10/17/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/17/2000 economy is affecting this because the contractors have a lot of work to do and so their prices go up because it's the law of supply and demand. So, there was new information now that did not exist before in that the actual bid, which had been anticipated in the original borrowing to cost $300,000, was now going to cost about $400,000. Also, some of the streets would not have been on the list if it had been realized what the costs were. We are paying 5% interest on the money and we are only earning 5% interest, so it is a wash as far as those projects that are now delayed until next year. In her opinion, utilizing resources to the best of your abilities based on what projects were going to be feasible to do is what should be done. Given that the Mayor planned to reduce the amount of street lighting next year, it is effectively a wash and the total borrowing for the total borrowing. • Mr. Miller said that after the committee meeting where this issue was voted upon, he inquired of the Assistant Law Director to assure what had been voted on would be followed through. The Assistant Law Director indicated that if those streets were properly read out at this Council meeting and made public, as the vote was held in a public meeting, that those streets would be binding. Council voted on a certain dollar amount and tied specific packages; that is, the base bid, Alternate A and Alternate B to that vote and to his understanding it is not discretionary. He asked the Law Director if that is also his understanding. • Law Director Gareau said he was not at the meeting but said that typically the Council has a power of the purse strings, and the way that is accomplished is through the appropriation ordinance. Council would tie to the appropriation ordinance specifically how they wanted those funds spent, naming all the streets that were mentioned. He was not at the meeting and doesn't know how the issue came up. Typically, if the money was already appropriated and the specific streets were not designated but the streets were designated at a meeting, that would not have a binding affect of law as it would if it were appropriated. • Mr. Miller said the package presented by the Service Director included a package of streets known as the base bid, about 11 streets, plus Alternate A, B, C and D. This was not a situation where it could have been addressed during appropriations since those were done some ten months ago. The package with newly available funds was brought to Council on that evening of the meeting. After considerable discussion, a formal motion was made and there were four votes in favor of the specific dollar amount to be spent on the base bid plus Alternates A and B and, if funds were available, Forestwood and Cottonwood as well. In answer to a question by the Law Director, Mr. Miller said the streets in the base bid were chosen by the Service Director. • Finance Director noted that the streets were designated on an ordinance for a note borrowing and also when they went out to bond, so that was when Council authorized the expenditure of funds. All the streets and alternates were listed and Council chose certain streets to do. She believes that is the question: whether those streets are being done. • Law Director Gareau said, if the Council and the administration cannot agree with this motion, then all Council simply has to do is re-appropriate and designate those .~ streets. He said it bothered him that money which was borrowed for one reason would be used for a different reason. When Council borrows money, the legislation 9