Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 21
payers. There is a method, there’s a process for overriding the Cap. If we say that not adopting this is
tantamount to draconian cuts, | think that’s simply not true.
There are now significant issues with this. Apparently the city could be opening itself up for a serious loss and a
suit. It looks like, as another example, in the past we had numbered accounts for all these things that were
inside and outside and the numbers have been lost with time. We'll get to my amendment. | want to hear what
other folks have to say. This is very, very important. In the end, we may want to consider not making a motion
at this time. We may want to consider sending this back to committee to be a little more carefully vetted. We
spent one session on it. | think there are some very serious issues here that we need to address. Thank you.
Alderman Siegel
| Know we could have a very lengthy debate here. There was a lot of public comment. I'd love to address
some of it, but | really think that Alderman Schoneman has presented a possibility of an amendment before us
and has done it in a fairly time constraint fashion. | didn’t see this until yesterday. | think in order for us to vet
that properly, | don’t think this would be the correct forum to do that. | strongly would suggest that we send this
back to committee to have our colleague’s suggestions properly vetted in committee, not before the full Board
and that we don’t spend a lot of time here debating something only to send it back to committee where the
debate should actually happen.
President McCarthy
Is that a motion, Alderman Siegel?
MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RE-REFER TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Dowd
| could be wrong, but | believe the same motion was made at the Budget Committee meeting and was rejected.
President McCarthy
| have seen these amendments for the first time in the last day, so | don’t believe we have taken them up at
budget.
Alderman Dowd
It was at least similar if not exact wording.
Alderman Siegel
There was some suggestion that this might be something to consider, but this is something that has actually
gone through the legal department which the other stuff had not. | think that’s a very important distinction. We
would be vetting something that’s already gone through the process of being properly vetted legally so we
could have a discussion about the merits rather than having to craft the legal definition.
Alderman Cookson
| was just going to lend my support and agree with Alderman Siegel. If we all read the minutes that we
accepted and approved this evening and placed on file, each one of us would know that the motion was
brought up. Attorney Bolton indicated that he was going to go back and work on the language. Apparently we
just received that language yesterday. So! wholeheartedly agree that we should send this back to committee
and have that discussion where it should be.
