By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — Representative Town Meeting members on Wednesday afternoon again visited Jesup Green to get a hands-on look at how a multi-phase plan to remake downtown parking might affect it.
In play are what open areas would be paved over, perhaps replaced later with greenspace closer to the river, and trees lost or transplanted. All to replace some 40 spaces lost in the Parker Harding Plaza redesign, across the Post Road.
The uphill third of the green and several trees, some of them tall and mature, would be felled or relocated to make way for a terraced parking area.
All that would be to make up for the lost parking spaces updating Parker Harding Plaza to comply with current engineering/safety standards.
The question before the RTM is whether to approve the administration’s request for $630,000 from American Rescue Plan Act funding the town got from the federal government to pay for a redesign of the Jesup and Imperial Avenue parking lots.
If funding is denied, it appears the whole project would be dead in the water.
More than half the RTM and several other people had attended a field trip to the green two days earlier, and there were many questions, and lots of discussions with many people talking at once.
Public Works Director Peter Ratkiewich brushed back some questions Monday, and again Wednesday with a smaller group, reminding people he saw the site visit as an informational gathering, not a public hearing to debate policy.
Ratkiewich referred attendees with questions about the trees that would be lost or moved to a report by the tree warden, on the town’s website for the Planning and Zoning Commission’s previously approved applications. That report is here.
Differing opinions from some of the town’s Tree Board were expressed at another meeting.
The question of building a parking deck at the Baldwin Lot off Elm Street, in years past reviled by many as too urban but revived by many in recent discussions, was raised by someone attending Wednesday’s field trip.
“That was a recommendation attached to the 8-24s,” Ratkiewich said. “It’s not binding.”
“Can you confirm that that is going to be part of the [$630,000 ARPA appropriation] that we’re going to be actually going to use some of that evaluate structured parking?” RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser asked. “I think that’s a really important point of overall review as a plan.”
Ratkiewich said that within the $630,000 request filed with the RTM for the ARPA-funded design work, “there is a contingency within the fund request.”
“And we feel that there’s probably enough that we can do that fund analysis,” Ratkiewich said. “We may have to supplement it with some in-house work, but we can do that analysis.”
“And a strong endorsement from the RTM in our conversation would help that happen?” Wieser asked.
“Certainly,” Ratkiewich replied.
That appears more of a spoon-full-of-sugar talking point than real-time possibility to stop an impending, drastic alteration of the town green many longtime Westporters view as sacred.
First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker attended both field trips.
She stayed on the sidelines Monday but weighed in Wednesday.
“The reason why the timing of evaluating the parking structure should happen now, and not should have happened before is because we’re evaluating whether or not the police station stays,” Tooker said, referring to a potential phase 3, when the town’s emergency services are consolidated somewhere other than Jesup Road.
“So, it would really be not good policy or strategy to make a decision on a parking structure for however many million dollars and for however much controversy before we make a decision on the police station,” Tooker said.
“That’s why these appropriations came before you at exactly the same time,” Tooker said. “We’re pushing the evaluation of a joint public protection facility and pushing evaluation of the rest of parking plus a parking structure at the same time, from a strategic standpoint. This is very strategic, very purposeful.”
The $630,000 parking lot design request is the tenth item on a very long RTM agenda, leading off with a vote on the 2024-25 town budget, which the body will take up as time permits over the course of May 6-8.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 36 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
This appropriation will be discussed on Tuesday May 7 as item #2, immediately following the Board of Education budget. We will not begin the discussion before 8:30 pm, and it is expected not to be much later.
At the last RTM meeting, an overwhelming majority of the RTM voted to move the Jesup/$630K appropriation discussion to Wednesday May 8th. This was to avoid adding this controversial item to the annual education budget meeting. Moderator Wieser chose to ignore that vote and instead put the Jesup /$630K appropriation item at the end of a very long RTM agenda (that extends over three days). Clearly this makes it extremely difficult for the public to know when to attend (despite Moderator Wieser’s efforts try to gage the timing). Putting controversial items at the end of long meeting agendas is a known tactic for squelching public input. The Moderator should have honored the vote of the full RTM and respected the best interest of the public by setting aside May 8th – or any other day separate from the annual budget meeting – to hold this important debate and vote.
The public agenda does not indicate that. Please update the public postings. it is very confusing as it stands now.
In addition, there is so much “if, then…” NON BINDING CONDITIONS baked into these plans that heads are spinning. It seems to be purposeful chaos. Please do not add another “if, then…” condition regarding Baldwin. The plan on the table is solely forPhase 2 Jesup/Imperial, and only Phase 2 portion of those areas, according to the Public Works Director.
My request is to simplify, not obfuscate. Put Baldwin on deck as a first step assessment … yay or nay …. before anything else is further considered.
NON BINDING CONDITIONS are merely PR tools. Those executing plans, such as this one (see quote in article above) or the LLSBC regarding athletic fields, laugh as they emphasize NONBINDING when asked about such conditions. They are meaningless.
It appears to me, based on Attorney Evan Barr’s insightful post, the RTM needs a legal verification as to whether or not the Town is permitted by federal law to use $630K of ARPA funds for this project, long before they even consider calling for a vote.
Is it likely the Treasury Department will claw back the $400,000 already spent on a non-ARPA acceptable;e project?
HEAVE HO
That is what this amounts to !
The meeting being saddled onto the budget “purposely” to discourage the public from going by virtue of its lateness, AND. The rtm overwhelmingly already voted to keep the meeting seperate.
All conveniently being ignored by the moderator who oversteps his authority constantly, but somehow gets away with it.
And in getting away with all the horrendous charter violations appears bolder every time.
The moderator is very clearly and desperately attempting to sabotage any semblance of this meeting and the issue being dealt with in the correct manner.
The charade and theatrics between himself and Pete ratkiewich attempting to completely and utterly give Rtm’ers, who may be undecided an “excuse” or a get out of jail free card to go back to the public and say a parking deck study might be part of this appropriation is entirely disingenuous and was not what the BOF or other boards understood when they voted.
NEWS FLASH – this package was set when it went to BOF.
This is skullduggery of the highest order, and the moderator is flagrantly mis interpreting the charter intentionally and serving not his electors but the administrations determination to run rough shod over this town with an overwhelmingly unpopular plan ( to say the least) it has virtually zero support.
And I have yet to hear but a teeny tiny section of croneys who believe jesup green should be torn asunder.
The rtm must answer to those who elected them in this decision, like it or not. That is their job !
In fact anybody who votes for this appropriation clearly does not care about this town, its traditions, its town green, what it means as a gathering place for decades.
The facts are indisputable.
It is an incredibly black and white vote.
I have yet to speak with anybody who agrees that jesup green should be torn apart !
Not one single person.
This meeting should be held on the 8th of May as was the case, and the facts of this appropriation should be discussed subject to the board of finance package.
Not a singular mention in there of a parking deck.
ARPA funds are also not appropriate for this. As outlined by Attorney Barr in this opinion piece.
https://06880danwoog.com/2024/05/01/opinion-arpa-funds-cant-be-used-for-parking-redesign/?noamp=mobile#comments
This parking plan is a “heave ho” against a public who do not want it.
Quite literally 99.9% of this town do NOT want this ludicrous plan.
The job of the RTM is to vote accordingly.
i am fairly confident that our Town leadership silently understands that using the ARPA pandemic relief subsidies to fund these kinds of Pandemic Unrelated projects is simply inappropriate. Not only does this violate the usage rules, but it violates the spirit of its purpose. I imagine there is ethical wiggling going on in an attempt at justification.
As I read the updated publication provided by Attorney Barr, it appears that being under $1 million means that the administration need not provide project justification to the Treasury Department. If so, the strategy might be to try and “fly below the radar” with the likelihood of not getting caught. Very bad gamble – particularly for another controversial project with so much public opposition. Risky for officials to engage in after being forewarned of such misuse of Federal funds.
A Treasury Department audit will certainly be invited. AND when a recoupment and remediation mandate gets issued – because it’s uncovered that the administration of an affluent Town knowingly decided to “game the system” to fund a discretionary project that was wholly unrelated to the taxpayer relief intended for those who actually suffered adverse health consequences and economic hardships – imagine (to borrow the recent words of a prominent Westport official) the “Unfortunate Publicity for Westport “.
Why does this administration and its minions choose to invite so much “Unfortunate Publicity for Westport”.