|
KOKUBUN: I think a practical example that, maybe, many of you have had
<br />experiences with, is actually what's happening in our Kona office now. The Kona office
<br />actually now is shared by these three branches, basically, Engineering, Planning and
<br />Building, with one counter. We just didn't have enough money to spend for three
<br />separate offices, but basically now, a person will come into the Kona office and have all
<br />three departments, or responsibilities, taken care of at once, and there is dialogue
<br />going on between our Planning Department and Engineering and Building, so things
<br />do get done, I think, in a lot more efficient and expedient manner, so that's just a
<br />practical example of what's happening.
<br />RAY: Kevin, finished?
<br />BALOG: Okay. Anyway, my real comment was more that if something like
<br />this happened, even if you could cut a position, if you're looking long range, I would
<br />think that it's better to train people, and as work increases, instead of worrying about
<br />having to create a position in two, three years. It's better to train your staff along the
<br />way, work out the bugs, and then, as your workload increases, 'cause it probably will,
<br />`cause things keep growing, and people would retire then, if you are at the point of
<br />being efficient, then you may not need to fill a position, but not necessarily cutting
<br />positions, yes? I know you've talked about it, but if something like this was done,
<br />because one Department Head said, possibly positions could be eliminated, the other
<br />Department Deputy said, no they're not looking, so there's two differences of opinion
<br />from the Administrative arm of our government, so I'm just wondering, when you put
<br />your heads together, are you putting it together one thing, one thing, one thing, the
<br />other, or are you guys kind of putting it together and saying, we want to just look at it,
<br />that we want to be more efficient and we aren't looking at it to cut positions? We're just
<br />looking at it to be efficient, as a whole.
<br />SUMADA: Maybe, Commissioner, I need to explain things, I look at our
<br />Department as a whole. We have seven divisions within the Department of Public
<br />Works, which includes Wastewater, Engineering, Building, Automotive. Just
<br />because we do this, doesn't mean the others go away, and that was in my reference to
<br />the other regard that Engineering Division, this proposal basically splits them in half.
<br />That half of it, maybe not exactly half, but a portion, goes to this Permitting Division
<br />and we still need to provide that service whereby certain County functions, that we can
<br />build new roads, do major construction projects on roads, assist Parks and Rec in their
<br />projects, so that engineering function, the construction side, or the engineering design
<br />side, of Engineering still needs to be done, and that's still under the purview of the
<br />Chief Engineer's Office, so that's the part I look at in totality, and for me, I don't see
<br />that, when we do this, or undertake this, that it's going to necessarily mean a reduction.
<br />It might be different for the Planning Department, but I think the essence of what
<br />you're trying to say is that the Planning Department and Public Works need to
<br />coordinate our efforts together, and we will very definitely try to do that, as we move
<br />26
<br />
|