by J. Brooks Terry
Staff Writer
Legislation that would pull funding needed to build three new parking garages downtown left the City Council divided this week. One committee narrowly advanced the controversial bill while another overwhelmingly took it down.
Hotly debated since its November introduction, the bill addresses a long-standing rift between the Mayor’s Office and some on the Council.
The issue: why build the garages when there may not be a need for them right now?
Council members Lad Daniels and Warren Alvarez have led that charge for months, saying to build them would be “a mistake.”
In 2003, Metropolitan Parking Solutions Inc. (MPS) answered a modified Request for Proposal to build two parking facilities in the Sports Complex and another further west near the new Duval County Courthouse campus.
Daniels and Alvarez were among the 15 on the Council who helped amend and approve that deal, but the two changed their minds shortly after.
They questioned whether or not people would ever park in the garages and feared the City would be stuck subsidizing facility management team SMG while making up for any potential shortfalls.
According to the $50 million agreement, the City guarantees MPS an 8 percent annual return on the developers’ $3 million investment. If the garages don’t perform, the City will have to issue low-interest loans to cover debt payments and insure profit.
“If you really look at the utilization factor of the thing, can we really justify building (the garages) 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 ...”
Though there was little debate surrounding the Courthouse garage at that time, Daniels and Alvarez offered a resolution urging Mayor John Peyton to void or at least renegotiate the entire contract.
The Council ultimately passed the resolution, but Peyton soon fired back via letter, insisting the contract with MPS to build the garage trio had been signed and that the City had every intention to honor it.
“Before this legislation was introduced, I asked for a careful examination of three important issues,” Peyton wrote. “Are the garages necessary? Is the financial deal a good one for the taxpayers? And is the project consistent with the City’s long-term goals? I believe the answer to all three of these is ‘yes.’”
For months, garage grumblings lay dormant until October when plans were scrapped to build the new courthouse after its budget ballooned to nearly $300 million.
Shortly after that announcement was made, Alvarez and Daniels saw their chance to strike again, this time arguing that the need for a neighboring 1,130 space garage simply wasn’t there without a courthouse.
“It just seems to me that without any plans for a new courthouse right now, we’re putting the cart before the horse,” said Daniels. “I’ve been working on developments like this for a long time and you need to build first and allow the parking to come with it.”
Daniels and Alvarez offered a yet another bill, this one with sharper teeth and a legal loophole that could swallow the garage plans once and for all.
With the help of the General Counsel’s Office, they determined the City could make the contract null if the dollars holding it together were repealed.
“If you read the contract, it says the construction of the garages is ‘... subject to available funds,’” said Steve Rohan, Deputy General Counsel for the City. “The bill that has been filed removes that funding source.”
Rohan told the Finance Committee this week that, from a City standpoint, the Council could move forward in pulling the funding without any further legal recourse. He admitted, however, that attorneys representing MPS would likely see things differently.
“I have not spoken with anyone from MPS or anyone representing them,” he said. “In my opinion, doing it this way is legal, but other attorneys may make arguments to the contrary.”
Rohan’s uncertainty, coupled with the heavy urging of MPS lobbyist Michael Munz — he said the courthouse garage would thrive even without a single courthouse employee using it — kept Finance Committee members Mia Jones and Michael Corrigan from endorsing the Alvarez/Daniels proposal.
“The garage will do very well,” said Munz. “It actually performs better when based strictly on the private sector.”
Council members Art Shad, Gwen Yates, Glorious Johnson and Faye Rustin disagreed and saddled the bill with a negative report while under discussion in the Public Health & Safety Committee.
Such spotty support rarely bodes well for any legislation but Munz said he’s confident the Council majority wants the new parking to come online.
“We’re taking nothing for granted, but the support for this development is there,” he said. “It’s a good thing and most people understand that.”
Today, the Council’s Government Performance, Audit, Technology & Education and Transportation, Environment & Energy Committees will review the legislation. Barring complications, the Council will vote Tuesday evening.