Laserfiche WebLink
2. Subsection 10-15(d) provides that moneys contained in the PONC fund shall not lapse <br />at the end of any fiscal year and there is no cap on the amount of money that may be <br />accumulated. (Per subsection 10-160(2), the PONC maintenance fund has a <br />maximum limit of $3,000,000.) Should there he a cap on this fund? <br />Findings: <br />A) Acquisition amounts for the 14 PONC parcels range from $170,880 (Kahan <br />Olohu) to $10,555,850 (Kaiholena - 7 parcels). There is presently approximately <br />$16,000,000 in the fund. These funds may be expended only for acquisition of land <br />or property entitlements, and unless spent for this purpose, shall continue to <br />accumulate in the fund even if core County services, such as public safety or public <br />works, are cut due to budgetary shortfalls. A cap on the fund would protect taxpayers <br />by averting this situation. <br />B) Alternatively, a mechanism allowing the appropriation to be reduced during times of <br />unusual fiscal crisis would eliminate the need for a cap on this fund. Inclusion of <br />factual circumstances that would trigger the ability to reduce the appropriation may <br />reduce possibilities of abuse. <br />............ . <br />Recommendations: <br />The ad hoc committee was divided on this point. <br />Option 1. <br />Three of the members endorsed a cap on the fund in an amount equivalent to 2% of the <br />annual real property tax revenues per year. Appropriations in excess of this amount <br />would be returned to the County's general fund. Linking this cap to annual real property <br />taxrevenues wouldassure that the balance .in this Rind would reflect the state of the <br />County's economy <br />Option 2: <br />One committee member recommended providing for the option, of reducing the <br />appropriation either when the combined balance of the preservation and maintenance <br />finds exceeds 2% of the annual real property tax revenue of the fiscal year or during <br />times of fiscal crisis. This would eliminate: the need for a cap. This recommendation is <br />incorporated in the proposed revision to: sections 10-15 and 10=16 contained iii topic no. <br />5, on pages 11 and 12. <br />-8- <br />