salvete omnes!
I have been translating an (adapted) version of Sallusts’ Conspiracy of Catiline and the following passaged has somewhat perplexed me. I think I know why the passage should be translated as it is, be but I thought I would nevertheless check here. The text reads as follows:
at Romae Lentulus, cum ceteris qui principes coniurationis erant, paratis (ut videbatur) magnis copiis constituerant uti, cum Catilina propius cum exercitu venisset L. Bestia contione habita quereretur de actionibus Ciceronis; constituerant uti, ea contione habita, cetera multitudo coniurationis negotia exsequeretur. quae negotia dividere hoc modo constituerant; Statilius et Gabinius uti cum magna manu duodecim simul opportuna loca urbis incenderent quo facilior aditus ad consulem fieret; Cethegus uti Ciceronis ianuam obsideret eumque, ianua fracta, vi aggrederetur; uti filii familiarum quorum ex nobilitate maxima pars erat, parentis interficerent; postremo uti urbe incensa, Cicerone necato caede et incendio perculsis omnibus ad Catilinam erumperent.
Which I have translated as:
But at Rome Lentulus, with the others who were leaders of the conspiracy, because (so it seemed) that great forces were ready, had decided that when Catiline had come nearer with the army, that during a public meeting L. Bestia would complain about the public actions of Cicero; they decided that when the public meeting had been held, the membership of the conspiracy would carry out the other duties. They had decided to divide these duties in this way: Statilius and Gabinius would simultaneously burn twelve of the city’s strategic points with a great band of troops, in order to make the approach to the consul easier; Cethegus would beseige Cicero’s door and once the door was broken down he would attack him with force; the sons of families, of whom the greatest part were from the nobility, would kill their parents; afterwards, when the city had been burned when Cicero had been killed, and when everyone had been unnerved by the slaughter and carnage, they would rush out to Catiline.
Any comments on my translation, and how to improve it, would be much appreciated. But more specifically is the use of ‘uti’ to be construed as the future infinitive passive, with ‘fore’ ommitted? The text abounds in them, and logically my translation makes sense, but if I am wrong please could you explain why? As nicely as possible 
Many thanks!