Laserfiche WebLink
Feier said that this budget amendment will used $167,935 in what has been <br />generated in this year’s surplus. <br />Mr. Price moved to approve Resolution 2010 – 2, seconded by Mr. Sharpe. <br />Ms. Ricci thought her light was on first because she wanted to make a motion to <br />remove this resolution for consideration, as still outstanding is the legal opinion on <br />how a budget amendment and budget transfers are conducted. There is a meeting <br />to take place next week to clarify what the issues are We have budget transfer <br />authority, budget amendment authority and we have by our Charter in our ordinances <br />a purchasing agent and the Council needs to know how that fits in let alone who the <br />purchasing agent is. Ms. Watson stated she was the purchasing agent. The <br />purchasing agent makes line item contract purchases of $25,000 or less, but any <br />change among any department still requires the purchasing agent to get Council’s <br />approval. Ms. Ricci stated the site of the ordinance is at 2.10.020. She said that with <br />negative figures in the revenue increase and positive figures in revenue decrease <br />and a new revolving fund that she had not seen before, she had questions. Her <br />motion was to postpone this until the Council could have the discussion involving <br />legal minds to give Council direction along with delegating non-delegable budget <br />transferable authority was a real problem for the City. Mr. Wagner seconded the <br />motion. <br />Ms. Watson stated that for clarification, purchasing agent does not have anything to <br />do with budget transfers as it is delegated to the City Manager for anything under <br />$25,000. She said that these are not items that have been delegated but rather <br />items that were brought to the Council for approval. City Manager Ms. Feier stated <br />that issues brought up by Ms. Ricci had nothing to do with this resolution but could be <br />dealt with in the next resolution. <br />Ms. Ricci believed that they were both intrinsically connected; it is how we are <br />spending our money and felt they both should be tabled. Ms. Ricci stated on the <br />budget amendment she was not even clear if it included prior budget transfers. She <br />knew that they were to get quarterly reports on City Manager’s budget transfers but <br />does not recall seeing any such report. Ms. Watson asked Ms. Ricci if she had any <br />specific questions on any specific transfers. Ms. Ricci said she is discussing globally <br />right now and we as a Council should have a discussion and an understanding of <br />what is going on and how it comports with our laws. <br />Mr. Glickert asked for a point of clarification stated that some of the items are vague <br />and general within the budget amendment. His concern is the bundling of it. Mr. <br />Glickert noted that he has not seen that many items on an amendment and wonder if <br />Council needed to get a legal opinion on whether a resolution is needed for each <br />instead of as a bundle. <br />City Manager Ms. Feier said this was an excellent example. If you would go back to <br />January 2008 when the Council would have received a budget amendment, before <br />this resolution existed, with a hundred items on it. Therefore this is a very small <br />budget amendment in comparison and why Council went to administrative transfers <br />to make the budget amendment less complicated. Ms. Feier felt that what was done <br />was to simplify the budget amendments. She mentioned that Ms. Ricci is interested <br /> 6 <br /> <br />