My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-70 Budget SC report 14Oct14
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Action Committees (AC)
>
Puna Community Development Plan Action Committee
>
Pre-2018 Files
>
Communications to AC
>
2014
>
2014-70 Budget SC report 14Oct14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2014 9:47:28 AM
Creation date
10/8/2014 9:47:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Communication No. 2014-70 <br /> OCTOBER 14, 2014 REPORT FROM THE BUDGET <br /> SUBCOMMITTEE <br /> We have communicated via e-mail and conversation in the last <br /> month. At our last meeting we worked on prioritizing current <br /> projects. We worked off a shortened list that had projects <br /> relevant to the PCDP. We separated those requests into 3 <br /> groups according to which department they were under, DPW, <br /> Planning or P & R. This is a summary of our meetings and our <br /> communications since those meetings. <br /> DPW is currently involved in a number of road projects in Puna <br /> spurred on by the emergency. Two of these projects, the <br /> connection of Hawaiian Shores and HPP via the Government <br /> Beach Rd. and the connection of RR via Nanawale to HPP were <br /> either CIP requests and/or connectivity routes as mentioned in <br /> the Connectivity report. Therefore, we decided that <br /> prioritization of any other DPW requests was not needed at this <br /> time. <br /> The one planning CIP request is for a planning consultant for <br /> the Volcano Long Range Plan. This request would therefore be <br /> our one planning priority. <br /> There are, of course, CIP requests as they relate to the Pahoa <br /> Plan. Those need to be considered in the context of the Pahoa <br /> Plan and the decision was made to not address those CIP <br /> requests via the budget sub-committee. <br /> In reviewing the CIP requests, which are under the jurisdiction of P & <br /> R, the 3 projects, which were priorities, were: <br /> 1 ) The restrooms at Ahalanui (priority #1 as the longest <br /> standing request and the greatest need). <br /> 2) ADA Restroom facilities for the senior center in Mountain <br /> View. Other Mountain View requests were of lower <br /> priority because: From conversations with Mountain View <br /> residents, it was determined that the gutters on the gym <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.