by J. Brooks Terry
Staff Writer
They asked nicely less than a year ago, but now that the future of the new Duval County Courthouse remains unclear, two City Council members are taking a more aggressive approach toward terminating an agreement that authorizes the construction of three downtown parking garages.
Legislation was filed Wednesday by Lad Daniels and Warren Alvarez that calls for a cessation of all funds dedicated to two garages in the Sports Complex and one by the defunct courthouse.
According to the bill, “The construction of the new Courthouse has been indefinitely delayed, questioning the immediate need and feasibility of the Courthouse parking garage.”
“I just think that with the change in the courthouse plan, other things related to all dynamics have changed,” said Daniels. “Knowing that, it may be time to go back and see what can be done.”
The courthouse garage dispute is a new snag in an old disagreement. Daniels and Alvarez have opposed the Sports Complex garages for months, having offered a now-enacted resolution that asked Mayor John Peyton to reconsider building them because they were “a serious mistake” and “a bad deal.”
“If you really look at the utilization factor of the thing, can we really justify building anything down there right now?” Daniels said last year. “Maybe there are other ways to address the parking problems in the Sports Complex that we never even discussed while we were looking at it last time.”
Daniels and Alvarez also balked at the idea of subsidizing costs for SMG — who would be responsible for managing the facilities.
Peyton’s office was patient, but in the end maintained the garages would be built and that it was a “done deal.”
City attorneys aren’t so sure. Steve Rohan of the General Counsel’s Office said the agreement the City signed with developer Metropolitan Parking Solutions to build the garages was contingent upon there being funds available to pay for them.
“If you read the contract it says the construction of the garages is, ‘. . . subject to available funds,” said Rohan. “The bill that has been filed removes the funding source.”
Rohan said that technicality could help the City avoid a contract breach and subsequent legal action.
“Their attorneys may take an entirely different position,” he said, “but I don’t think a court would be interested in rewriting a contract.”
That twist has already perked the ears of a handful of Council members, including Council president Elaine Brown, Sharon Copeland, Michael Corrigan and Suzanne Jenkins, who said they are each open to at least discussing the pending legislation.
“I guess we’re in round two of this fight,” said Jenkins. “I’m sure it will be hotly debated, but I’m up for looking at it and seeing if anything can be done, especially by the courthouse.”
Brown said she would need to “take a closer look,” but that she would keep an open mind.
“It is worth exploring, because why would we build a garage by the courthouse if we don’t have a courthouse,” she said. “I think we need to do what’s best for the taxpayers.”Daniels said he plans to meet with Peyton’s staff before the end of the week.
“I felt it was important to try and do something,” he said. “I never felt like we got a good deal in the first place, so I’m interested to see if anything will happen.”
The legislation will be introduced at Tuesday’s Council meeting.