Finance Committee - 1/16/2019 Page 5
Alderman Klee
| see merits in all sides in truth and | understand that if we did it at a lower value that would mean that you
might be coming in a little bit more regularly and it is subject to whoever is on the Board at the time which cold
change in a year, with an election coming up. And | understand the anxiety of something like that; so | could
see why you might not want to come in at a lower figure. | am all for the Performing Arts, but | have to agree
with my colleagues, we will be getting phone calls if we don’t have some number in there. And at the same
time it would be wrong if | didn’t say | also understand that you may, on the fly, need to take that money and
use it in a different location. | don’t know how much flexibility you have going from line item to line item as far
as finance is concerned and perhaps Mr. Kooken can answer that.
Mr. Cummings
Thank you, if | may, the issue is relative to time and the good example | can give you is somewhere between
November and the 1*' of the Year, how many times did this Finance Committee meet to actually authorize
differing types of changes? The reality is that you met | think once, maybe twice in an 8 week period, 10 week
period and that is ok and fine because we are all busy. But if | am trying to keep this project on time and on
schedule, an 8 or 10 week can be really difficult. That is the issue.
Mayor Donchess
Just in terms of allocation, Mr. Griffin is here, maybe he should come up, just in terms of this allocation. Just
because the Committee were to approve a maximum figure, that does not tie finance to that figure. There
would be still a flexibility — if the maximum figure were $350,000.00 and we only needed $300,000.00 there
would be nothing regarding the approval that would prevent the $50,000.00 that was unnecessary from being
expended on something else, correct
John Griffin, CFO/Comptroller
Yes Mr. Chairman, | think there are a couple of competing things going on here. You folks are going to be
hearing a public hearing moving $50,000.00 from an LED project to work on a school project. That is what you
folks need to from a Board of Aldermen. This is a situation where we have already authorized $15.5 million of
bonding. Furthermore, so we have spent $2 million to purchase the building; the team working on it was able
to get the Board to allow the construction manager and the architect, that is part of that $15.5 million.
What you are approving is contracts and | think the way you are proceeding is “not to exceed”. If Director
Cummings or the Mayor needs another contract to fulfill wnat you folks want to do to get the project going and
continuing, there may be another contract but it shouldn’t hold up in any kind of material way votes.
Mayor Donchess
So what you are saying is as long as we are under the “not to exceed” number if the full “not to exceed”
number were not required, there is nothing that would prevent the extra $50,000.00 or $25,000.00 or whatever
it is to be allocated somewhere else within the authorized project?
Mr. Griffin
Correct that is the way | look at it. You are going to have a series of agreements and contracts
Mayor Donchess
But if for some reason there were a recommendation or requirement that the “not to exceed” number be
exceeded, then you would have to come back to the Committee?
