02-24-2009, 05:53 AM
The 2% Land Preservation Fund was a citizen initiative which was voted into being over the objections of then Mayor Kim. I don't recall it being voted in because the CoH was awash in money. I recall it being put forth as a citizen priority.
I think the base issue is not whether there are other ways to spend the money (there are always other ways) but whether the will and intent of the voters matter.
In another topic I pointed out that according toe the CoH Department of Finance 2007 audit the Public Works Capital Improvement Contracts have been running 90% over budget vs. a national average of 15%. That is big money going somewhere.
It seems practical to require the public works contractors and the administration to keep within budgets and not rubber stamp every real or imagined change order as extra taxpayer cost. If that was accomplished even half way then there would be no budget shortfall or discussion of layoffs or discussion of raiding the 2% Land Preservation Fund.
I think the base issue is not whether there are other ways to spend the money (there are always other ways) but whether the will and intent of the voters matter.
In another topic I pointed out that according toe the CoH Department of Finance 2007 audit the Public Works Capital Improvement Contracts have been running 90% over budget vs. a national average of 15%. That is big money going somewhere.
It seems practical to require the public works contractors and the administration to keep within budgets and not rubber stamp every real or imagined change order as extra taxpayer cost. If that was accomplished even half way then there would be no budget shortfall or discussion of layoffs or discussion of raiding the 2% Land Preservation Fund.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator