floor. When I got around the corner, I saw the exact same vehicle with the exact same two men, doing the exact same things, wearing the exact same shirts.

There was no way they had passed me. There is no other way out or down in the parking lot. It was the same SUV, facing out, lights on, some passengers, same exact reaction, same parking space on a different floor. It was the exact same scene or vision I had on the second floor that I had on the fifth floor two minutes earlier.

Filled with confusion and disbelief, I slowed down to get a good look because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

I couldn’t understand. I could not understand. It was the craziest thing I’ve ever experienced or seen in my entire life, and I’ve seen some crazy stuff.

I saw things that I thought were ghostly apparitions. I heard inexplicable noises and saw things that looked like dead relatives waving at me. I even think I have seen a UFO before. I feel things and feel other people’s emotions and pain all the time. Like I said, I’ve been through some very crazy and inexplicable things.

All this is nothing compared to what I experienced in this parking lot.

To think that there might be some kind of glitch in the matrix of my own reality or your reality was too hard for me to comprehend. I try not to obsess over it. I try not to be obsessed with trying to figure it out and giving up. But, my need to try to find an answer to everything keeps me from accepting it as something strange.

Maybe in time I will, but for now I still carry this weird feeling.

The thought of another reality or an altered state is the subject of a documentary released last year.

Looked.

Have you ever experienced something like this? Have you encountered a problem in the matrix? Please let me know I am not alone. LOL

If so, let me know. Email me HERE.

Celebrities share their personal paranormal stories

READ MORE: Weird and wild UFO sightings throughout history

Beginning January 1, 2022, New York City requires garage owners to hire a specially designated professional engineer to perform an assessment and file a report at least once every six years.

Why does the City require parking inspections?

In 2018, New York State enacted a rule requiring periodic condition assessments, performed by a professional engineer, of all parking structures statewide – except in New York City. Exempt from state code, NYC has developed its own rules to keep garages and their outbuildings safe and well maintained. With the passage of Local Law 126 of 2021 and RCNY §103-13, NYC has codified the requirements of this ambitious safety initiative.

Who should carry out the inspection?

A Qualified Parking Structures Inspector (QPSI) must assess the garage and file the report. A licensed engineer with at least three years of parking structure experience, a QPSI earns New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) parking structure unit certification.

What is required?

Any motor vehicle parking/storage space, other than an unfenced outdoor lot, 1 or 2 car garage, service station or showroom, must be appraised by a QPSI certified.

1. Document review. The QPSI reviews previous reports, structural designs, repair drawings, violations, and other records.
2. Condition assessment. The QPSI designs an assessment program specific to the parking structure, based on construction type, age, exposure and other characteristics, as well as maintenance and repair history. The physical examination may include sounding, load testing, noninvasive scanning, and/or core extraction, in addition to visual inspection. When evaluating structural components, waterproofing, fireproofing, and wear surfaces, the QPSI may need to order additional inspections, probes, or tests to identify probable causes of observed defects.
3. Immediate response to hazardous conditions. Upon identifying an unsafe condition, the QPSI promptly notifies the owner and the DOB and advises on appropriate protective measures.
4. Documentation of deficiencies. Photos, sketches or other means are used to identify the location and extent of defects.
5. Annual observation checklist. When assessing condition, the QPSI creates a checklist with items to inspect on an annual basis, tailored to that specific garage.
6. The final inspection. In a comprehensive tour of each parking level, the QPSI verifies that the reported results reflect actual conditions.
7. Filing of report. According to a prescribed format, the QPSI prepares a compliance report with conclusions and recommendations, classifying the garage as safe, dangerous, Where “Safe with repairs and/or technical monitoring” (SREM). The report is filed with the DOB.

What should be included in the report?

According to the code, the report must contain:

• A summary of conclusions and recommendations.
• Classification as safe, SREM or dangerous.
• building address, Block and lot number, building identification number (BIN), landmark status and owner contact details.
• Description of the building, including size, dimensions, use, age, type of construction, materials and structural systems.
• Description of any distress, repair or modification.
• Procedures used in the evaluation of the conditions.
• Extent and location of physical examinations, contact details of the contractor, a diagram of the location and the date of the assessment.
• Description, classification and mapping of each significant condition, classifying each as Safe, SREM, or Not Secure.
• Recommendations for the protection of the public (Hazardous conditions).
• Photographs SREM and hazardous conditions, combined with location drawings, as well as photos of each elevation and parking level.
• Evaluation of guardrails and railings for positive security.
• Causes analysis observed SREM and hazardous conditions.
• maintenance work up-to-date and a maintenance plan.
• An annual observation checklist.
• Proposed Monitoring Program for SREM parking lots.
• Recommendations for repairs or maintenance.
• Time range by which repairs are to be made.
• Working license this may be necessary.
• Seal and signature of the supervising QPSI.

Reports describing the same condition at the same location as the SREM cannot be filed for two consecutive filing cycles. If a previous SREM condition remains uncorrected, the QPSI should classify the parking structure as unsafe.

What happens if there is a dangerous condition?

As soon as the QPSI reports an unsafe condition, the owner must take action to protect public safety. This may include cordoning off hazardous areas, erecting sheds and sidewalk fencing, installing safety nets, and starting repair and reinforcement work.

Unsafe conditions must be corrected within 90 days, unless the IQPS determines that it is not possible to do so and indicates a different time frame in the report. Any deviation from this deadline requires supporting documents justifying the change.

Within two weeks of completing the repairs, the QPSI must inspect the garage and file an amended report. The protective measures must remain in place until the report is accepted or the IQPS certifies that the conditions have been corrected and requests the withdrawal.

What about SREM terms?

All conditions described in the report as SREM must be corrected within the time frame recommended by QPSI. Requests for additional time must be accompanied by supporting documents from the IQPS justifying the new time limit.

Within three years of the initial filing, a QPSI must undertake another condition assessment and file an amended report, indicating the extent of ongoing monitoring, the status of conditions identified in the initial report as SREM, and the classification of any new conditions. Prior to the next rating cycle, all SREM conditions must be repaired, as they must be flagged as unsafe if not corrected.

When should reports be completed and filed?

Owners are required to file a report at least once every six years, in the staggered classification windows of the diagram. Reports must be filed within 60 days of the condition assessment.

If the garage is located in a building subject to the Facade Safety Inspection Program (FISP), the owner may choose to change the parking structure rating window to align with the FISP rating window . To do this, the owner must notify the date of birth at least 180 days before the end of the subcycle of the assigned parking structure.

Owners of new garages must maintain a QPSI to file a report six years after the first certificate of occupancy or, if this falls outside the applicable filing window, within the window of the next cycle.

In addition to required repairs, what should owners do between deposit cycles?

Each year, car parks must be subject to an “annual observation”, based on the checklist prepared by QPSI in the inspection report. The person performing the annual observation is responsible for informing the owner and the DOB of any potentially unsafe condition. Completed annual compliance checklists should be kept on file and made available to the DOB upon request.

What are the penalties for non-compliance?

Late filing carries a heavy penalty of $1,000 per month. Not filing at all earns an extra $5,000 per year, in addition to the late payment penalty of $1,000 per month. Unsafe conditions not corrected within 90 days result in a penalty of $1,000 per month until the condition is corrected and an amended report is filed (unless an extension has been granted). If an owner lets an SREM condition languish and become unsafe in the next cycle, they will face a $2,000 penalty, plus risk further penalties if the condition continues unresolved.

Waivers may be requested where a change in ownership, state of emergency, bankruptcy or demolition prevents compliance.

What is the main takeaway?

If you own a parking structure west or south of Central Park in Manhattan, you need to take immediate action. Garage owners in these districts only have until December 2023 to retain one of the few professional engineers currently certified by the NYC Department of Buildings as a QPSI, then to schedule the inspection and allow time for the QPSI to submit a compliance report.

Garage owners in Upper Manhattan and Brooklyn don’t have much time to waste either, with those districts’ filing period opening in 2024. For all the parking lot owners in the city, it doesn’t hurt plan ahead, as the demand for limited QPSI resources and looming deadlines will likely lead to a last-minute scramble to meet inspection and filing requirements.

Resources

NYC Building Parking Structures Resource Page

Local Law 126 of 2021 – see section 323, p. 229-232

RCNY §103-13: Periodic Inspection of Parking Structures

Hoffmann Architects + Engineers was among the first to have a certified QPSI. We are one of the few currently licensed to perform parking garage inspections under NYC Local Law 126.

Contact us at (212) 789-9915 or hoffarch.com/contact-us.

The material provided is for informational purposes. Before acting, consult a design professional.

Download a PDF of this newsletter here.

Beginning January 1, 2022, New York City requires garage owners to hire a specially designated professional engineer to perform an assessment and file a report at least once every six years.

Why does the City require parking inspections?

In 2018, New York State enacted a rule requiring periodic condition assessments, performed by a professional engineer, of all parking structures statewide – except in New York City. Exempt from state code, NYC has developed its own rules to keep garages and their outbuildings safe and well maintained. With the passage of Local Law 126 of 2021 and RCNY §103-13, NYC has codified the requirements of this ambitious safety initiative.

Who should perform the inspection?

A Qualified Parking Structures Inspector (QPSI) must assess the garage and file the report. A licensed engineer with at least three years of parking structure experience, a QPSI earns New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) parking structure unit certification.

What is required?

Any motor vehicle parking/storage space, other than an unfenced outdoor lot, 1 or 2 car garage, service station or showroom, must be appraised by a QPSI certified.

1. Document review. The QPSI reviews previous reports, structural designs, repair drawings, violations, and other records.
2. Condition assessment. The QPSI designs an assessment program specific to the parking structure, based on construction type, age, exposure and other characteristics, as well as maintenance and repair history. The physical examination may include sounding, load testing, noninvasive scanning, and/or core extraction, in addition to visual inspection. When evaluating structural components, waterproofing, fireproofing, and wear surfaces, the QPSI may need to order additional inspections, probes, or tests to identify probable causes of observed defects.
3. Immediate response to hazardous conditions. Upon identifying an unsafe condition, the QPSI promptly notifies the owner and the DOB and advises on appropriate protective measures.
4. Documentation of deficiencies. Photos, sketches or other means are used to identify the location and extent of defects.
5. Annual observation checklist. When assessing condition, the QPSI creates a checklist with items to inspect on an annual basis, tailored to that specific garage.
6. The final inspection. In a comprehensive tour of each parking level, the QPSI verifies that the reported results reflect actual conditions.
7. Filing of report. According to a prescribed format, the QPSI prepares a compliance report with conclusions and recommendations, classifying the garage as safe, dangerous, Where “Safe with repairs and/or technical monitoring” (SREM). The report is filed with the DOB.

What should be included in the report?

According to the code, the report must contain:

• A summary of conclusions and recommendations.
• Classification as safe, SREM or dangerous.
• building address, Block and lot number, building identification number (BIN), landmark status and owner contact details.
• Description of the building, including size, dimensions, use, age, type of construction, materials and structural systems.
• Description of any distress, repair or modification.
• Procedures used in the evaluation of the conditions.
• Extent and location of physical examinations, contact details of the contractor, a diagram of the location and the date of the assessment.
• Description, classification and mapping of each significant condition, classifying each as Safe, SREM, or Not Secure.
• Recommendations for the protection of the public (Hazardous conditions).
• Photographs SREM and hazardous conditions, combined with location drawings, as well as photos of each elevation and parking level.
• Evaluation of guardrails and railings for positive security.
• Causes analysis observed SREM and hazardous conditions.
• maintenance work up-to-date and a maintenance plan.
• An annual observation checklist.
• Proposed Monitoring Program for SREM parking lots.
• Recommendations for repairs or maintenance.
• Time range by which repairs are to be made.
• Working license this may be necessary.
• Seal and signature of the supervising QPSI.

Reports describing the same condition at the same location as the SREM cannot be filed for two consecutive filing cycles. If a previous SREM condition remains uncorrected, the QPSI should classify the parking structure as unsafe.

What happens if there is a dangerous condition?

As soon as the QPSI reports an unsafe condition, the owner must take action to protect public safety. This may include cordoning off hazardous areas, erecting sheds and sidewalk fencing, installing safety nets, and starting repair and reinforcement work.

Unsafe conditions must be corrected within 90 days, unless the IQPS determines that it is not possible to do so and indicates a different time frame in the report. Any deviation from this deadline requires supporting documents justifying the change.

Within two weeks of completing the repairs, the QPSI must inspect the garage and file an amended report. The protective measures must remain in place until the report is accepted or the IQPS certifies that the conditions have been corrected and requests the removal.

What about SREM terms?

All conditions described in the report as SREM must be corrected within the time frame recommended by QPSI. Requests for additional time must be accompanied by supporting documents from the IQPS justifying the new time limit.

Within three years of the initial filing, a QPSI must undertake another condition assessment and file an amended report, indicating the extent of ongoing monitoring, the status of conditions identified in the initial report as SREM, and the classification of any new conditions. Prior to the next rating cycle, all SREM conditions must be repaired, as they must be flagged as unsafe if not corrected.

When should reports be completed and filed?

Owners are required to file a report at least once every six years, in the staggered classification windows of the scheme. Reports must be filed within 60 days of the condition assessment.

If the garage is located in a building subject to the Facade Safety Inspection Program (FISP), the owner may choose to change the parking structure rating window to align with the FISP rating window . To do this, the owner must notify the date of birth at least 180 days before the end of the subcycle of the assigned parking structure.

Owners of new garages must maintain a QPSI to file a report six years after the first certificate of occupancy or, if this falls outside the applicable filing window, within the window of the next cycle.

In addition to required repairs, what should owners do between deposit cycles?

Each year, car parks must be subject to an “annual observation”, based on the checklist prepared by QPSI in the inspection report. The person performing the annual observation is responsible for informing the owner and the DOB of any potentially unsafe condition. Completed annual compliance checklists should be kept on file and made available to the DOB upon request.

What are the penalties for non-compliance?

Late filing carries a heavy penalty of $1,000 per month. Not filing at all earns an extra $5,000 per year, in addition to the late payment penalty of $1,000 per month. Unsafe conditions not corrected within 90 days result in a penalty of $1,000 per month until the condition is corrected and an amended report is filed (unless an extension has been granted). If an owner lets an SREM condition languish and become unsafe in the next cycle, they will face a $2,000 penalty, plus risk further penalties if the condition continues unresolved.

Waivers may be requested where a change in ownership, state of emergency, bankruptcy or demolition prevents compliance.

What is the main takeaway?

If you own a parking structure west or south of Central Park in Manhattan, you need to take immediate action. Garage owners in these districts only have until December 2023 to retain one of the few professional engineers currently certified by the NYC Department of Buildings as a QPSI, then to schedule the inspection and allow time for the QPSI to submit a compliance report.

Garage owners in Upper Manhattan and Brooklyn don’t have much time to waste either, with those districts’ filing period opening in 2024. For all the parking lot owners in the city, it doesn’t hurt plan ahead, as the demand for limited QPSI resources and looming deadlines will likely lead to a last-minute scramble to meet inspection and filing requirements.

Resources

NYC Building Parking Structures Resource Page

Local Law 126 of 2021 – see section 323, p. 229-232

RCNY §103-13: Periodic Inspection of Parking Structures

Hoffmann Architects + Engineers was among the first to have a certified QPSI. We are one of the few currently licensed to perform parking garage inspections under NYC Local Law 126.

Contact us at (212) 789-9915 or hoffarch.com/contact-us.

The material provided is for informational purposes. Before acting, consult a design professional.

Download a PDF of this newsletter here.

Posted on: October 11, 2022, 08:54h.

Last update on: October 11, 2022, 08:54h.

Several vehicles in the Foxwoods Resort Casino parking lot in Connecticut caught fire late Tuesday afternoon. There do not appear to have been any injuries. But vehicles were probably damaged by the flames.

It is not known what caused the fire. Staff from a local fire marshal’s office were investigating its origin on Tuesday evening.

Firefighters were able to extinguish the blaze in about 40 to 45 minutes, Mashantucket Pequot Fire Department Chief Floyd Chaney said. The daya local newspaper.

Several garage floors temporarily closed

Several levels of the garage were closed until the fire was brought under control. Foxwoods officials wanted to keep visitors and employees away from areas where there was a risk of danger.

Several local fire departments responded to the garage fire as part of a mutual aid agreement.

Firefighters arrived on the fire around 4 p.m. At 5:29 p.m., firefighters from one of the response services, the Ledyard Fire Company, left the casino complex.

Foxwoods Resort Casino is owned and operated by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. It is located in Ledyard, Conn. The casino is approximately 47 miles southeast of Hartford, Conn.

Previous casino fires

Casinos in other states have also recently experienced fires. For example, in May, a fire broke out in a computer room at the Bay Mills Resort & Casino in Michigan. This led to the tribal gaming property being closed for several days.

The fire caused smoke coming from the ceiling. Major internal systems were damaged.

The fire broke out in a computer room on the first floor. The sprinklers have been activated. The fire was largely extinguished by water from sprinklers.

The gambling property is located in Brimley, Michigan. It is owned and operated by the Bay Mills Indian community.

Also, in April, a Bridger, Mont. a fire killed two people at the Honest Toms Saloon & Casino. The Honest Toms fire found Marla Murray, 71, and John Ahles, 33, inside the building. Both were deceased.

Murray was an employee and she was working at the time. Ahles also worked at the casino. But he was off duty that night, MTN Newsa regional news site, said.

Authorities believe the fire was suspicious and an investigation has focused on a possible homicide. The casino has closed.

A proposal to build an eight-story, $9.2 million parking garage with 78 multi-family units and commercial space moves forward in Kalispell after City Council Oct. 3 approved multiple resolutions and a conditional use permit who will support the project, despite the opposition of some residents and merchants.

The board passed a developer agreement and transfer of two city-owned properties on Third Street West and Main Street and the southeast corner of First Street West and First Avenue West to the developer, Montana Hotel Development Partners LLC. He also approved a lease of a parking structure and a conditional use permit that will allow the height of the parking garage to exceed 60 feet.

In an 8-to-1 vote, the Developer’s Agreement and the two Land Transfer Resolutions passed with Councilman Ryan Hunter in opposition. The conditional use permit and the rental contract are adopted unanimously.

The 242-space parking structure will be built in the Eagles’ current parking lot at the southeast corner of West First Street and West First Avenue, part of a multimillion-dollar project by 86,000 square feet called Charles Hotel. which will be built at the corner of Third Street West and Main Street.

The hotel will generate significant tax revenue for the city. While the parking lot will be fully funded and built by the developer, the city will reimburse the cost of the properties using TIF funds generated from hotel revenue.

Although nearly all Councilors supported the project, Councilor Hunter did not support the details of the developer agreement or the land transfers.

“I could support a developer deal, having a new hotel and downtown accommodations is great, but I just can’t support this developer deal because of the amount of unnecessary government subsidies given to the developer,” said Hunter.

Several members of the public, including residents, business owners and employees of nonprofit organizations, spoke out against the project, who said the proposal was rushed, there was little public involvement and that the architectural design would ruin the historic character of Kalispell. Many were also concerned that the additional density of hotels and housing would reduce total parking, despite the addition of the parking garage.

Employees of the Community Action Partnership of Northwest Montana (CAPNM) said the construction of the Charles Hotel, which is near the nonprofit, will disrupt services and leave staff and guests nowhere to go. to park.

“We operate a large number of services, we serve more than 5,000 households a year, and many households are disabled and disabled or elderly,” said CAPNM Executive Director Tracy Diaz. “We will lose our disabled parking spaces to the Charles during construction.”

Diaz was also frustrated because she said CAPNM “was never part of the discussion.”

Bill Goldberg, owner of Compass Construction and one of the development partners of Montana Hotel Developers, applauded city staff for their work on the public-private partnership and reiterated that the public has many opportunities to participate in discussions. since the proposal was submitted to the city last year.

“You’ve had these meetings for a while now and hearing some people say they weren’t invited to the meetings shocked me,” Goldberg said.

“It’s an open door,” he added. “Yes, I have a direct interest for my project and for my investors but it is also for the city of Kalispell. The platform has been established for quite some time to have these discussions. We opened the door several times for several groups.

Other members of the public criticized the design of the parking garage.

“Eight stories taller than any other downtown structure and doesn’t match the character of downtown,” said John Hinchey, a Kalispell resident who has restored historic buildings in the city.

“I am also opposed to the use of TIF funds for the benefit of a private developer,” he added.

Principal Planner PJ Sorensen said that although the site is located in the downtown historic district, it is outside the Main Street Historic District and said the design meets architectural review standards.

Boise firefighters extinguished a car fire Thursday night after receiving reports of a structural fire at the CW Moore Apartments building in downtown Boise.

Three fire engines and emergency medical crews were on scene at 5th and Main streets shortly after the blaze was reported around 5:30 p.m. The Boise Fire Department evacuated residents, found the problem and extinguished the fire within an hour.

Boise Fire Captain Chris Campbell said there were no injuries. He told the Idaho Statesman that an investigation is ongoing and the cause of the car fire is still unknown.

“We are trying to get in touch with the owner. It was an older model Buick sedan,” Campbell said.

Richard Peebly, a resident of the CW Moore Apartments, said he left his residence as soon as he smelled burning rubber and saw smoke outside his window.

“We were upstairs and saw firefighters going door to door, so I grabbed my cats and ran outside,” Peebly said.

Through a public-private partnership between the City of Kalispell and local developers, a proposed $9.2 million eight-story public parking lot that would include 78 multi-family units and 6,200 square feet of commercial space continues to see changes as he works his way through the city council.

If approved, the parking structure will be built on the existing Eagles parking lot property at the southeast corner of First Street West and First Avenue West, which is owned by the City, and will require a transfer of property on which the city council voted after the Beacon was printed on October 3.

Initially, the parking lot was to remain the property of the city, but following changes over the past few months, the development company, Montana Hotel Development Partners, has offered to take ownership of the structure. With the transfer of ownership, the city will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of the garage.

The development of the parking structure is part of a multi-million dollar project in the city called the Charles Hotel, which as proposed is an 86,000 square foot boutique hotel at the corner of Third Street West and Main Street and will generate significant tax revenue. for the city.

While the parking lot will be fully funded and built by the developer, the city is offering to reimburse the cost of the property using TIF funds generated from hotel revenue.

The Charles Hotel and Eagles lot development projects were formally presented to Kalispell City Council last year as part of the Town Center Urban Renewal Plan. In December 2020, city staff announced a request for proposals (RFP) to develop the city parking lot as an avenue to encourage downtown development while adding more parking spaces to the city. After the July 2021 deadline, Montana Hotel Development Partners submitted the only proposal.

“That was the vision set out in the Town Center Urban Renewal Plan,” Kalispell Development Services Director Jarod Nygren told a town council business session in September. “This particular developer brought it to light. I don’t think anyone could have imagined exactly what would happen, but definitely when you start talking about funding parking, you have to get creative. »

Since the company’s original proposal, several changes have been added to the projects, including the transfer of the Eagles lot to private ownership, the addition of a housing component, and the application for a conditional use permit to allow to the height of the building to be greater than 60 feet.

“There have been some changes related to private development funding, which was a requirement of this initial project,” City Manager Doug Russell said. “But without ownership, it was difficult to get funding tied to that.”

Since the parking garage will likely become private property, the city is no longer required to manage or maintain the facility. The developers plan to lease 90 private parking spaces to generate revenue for maintenance.

“It’s no longer a burden on the city,” Russell said. “The changes that are being made make it a better project than what was put on those early development agreements.”

The project has drawn fierce criticism from members of the public and some councillors, who say the project developers should have been more transparent while giving more opportunities for the public to have a say in the parking aspect.

Some local business owners are concerned that the 242-space car park is not managed to meet parking needs for the general public.

“If you look at the lease as it’s currently written, it says there will be public parking, but there’s no guarantee that they will or how it’s going to be administered,” said the owner of the Kalispell Grand Hotel, John Barr. “There needs to be parking provided for all business customers in Kalispell town center or it won’t work. No one will invest money in downtown Kalispell if you don’t have parking.

City staff reiterated that the parking garage would be public and while details surrounding public and private spaces have yet to be determined, the facility would provide additional parking for the city that would not otherwise be possible.

“The parking structure wouldn’t exist without private development,” Russell said.

After hearing several comments from 11 a.m. that the eight-story building goes against the historic character of the area, Kalispell City Council reached the agreement on a parking lot for the town center on Monday.

The Board approved a slate of agreements with Montana Hotel Development Partners for the parking garage which also includes commercial space and multi-family housing, and approved the associated transfer of a lot to the same company for construction of the Charles hotel.

Prior to the votes, Council heard from about a dozen people expressing concerns about the parking garage proposal, which has been under discussion for several months. Some expressed concern about the parking being moved during construction while others said they were not in favor of including market priced accommodation, but the main objection came from the overall height of the building eight floors.

John Hinchey, who has restored several downtown buildings, said the parking lot exceeds the height of any structure in the neighborhood and is very different from the originally proposed four-story building which only provided parking.

“I’m not opposed to the original four-story parking garage, but I’m opposed to the eight-story residential building,” he said.

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead told the Council that it would be in Kalispell’s interest to keep the four-storey building.

“Deny [this] will tell those who have invested in historic downtown Kalispell and those who may choose to invest in downtown Kalispell in the future that while building density…may be appropriate in other areas of our community that the downtown historic area is an area where out-of-scale and unnecessary height requests will not be accommodated,” she said.

Laura Reynolds questioned the use of municipal tax increase (TIF) funding funds to reimburse the city for the cost of the land transferred to the developer for the garage and hotel, and the $9.2 million in TIF dollars intended for the construction of the car park.

“It seems like the cost of this project is too high – the land donation, plus the TIF, plus the destroyed historic character of the downtown core, plus the outraged neighbors and outraged public, it all seems like too much of a cost,” she says.

STILL COUNCIL has approved several agreements with Montana Hotel Development Partners to transform the parking lot at First Street West and First Avenue West into a 240-space parking lot, as well as 6,200 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The project also includes 78 residential units on the upper four floors.

Council has also approved a conditional use permit for the parking garage and this will allow the building to be built over 60 feet in height. The building is planned to be 88 feet tall.

He also approved the transfer of city-owned land at Third Street West and Main Street to developers for construction of the Charles Hotel.

Councilor Sid Daoud said the project is doing a good job using TIF funds to revitalize the town centre.

“I’m in favor of this because it converts government parking lots that waste us money into entities that are going to fuel the economy,” he said.

Many housing projects come to council and are criticized because people don’t want them in their own neighborhood, he added.

“We have a huge need for housing,” Daoud said. “It may not be low income or low labor, but every available unit helps solve our overall housing problem. The housing component is amazing that the developer put it in there. “

Councilor Ryan Hunter, who voted against several agreements, again expressed his displeasure with parts of the project.

“Having parking and housing downtown is good, but I just can’t support this development because of the amount of public subsidies going into it,” he said.

Several councilors said the height of the building provides an advantage to the city by keeping development at the core and helping to reduce urban sprawl.

The projects resulted from a city request for proposals to redevelop the Main Street lot. Developers submitted plans for the Charles Hotel for the land and since the hotel requires valet parking, the company also proposed building a parking lot approximately two blocks north of First Avenue West and First West Street.

Earlier this year, developers returned with a modification to the parking garage seeking to add accommodation to the project.

The city is ready to reimburse the developer for the construction of the public car park from the TIF funds generated by the Charles Hotel and the development of the car park.

The parking garage will be owned and operated by the developer, but leased to the city.

As part of the parking agreement, the developer will be required to provide a first right of refusal to current parking permit holders for parking in the garage.

Council also approved a resolution that temporarily removes the two-hour parking restrictions on Second Street and Fourth Street in effect when parking permit holders are relocated due to garage and hotel construction.

Managing Editor Heidi Desch can be reached at 758-4421 or [email protected].

PITTSFIELD — In the back of the McKay Street parking garage, you might find a few firefighters hanging around Tuesday morning…literally.

Hanging from bungee cords and harnesses that stretch over the side of the building at 55 Depot St., they practice rescue efforts to help them rescue someone from a ledge, a tight spot or a deep hole. Somehow they are learning the ropes now.

About 30 firefighters from four counties and 20 departments in western Massachusetts participated in the training, including the Pittsfield and North Adams Fire Departments. The members present are part of the Western Massachusetts Technical Rescue Team, a regional group of firefighters trained and equipped for rescue efforts.

This is one of their monthly trainings, each focusing on a different rescue scenario or skill. Their job is to prepare for “low frequency, high risk” scenarios. Part of this includes preparing to use new equipment, such as harnesses and ropes, provided by Department of Homeland Security grants.

Daryl Springman, director of the Western Massachusetts Technical Rescue Team, said the team chose the McKay Street parking lot to practice high-angle rope techniques.

“This location was ideal for us because we can easily walk up and quickly get people to each position,” Springman said.

“Each post” means having firefighters stationed on the upper floors of the parking lot, all the way to the fourth floor, guiding each other through simulated rescues. One member of the team will deposit in “the basket”, a titanium stretcher for the vertical transport of patients which can be attached to a system of pulleys, while another serves as a “dustbin”.

The litter assistant’s job is to keep the patient calm and help maneuver the basket around any obstacles as they ascend the structure. In one exercise, they strive to keep the basket – and the patient – horizontal as they climb. In another, they are preparing to move it into tight spaces.

The technical rescue team remains ready for any “large-scale incident,” Springman said. This means preparation for rescue from water, trenches, tightly confined spaces, towers and structural collapse.

A basic skill for any situation, however, is rope handling. Working out in the McKay Street parking lot might not look the same as working out on a skyscraper, but functionally it’s more similar than you might think.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s 20 feet or 100 feet, the technique is always the same,” Springman said.

The team also provided training on wind turbines in Florida, Becket’s Quarries, and campus buildings at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Ultimately, the training helps prepare firefighters for the real world. With this knowledge and practice, helping to guide those they rescue through the event goes hand in hand.

“Our members being very proficient in their skills instills confidence in our patients that we are going to get them out safely,” Springman said.

Several votes surrounding a planned downtown parking lot are heading to Kalispell City Council on Monday evening.

The city is seeking to enter into agreements with Montana Hotel Development Partners to convert a parking lot at First Street West and First Avenue West into a parking lot with commercial space. The project includes multi-family housing.

The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 201 First Avenue East.

Council is also set to vote on transferring city-owned land at Third Street West and Main to developers for construction of the Charles Hotel.

The projects stem from a city request for proposals to redevelop the Main Street lot. Developers submitted plans for the Charles Hotel for the land and since the hotel requires valet parking, the company also proposed building a parking lot about two blocks north on First Avenue West and First West Street. The hotel project requires the provision of parking at its request for 90 places.

The parking garage is expected to have approximately 240 parking spaces on four levels with 6,200 square feet of commercial use on the ground floor. Seventy-eight apartments are planned on the upper floors.

The city proposes to reimburse the developer for the construction of the public parking lot from the tax increase financing funds generated by the Charles Hotel and the development of the parking lot.

The parking component of the project is estimated at $9.2 million. The parking garage will be owned and operated by the developer, but leased to the city.

Council will need to approve the public parking lot development agreement, the public parking structure rental agreement and the land transfer.

In addition, council will vote on an application for a conditional use permit for the parking structure and for an additional height of more than 60 feet for the building. The city has no height limit, but any building over 60 feet requires a CUP.

It is proposed that the parking garage be eight stories or approximately 88 feet high.

In a related move, Council is set to consider a resolution that would temporarily remove two-hour parking restrictions on Second Street and Fourth Street effective when parking permit holders are moved due to construction on the garage and hotel parking lots.

AFTER A LOT debate, Council is finally set to vote on a plan that would open up tax-increase financing (TIF) funds to be made available for projects with workforce housing.

Kalispell plans to update two of its urban renewal plans to allow TIF funds to go to housing projects. Developers could apply for funds to help with labor housing for households earning between 80% and 120% of the region’s average median income.

Currently, a developer could ask the city to have TIF funds directed toward a project’s infrastructure costs, but the change would allow a developer to apply for funds specifically to reduce the cost of rent.

In previous discussions, the Board was split on the issue, with some wanting broader revenue guidance, while others said the change was unnecessary. Last month, Council heard from experts on affordable housing. They told the Council that more help is needed for those earning less than 80% and encouraged the Council to look further into issues surrounding housing.

Now City Manager Doug Russell and Director of Developmental Services Jarod Nygren are recommending that council scrap the changes. In a memo to Council, they note that several comments were received centered on housing affordability issues in the Valley as a whole, but there were no comments in support of the changes currently proposed.

“With the conflict demonstrated and the opinions that have emerged by simply proposing and discussing this amendment, moving forward with the proposal or iterations of the proposal would likely facilitate further unnecessary conflict,” the memo reads. “As such, the recommendation is to suspend discussion of this topic until there is further agreement on the variables and appropriate uses around the provision of tax increment funding in a respective county.”

ALSO ON on the agenda, the council will study two annexation requests for properties wishing to be connected to municipal services.

Loucas Scholer and Sarah Russell are asking to annex two separate but adjacent properties at 2150 and 2152 Airport Road to allow the properties to connect to city water due to a failing well.

Green Acres Cooperative applied to annex the property at 171 South Woodland Drive for the mobile home community. Most of the 32 mobile homes on the property are already connected to the city sewer, and the annexation allows the remaining homes to connect, as well as improving the sewer infrastructure currently serving the site.

Spartan Holdings has submitted a final approval request for Eagle Valley Ranch Phases 2 and 3. The phases contain 67 single-family lots, two multi-family lots and 14 office lots. The subdivision is generally located along US 93 south of the Ponderosa residential subdivision, east of the Northern Pines Golf Course, and north of the Montana National Guard facilities.

Council approved the preliminary flat for the development in February 2019.

Managing Editor Heidi Desch can be reached at 758-4421 or [email protected].