By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT — A $26,000 contract to promote “public engagement” on solving downtown parking problems won Board of Selectwomen approval Wednesday, but not before questions were raised about why the program is scheduled to end before a study on the feasibility of building a parking structure is complete.
The parking structure analysis should be finished before the public is asked to weigh in on solutions to downtown’s chronic parking problems, Selectwoman Candice Savin and two Representative Town Meeting members contended.
“I’m asking that this be postponed until a later date,” Jennifer Johnson, a District 9 RTM member, said of the contract awarded to Colliers Engineering and Design to collect public opinion about Westport’s parking issues. “We need to have a holistic picture that will be informed by that parking deck study.”
Savin agreed, saying it would be beneficial to have information from the parking structure analysis before the public is surveyed.
“You’re saying no matter what that parking study recommends, you don’t see it as having any bearing” on what solutions the public might suggest, Savin said to Public Works Director Peter Ratkiewich, who presented the contract proposal to the selectwomen.
“It’s apples and oranges,” Ratkiewich responded. “I don’t see the parking deck analysis having an effect on Jessup Green or the Imperial lot.”
The Downtown Plan Implementation Committee issued “Request for Proposals” bid documents for both projects this month: one for the public opinion survey, awarded to Colliers, and another to analyze whether and where a parking structure might be built.
Colliers was the lone bidder for the public opinion project, but was approved by the selectwomen because of the low cost bid for the job, the reputation of the company and the town’s experience with the firm’s work on school projects, officials said.
The RFP to analyze three possible locations for a parking structure was issued Aug. 14 and responses are due by Sept 5. The final report analyzing parking structure locations is to be filed by Nov. 15, according to terms of the bid.
Colliers will begin the public engagement project soon, Ratkiewich said, and steps include:
- Meet with key stakeholders.
- Hold a “charrette,” or public forum, to display possible concepts and gather opinions.
- Use the results of the meetings with stakeholders and the public “to inform conceptual designs.”
- Go back to the public for reaction to conceptual designs.
In addition to questions about the scheduling of the public engagement and parking structure studies, other complaints about DPIC’s planning process were aired by RTM members at the meeting.
Sal Liccione, a District 9 member, called for new leadership of DPIC because, he said, merchants were not involved in earlier phases of the committee’s planning.
Johnson complained the bidding process for the public engagement program took place in a quiet summertime period and, as a result, attracted only one bid. She also said the public needs more information about planning and development stages for downtown projects.
“This is very confusing” she said, “and it shouldn’t be.”
Despite those concerns, the contract with Colliers for the public engagement phase of the parking project was approved unanimously by the three selectwomen.
Freelance writer Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman and has taught journalism at New York and Southern Connecticut State universities.
It seems incredibly counter intuitive to try and ask questions of the public regarding parking issues in the downtown before looking into parking decks. 2 of the 3 proposed parking decks are situated on the wrong side of downtown for convenient access to parking for most retail patrons, and considering the parking lot reinvention proposal would mean almost all parking losses directly affect customers shopping and dining on the other side of the post road, what is the point of providing parking that is not as safe or accessible. We are all too familiar with the nightmare of crossing the post road.
Then an added complication is that 2 of the 3 proposed sites require landowners to want to partner with the town. I cannot imagine any landowner being willing to do that especially if it means going along with time limits on parking. Why would any landowner with their own exclusive parking want to do that ? Would be a shocker if they did.
What the public needs to remember with this next charette and next questionnaires is that the lone bidder – collier, is primarily an engineering and design company, who, for this opinion gathering is being hired by the town to push towns agenda.
They will phrase questions in such a way that they get the answers the town wants- just like the last surveys. And just like the survey done for longshore.
It is colliers job to make the administration happy. That’s just how it works.
There should be an honest survey conducted in the downtown, in shops, in hair salons, in spas, in restaurants, not by the downtown association who choose with whom they speak very carefully, and in an agenda driven self serving manner.
That survey before it is written should have input from merchants and restaurants who know exactly how to phrase the questions which will get honest responses because we field complaints on the daily from frustrated patrons during stressed parking times.
A common complaint now is
“I’ve come to the downtown to have lunch and then go shopping but I cannot do both, because of time limits on parking.”
If every restaurant and shop is given 2 months to conduct a comprehensive survey from users of the downtown, I believe a very different picture will be painted than the picture colliers, the towns hire will portray.
Retail shops are most definitely suffering because of this 3 hour parking limit. Lunch takes almost 2 hours, and we have lots of very busy restaurants in the downtown, so between that and walking to and from your car there is no time left to go shopping.
So now customers must choose if they want to eat, or shop. They cannot do both. Hardly conducive to a properly functioning and economically viable downtown.
Parking issues have not changed because now instead of parking at Parker Harding people are parking at Baldwin instead.
Or they are simply going to more parking friendly towns where they can stay as long as they wish.
That’s not rocket science. And the only people who can give an honest read on how parking is effecting their ability to continue to exist and pay rent are the merchants themselves.
Dpic continues to forget that along with residents the largest stakeholders in the parking dilemma are the merchants who lease and pay rents in the downtown.
Rent in downtown Westport is not inexpensive. Included in rents are property taxes,insurance, maintenance of buildings etc.
The library has its own parking right next to it and I have not heard complaints about it not being adequate.
The levitt 90% of the time holds events in off peak hours so parking is not a problem.
The Westport women’s club has its own large parking lot deeded to them which the town cannot take back.
The popular farmers market, are generously, presently permitted to use the imperial dirt town lot, on Thursday from 10-2. More like 8-3 taking into account set up etc. they do not own the lot.
They are most certainly not stakeholders in any say on parking because they are the towns guests in that lot.
So it does appear that there is confusion on the part of the DPIC as to who the actual stakeholders are.
The cart is very much being put before the horse, yet again to drive an agenda forward. An agenda the primary stakeholders are not on board with.
Economic vitality and a vibrant and functioning downtown are being pushed aside, disregarded.
That is a big mistake IMO
It is beyond preposterous to suggest that the redesign of Parker Harding is unrelated to the possibility of a downtown parking structure.
The redesign of PH will necessarily result in the loss of spaces and until we know how many spaces will be replaced by a parking structure we cannot explore the options for its redesign.
I dont trust anybody on this issue. Especially some French sounding thing like a charade. Why not just have the stake holders figure it out? Why pay someone to ask the stake holders? The sheer ineptitude undulatingly oppressive. Follow the money to see who is ripping off the town and ruining the vibe…over and over again. I have to step away from this issue…calgon take me away…