12/07/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 12/7/1999 goes for a specific cause, amending the contract puts that entire $75,000 and the $25,000 at risk. So I vote no on amending the contract, but I respect the wishes of the rest of Council." Roll call continued: McKay, yes; Miller, yes, with comment.. "I would just like to thank my colleagues for giving us an opportunity this evening to have an open discussion with answers to the questions that we had that were pertinent. And that, when questions still exist, I would encourage members of Council to ask the questions that are necessary to get the answers even if it means moving the issue to a different committee. Thank you." Roll call continued: Nashar, yes; O'Grady, no, with comment. "And I'll choose to direct my comments towards the last one who spoke, towards Mr. Miller. The compromise that's arrived at today is a compromise that takes a $25,000 donation from Coca-Cola and takes it out of the contract. This is a compromise I offered in my committee almost 30 days ago. If we had done this 30 days ago, we would not be inconveniencing Council. We would not be going through actions that are virtually unprecedented. It's been 40 years since an ordinance that's in one committee and has gone through that committee has been taken out and put into another committee. It's been 40 years since that's been done, yet Council found the need to do that. Council found the need to inconvenience residents who had to attend two different Council meetings and a committee meeting in order to protect their interests. With regards to questions not being answered, the questions that were asked today were exactly the same, precisely the same questions that were asked at my Finance Committee almost 30 days ago. The answers that we got today were precisely and exactly the same answers we got almost 30 days ago. The benefit of going through this rigmarole is lost on me. And most assuredly I oppose these changes that are made that endanger, at this point 30 days later, endanger a $25,000 donation to a very worthy cause. So my vote is no." The motion to amend the ordinance passed with five affirmative votes and two negative votes. President Saringer noted that Council was in receipt of a ruling by the Law Director with regard to Mr. O'Grady's inquiry about the procedure (assigning legislation to another committee) and whether it was proper. Also, Council had made the decision to have the legislation reviewed further. Mr. O'Grady said that at the Finance Committee meeting he had proposed a compromise where the legislation would be held in committee and the administration would be asked to go back to Coca-Cola and see if the $25,000 could be taken out. That was unacceptable to three members of the Council. The only thing that was acceptable to them was that we go back to Coca-Cola and tell them that they got it wrong-that the $25,000 skatepark donation should not be made and the contract with the city is $25,000 short. This was unacceptable to the majority of the committee and the majority of Council, and that is why that recommendation was not taken up. We are in the same position 30 days later, and we have put the administration in a spot and we have endangered a donation to a skatepark. Mrs. Kasler began to comment on Mr. O'Grady's statement (Mr. O'Grady took exception to a comment she made and made a comment of his own. President Saringer called Mr. O'Grady out of order. Mr. O'Grady challenged the decision of the chair; Mr. McKay seconded. Law Director Gareau explained Mr. O'Grady was questioning the ruling of the chair. The vote will be taken on the question: Shall the decision of the chair be upheld? If someone answers "yes" that means they agree he is out of order; if someone answers "no" that means they feel he is not out of order. Roll call: O'Grady, no, with comment that what the Law Director had said is precisely and exactly the way it should go: Shall the decision of the chair be upheld? 14 _.,„,,. I