Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 27
think we are going to get the people that are going to come in, let’s not be short-sighted. And look at the
people who will be attending the events at the Performing Arts Center and allow them to enjoy their evening
with plenty of adjacent parking to the facility. So | think it does fit and | agree with Alderman Dowd, this is a
hand in glove issue, the question should not be separated. Both are germane to each other and | would
recommend fellow members of the Board to support it, because it will increase the enjoyment of our
citizens. Thank you.
President Wilshire
Anyone else? The motion is to split the bond $2.5 million for the garage and $5.5 million for the Performing
Arts Center. That’s the motion; any further discussion on the motion. Would the Clerk please call the roll?
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Caron, Alderman Tencza, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, 6
Alderman Cleaver, Alderman Harriott-Gathright
Nay: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,
Alderman Wilshire 9
MOTION FAILED
President Wilshire
And that motion fails. The motion before us is for final passage of Resolution 20-071. Further discussion
on the motion? I’m not seeing anyone? Alderman Jette?
Alderman Jette
Thank you, Madam President. So | am going to be voting against this. You know, I’ve said it before and |
hate to repeat it again, but three years ago we asked the voters to express their opinion about this
Performing Arts Center and | told the voters of Ward 5, my Ward, that | would vote the same way that they
voted and they voted against this Performing Arts Center. The City was split, you know, it passed citywide
with less than 51% of the vote. So 51% in favor, 49% against. So people were hardly overwhelmingly in
favor or this which at the time was a $15.5 million dollar project. Now it is a $25 million dollar project and
who knows how people would vote if they had the opportunity again. But | doubt very much that the people
who were against it at $15.5 million would be in favor of it at $25 million.
What this Resolution does is it adds $5.5 million to the cost of this performing arts center. And it also adds
$2.5 million for the cost of building this parking garage. The developer of the parking garage provided a
proposal which is still the proposal that’s pending and he proposed to build this apartment building with a
deal where he would purchase the School Street Parking Lot for $900,000.00. The City would have to
spend $100,000.00 on infrastructure improvements, but we would get a net of $800,000.00. He is also
going to be providing payment for parking and the High Street parking garage for his tenants. This parking
garage that’s being proposed came about as a result of very hard lobbying by one business in particular
that enjoys having free parking across the street from its business in the School Street Parking lot and was
upset about losing that free parking for his customers.
And at the time | was sensitive to the idea of losing the parking in the School Street parking lot. But the
Mayor and Director Cummings convinced me with facts about how much parking was available and that
parking really would not be a problem, that the patrons of this particular business would have plenty of
alternative parking even with the loss of the School Street Parking lot. However, that business was able to
convince apparently the Mayor and Director Cummings and some Aldermen that this parking was
necessary so this proposal to raise the building and build a parking lot or parking garage essentially
