10/17/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/17/2000 is given three readings and the public is given an opportunity to speak on it. He does not understand how money borrowed for the Clague/Lorain intersection can be used for something else instead of retiring the notes or retaining the money and carrying it over. Finance Director Copfer said the notes are for streets, including street lighting, slab repair, Clague and Lorain and other purposes. If the $140,000 is used for another purpose, then next spring we would issue notes in anticipation of bonds for the $140,000 and the amount for street lighting would be reduced. Law Director Gareau said that there is no question but that $120,000 was designated for Clague/Lorain and $20,000 was designated for Sharon Drive. It is simply how you look at it, but he does not think the funds should be spent for something else. • Mrs. Kasler asked if the streets Council voted on are the ones that would be addressed with regard to street lighting. • Mayor Musial said he planned to bring this issue up to the Board of Control for a decision. One of the philosophies of this administration is that they would try to put in street lighting in the oldest developments of the city. • Mr. O'Grady said he felt Council continues to trip over the line dividing legislative responsibility and legislative authority versus administrative authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative body as the Law Director pointed out to control the purse strings. When it comes down to the execution either when carrying out a law or carrying out a project, that goes over to the administration side. • Mrs. Kasler said she still did not have an answer to her question of whether Council does have the authority to make a motion which included a dollar amount for street lighting to be spent on specified streets. • Law Director Gareau said he did not agree with Mr. O'Grady's proposition with respect to there being a line of demarcation in that Council's only authority is to appropriate the money and the administration can spend it as they wish. The issue is, if there can't be some agreement between the administration and Council, Council is then left with only one thing to do and that is, when the money is appropriated, the streets should be listed. • Councilman Gareau said he does not believe in the "blank checkbook" philosophy that somehow Council is in charge of putting a pot of cash on the table and then the administration is free to do as they wish. He does not agree that Council cannot take an active role in deciding where the money will be spent. It seems to him that, if the administration is not willing to follow the vote of the majority of Council members, Council could call a special meeting and re-appropriate the money and specifically designate certain streets. However, if we begin that approach, we do not get ourselves where we want to be. If the trust is gone, the appropriation process is going to be tedious. It seems to him that there is an easier way to do it and that is just to do the streets with the amount of money voted on by Council. • Mr. O'Grady said that he was not inferring that Council would write a blank check for the administration. Council properly identified a list of streets and then appropriated the money to do those streets. At that point, Council should not cross the line between performing its legislative function and trying to perform administrative functions. 10