04/18/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 4/18/2000 Because Council did not take a vote on the issue last night because Mr. Gareau had to ~. r,~, leave due to illness, Mr. McKay made a motion to approve the spending of $60,000 for the engineering on south Canterbury Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Limpert. Mr. Gareau said that this issue had been discussed at length on April 8 and there had been a considerable give and take on the pros and cons. His recollection of the vote was that the project would be pulled in its entirety, and he did not see the need for another vote. Mrs. Kasler said she would echo Mr. Gareau's comments as well as adding that, once a vote has been taken and no new information has been added, she would have to question the proposal for a new vote. What would cause another vote to be taken on the same issue? Mr. McKay said that many times Councilmen will change their mind on certain things. He thinks this is one of those times. Mr. Miller inquired of the Law Director whether this was appropriate since the issue had been voted on already. The issue. was brought up again last evening, and there was no new information. Council decided not to vote on it again and to just let the vote stand. Now it has come to a head a third time. Is another vote appropriate? When do we stop? Law Director Gareau said there was no formal provision in the Rules of Council dealing with that issue. Mr. McKay's motion should be considered in the form of basically reconsidering the issue. So, consequently, Council ought to take a vote on it. Councilman Gareau said he had not heard the figure of $60,000 mentioned and asked if there had been a discussion about that amount the previous evening. Mr. McKay said that the usual cost of engineering is 10% of the project, and this is a $600,000 project. Therefore, the engineering costs will be $60,000. President Saringer asked that, when voting, Council take into consideration the people who have complained about their streets. At a recent Council meeting, Mayor Musial read a letter about the deplorable condition of Chapel Hill and he has also stated that his own street is in a state of disrepair. She does not know how spending this money can be justified when there are so many other needs that are affecting people, especially when the vote was taken on it. President Saringer called for the roll call on Mr. McKay's motion to approve $60,000 for the cost of engineering of the south Canterbury Road project. Roll call: McKay, yes; Limpert, yes, with explanation that, in response to Mrs. Saringer's remarks as far as the other deplorable streets, he made the motion after this was defeated the other day to increase the slab repair so those other streets could be addressed this year. There was not a majority consensus in favor of that. Roll call continued: Kasler, no, with comment that she disagrees with that street being repaired prior to others. She disagrees with the price tag of $600,000 and is concerned with what she believes are a lot of extras and decorative center strips. She disagrees with an effort to repeat a vote as many times as it takes to gain approval. Roll call continued: O'Grady, yes, with comment that, as pointed out by the Finance Director, what completing the engineering allows Council to do is to make an informed decision next year on what they want to go forward with. If we choose to do the street, we will know specifically and exactly the expense. We will know if we can do an island down the center. We'll know if we can afford and should do underground wiring. He thinks getting the engineering completed on a street that needs to be done is good fiscal sense for the city so that next year, when the project is analyzed, Council will have the information needed to make that decision wisely. Roll call continued: Miller, no, with comment that, the last time this was voted on, he made an informed decision. He had the information that he needed. There has been no new information that would even make him consider changing his 8