My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CHC 1979-02-06
PublicDocuments
>
County Clerk - Council
>
County Clerk
>
Charter Commission
>
1980
>
Minutes
>
CHC 1979-02-06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2018 10:49:53 AM
Creation date
6/19/2018 9:08:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGE/MIN (Charter Comm.)
Agency
Charter Commission
Year
1979
Meeting date
2/6/1979
Type
MIN
Document Relationships
AGE CHC 1979-02-06
(Related)
Path:
\County Clerk - Council\County Clerk\Charter Commission\1980\Agendas
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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).
View images
View plain text
MR. SCHUTTE: Mr. Cadinha mentioned the <br /> possibility of the Department of Water Supply being under <br /> your department if you would be in a position to handle <br /> that. Would you want to voice any opinion on that or do <br /> you think it should be that semi-autonomous should be taken <br /> away from the Department of Water Supply? <br /> MR. HARADA: I think it can be handled a <br /> number of ways. It can taintain a status quo. It can be <br /> made a separate department within the county. Not necessarily <br /> under Public Works but having its own label, Department of <br /> Water. But falling under the direct supervision of the <br /> mayor or it can be made a division within Public Works as <br /> Mr. Cadinha suggested . <br /> The other option, also, is that if wewere <br /> trading things , the suggestion that perhaps sewer should <br /> be with water and continue water under either the present <br /> structure or as a department. I think all of these combi- <br /> nations should be reviewed very carefully and if the questions <br /> that are being posed to me are such that it implies my take- <br /> over of water then as my response, earlier, would be that I <br /> think it could be accomodated within the present structure of <br /> the department. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: From what I can gather here, <br /> it does come under certain aspects of the Department of Public <br /> Works anyway. You sit on the Commission mainly because they <br /> need your input to the Water Commission and I would assume <br /> that, to some degree it is possible to marry the two depart- <br /> ments. <br /> MR. HARADA: I think so, because, basically, <br /> both activities are engineering related and they do the <br /> surveys and engineering and construction and inspection <br /> similar to any other project that we do. <br /> MR. CADINHA: Mr. Harada, if the marriage <br /> does take place. Either through the semi-autonomous body <br /> or back into the county, do you see any economies coming as <br /> a result? Do you see any monetary savings? I know this is <br /> off the top of your head but could you see efficiencies put <br /> in? <br /> MR. HARADA: There might be. I see one, for <br /> example, where there would be centralized purchasing. Right <br /> now, I understand , they have their own purchasing agent, for <br /> example. And certain items are purchased through that <br /> department. All others go through the centralized purchasing <br /> through the Finance Department. With some consolidation. <br /> They either being a department of the county or otherwise. <br /> Perhaps that one area could be streamlined somewhat. In <br /> terms of cost savings, I 'm not that familiar with that that <br /> I could respond very accurately. I think that the primary <br /> advantage would be one of coordination. <br /> -21- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.