|
permitting, would be in a common area, and that common area wouldn't include walls
<br />between the different divisions, be open, so that everybody can see everybody else
<br />working together, and that they would, therefore, not be separated. That still is the plan
<br />but it's just which one is going to happen first.
<br />KOKUBUN: Can I add a comment to that, too, in that you know the subdivisions
<br />are not handled in the Kona office, and that's really kind of the bulk of the applications
<br />and bulk of work that we have to handle, so I think, that's why we're thinking that the
<br />way the Charter is set up now, subdivisions are under the purview of the Planning
<br />Director, but, if in fact, this merger happens, it would require, and that's what I think the
<br />consideration by this Commission is, is to take out those responsibilities for subdivision
<br />approvals and subdivision code from the Planning Director's responsibility now. The
<br />way the Charter is actually established for the Department of Public Works, is that
<br />any other additional responsibilities that Public Works takes on, would be handled
<br />through ordinances, so the Council would have to be the body to say, okay, now
<br />subdivisions then would be a part of the responsibilities of Public Works,
<br />GOLDSTEIN: I think if you take a look at the chart, you can get the sense of
<br />where a lot of the work really is with respect to subdivisions. Under the branch and
<br />positions under Planning, there are really only two; one planner and one clerk for
<br />subdivisions, whereas in the Engineer and Regulatory Branch under Public Works,
<br />you have one, two, three engineers that have something to do with it, and then two
<br />inspectors that do the inspection on the construction for subdivisions, so we do a lot of
<br />the coordinating kind of work but a lot of the actual engineering review and inspection
<br />goes on by Public Works right now.
<br />RAY: George.
<br />MARTIN: Thank you, sir. Russell, you made mention about this Kona
<br />operation, and it being implemented because of necessity, lack of monies and what
<br />have you. I commend you folks for doing it and, if in fact, it is working in the manner in
<br />which you're saying it is, I think this kind of information should be brought back to
<br />wherever it needs to be brought back, and disseminated, so that it can be used in the
<br />Hilo operations, if in fact, we do move forward, and that's just a comment.
<br />Second comment is I think what was being touched upon by Kevin, if in fact, you need
<br />to increase people to increase efficiency, the public would have no problem with that,.
<br />as long as they see the efficient effect of it, so to reduce numbers doesn't always
<br />necessarily mean it's going to be the efficient way to do it. As been mentioned, though,
<br />as time goes on, people get better at their jobs. May not have to refill the positions, but
<br />let's not cut to be cutting, okay? Thank you.
<br />RAY: Other comments? Sue, did you have something?
<br />28
<br />
|