Resident accuses developer influence on alderman; board debates whether comment relates to city business

A Ward 3 resident, Cherry Webster, used the public‑comment period to make extensive allegations that a sitting alderman’s campaign had been supported heavily by developer donors and that development interests are now influencing city decisions. Webster cited campaign finance figures and named multiple developer donors and argued a voting block had been created in favor of developers.

Several aldermen objected that the remarks pertained to state election law and not city business; the mayor and other members reminded speakers that public comment should generally address city agenda items. Webster responded that elements of her remarks did relate to city business, citing a pending judgment and land‑use decisions that affect city matters. Board members debated whether the city could act on election matters; some said the ordinance requires public comments be about city business, while others expressed willingness to hear constituent concerns. The exchange ended without formal action. The clerk noted the city’s ordinances regarding public comment and several aldermen urged enforcement of the rule in future meetings.

The allegation was not adjudicated at the meeting; board members who are active in development policy also defended routine engagement with builders and noted campaign fundraising is regulated at the state level and publicly reported.