LTE: RTM’s Rushed Decision To Dissolve Parking Authority Is Concerning

The following Letter to the Editor is by Fairfield RTM Republican Minority Leader Jeff Steele:

To the Editor:

On Monday, the Fairfield Representative Town Meeting (RTM) voted to dissolve the Parking Authority, an independent agency that has operated effectively for close to 50 years, on a near party line vote (27-11) and allow the Town to take over operations. As a member of the RTM, I expressed my strong opposition to this proposal, a move that I believe is not only unnecessary and done haphazardly but is also potentially harmful to commuters and taxpayers alike. Further, the entire process was rushed unnecessarily (and potentially in violation of the rules) without due process and consideration of input from the Parking Authority itself, the commuters, and the public.

As members of the Representative Town Meeting, our responsibility is to make decisions based on careful analysis and sound reasoning, free from political motivations, with the intended result to improve our life in town. When it comes to enacting ordinances, which are essentially laws that can govern or restrict our behavior in town, must take a methodical and deliberate approach, ensuring that every aspect has been thoroughly vetted before moving forward. That is precisely why ordinances are held over for two months: to allow for thoughtful planning, intelligent discussion, and an opportunity to answer critical questions. Unfortunately, this process has not been properly followed in the case of dissolving the Parking Authority.

My opposition to this proposal is not political, nor is it an attempt to oppose the administration for the sake of opposition. My concerns are based on the lack of a well-developed plan, the many unanswered questions regarding revenue and expenses and contradictory answers, and the potential negative impacts on commuters and the town’s relationship with the state.

After extensive discussions at our meetings, I still see no clear benefit to the town, commuters, or residents—other than an increase in bureaucratic control for the Administration. Here are my top 10 concerns:

1. Payment Misconceptions – The administration has cited frustration over the Parking Authority’s alleged failure to pay rent to the town. However, there is no agreement currently in place between the town and the PA. It expired in 2018, and the Town never put together a new agreement stipulating future payments. As a result, all “lease payments” to the town after 2018 have been agreed upon via discussions between the CFO and Parking Authority and based on the financial position of the PA at the time. It was the Town’s own inaction to put an agreement in place or at least sit down with the PA that led to any temporary lapse in payments. The PA is fully paid up.

2. Efficiencies Already Exist – The Parking Authority operates as an Enterprise Fund, meaning its expenses are covered by its revenue, with no cost to taxpayers. It also pays the town approximately $120,000 annually for services provided by town departments. There is no inefficiency here that justifies dissolution.

3. Oversight Exists – The Connecticut Department of Transportation already provides oversight of the Parking Authority, approving of all money spent on capital improvements out of its “Reinvestment Fund”. Additionally, the Authority maintains a strong relationship with the state and benefits from an approved vendor list that streamlines maintenance and improvement projects.

4. Revenue and Expense Discrepancies – Despite receiving multiple spreadsheets, there are still inconsistencies in the Administration’s projected revenue with estimates between $1.05 million to $1.3 million, and with estimated expenses ranging between $979,000 and $1.2 million. It’s all over the place. The revenue that is received from parking pays for the operating expenses. But oddly there is not an operating expense line item in the budget book. Why? Further, any net revenue (i.e. surplus) is supposed to go into a “Reinvestment Fund” for capital improvements, as required in the lease with the State. But the administration has not been committal about if and how they will fund improvement projects and instead has said money could go into the General Fund – for use anywhere.

5. Risk of Losing Dedicated Capital Improvement Funds – The Parking Authority currently allocates surplus funds into a separate “Reinvestment Fund” specifically for parking-related improvements, which have included Fire Systems, Paving, Security Cameras, Furnace, HVAC, and renovations. Other town departments and funds operate similarly, such as the Fire Training Center and the Parks and Recreation Fund. There is no justification for eliminating this dedicated funding structure.

6. A Money Grab – it cannot be ruled out. The town already gets about $460K per year from the Parking Authority – that’s $333,000 for the rental of the lot and another $120,000 for the departmental services. How much more can it even take? Why does it assume $1.1 million of revenue without noting the expenses that could bring the usable surplus number below $100,000?

7. Commuters and the Parking Authority Were Not Consulted – Thousands of commuters rely on parking facilities daily, yet their voices, along with input from the Parking Authority itself, have not been adequately considered in this decision. Over 40 emails from commuters have been received, and nearly all of them support keeping the Parking Authority intact because they believe it has done a great job.

8. Loss of Representation – The Parking Commission ensures that commuter interests are represented with meetings open to the public. If control shifts to the town, this representation will be reduced to an advisory role, limiting commuter input and influence on key decisions such as parking rates and maintenance priorities.

9. Potential for Increased Fees – Parking Authority sets fees based on research of other towns’ rates. Under town control, parking fees could be raised arbitrarily to cover expenses elsewhere, rather than being reinvested in parking infrastructure.

10. Lack of State Consultation – The administration did not reach out to the Connecticut Department of Transportation about dissolving the Parking Authority until I personally initiated contact. The state has indicated that a new lease would be required if the town takes over, potentially introducing unfavorable stipulations. Take over the PA, you take over the lease.

In sum, the fundamental question remains: Why are we doing this? There is no compelling financial gain, efficiencies already exist, commuters are satisfied, and the risks far outweigh any perceived benefits.

Jeff Steele (R-3)

Minority Leader, Fairfield RTM