Laserfiche WebLink
explore. <br />® TAKAHASHI: Uh huh. <br />YUEN: I'm not familiar with this Opinion. They said the County could not <br />have a biennial? <br />TAKAHASHI: Yes, because of the restriction pursuant to HRS. <br />YUEN: But they let it get submitted to the voters? <br />TAKAHASHI: Yes. <br />YUEN: And the Opinion came out afterwards? <br />TAKAHASHI: Yes. I think when it was second effort. <br />YUEN: !'m not ready to say anything about that. I'll follow up on that if <br />anybody's interested. <br />RAY: Okay. <br />TAKAHASHI: Section 10-11. <br />RAY: Let me ask you one more question. Capital Budget. <br />TAKAHASHI: They had similar problems. <br />RAY: But, another question on Capital Budget. Is there anything we <br />could do in the Charter, or any thoughts you might have, in terms of how out of whack <br />our Capital Budget gets in terms of the size of it vs. the pot of money, and how much <br />confusion that causes? In other words, the County Council routinely grossly inflates <br />the GIP budget way beyond the financial capability of the County to do these things so <br />it really causes a lot of confusion. <br />TAKAHASHI: !That's interesting is the County Council is the final body, or at <br />least the body that approves the Capital Budget, all of the specific appropriations. <br />Like this year, when we proposed to float authorized bonds to be issued, Council <br />objected to the huge list that the Mayor would be able to pick from so within the bond <br />authorization, they specified which appropriations the proceeds could be applied to. <br />So, while you have a hundred million dollars, now all of a sudden your actual CIP <br />seems to be thirty-seven million, but yet, when we submitted our CIP to the Council, <br />they added a whole bunch of appropriations to it. So it seems like if they're going to <br />35 <br />