BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- The Birmingham City Council will consider new rules to prevent what some said was a trick by Mayor William Bell to get around his $10,000 limit on spending without council approval during the Magic City Classic.

Councilman Steven Hoyt is sponsoring an amendment to the current spending-limit ordinance that would prohibit any resolutions waiving the $10,000 cap on items without council approval.

"What we don't want to happen, as was clear to us this last time, is for the office of mayor to circumvent the affirmative of the council," Hoyt said in an interview Tuesday.

The current ordinance, approved in 2000, requires the mayor to get approval for all expenses greater than $10,000. A vote on Hoyt's proposed amendment is expected next week.

The city spent more than $604,000 during the recent Magic City Classic weekend, including more than $169,000 for Classic-related entertainment, such as a VIP cabana-styled seating area at Legion Field.

While some regular annual spending on the Classic, including money paid to Alabama State and Alabama A&M universities and money spent to provide shuttle buses, was contractual, several council members were specifically angry over entertainment expenses they said never came across the dais for their approval.

Bell's chief of staff, Chuck Faush, and City Attorney Thomas Bentley said the mayor was legally authorized to spend the money, citing the council's declaration of the event as a "public purpose."

When the council declares items a "public purpose" to allow the use of city money, the specific spending normally comes back for a vote. But the resolution for the Classic included extra language that "any purchase and expenditure of city funds is hereby authorized and approved to be used to support this event and that the mayor is hereby authorized to execute any and all agreements related to this event."

Hoyt and others said the council was misled into approving the declaration still believing Bell would return as usual for approval.

"You would think you could trust the administration to do right and we wouldn't have to go to these measures, but obviously there's an aura of mistrust there and we're not here to appease individuals. We're here to come up with laws that safeguard these type of things," Hoyt said.

Councilwoman Carole Smitherman questioned the need and motivation behind Hoyt's proposal. Smitherman said the controversy could have been avoided if council members had understood what they approved.

"Is this punitive to the mayor because the council did not read the contract?" she said.

Smitherman said the council should reconsider the spending limit and consider giving Bell more spending authority.

"If you're going to rewrite it, we might consider raising the amount," she said. "I'm not for micromanaging the mayor's office."

Hoyt said his revision isn't a personal attack but a measure to ensure the city's policy is followed as intended.

"This is not for William Bell. It's for the office of mayor," he said. "It's for any mayor who comes here."

Council President Roderick Royal also called the proposal necessary to ensure spending limits are observed.

"The language of 'public purpose' was clearly circumvented by the mayor's office," Royal said. "I'm not in favor of any public official spending as much money as he or she pleases under the guise of public purpose. This includes me."