+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: BS PMAR survey (/showthread.php?tid=18526)
RE: BS PMAR survey - leo - 09-09-2017
Buenaventura's meeting confirmed the PMAR survey is bogus.
One of the county engineers said the county council would have to accept any dedicated road that's up to county standards. 60 foot wide roads to start and over 50% owners in agreement. There were other requirements but I didn't catch what they were.
RE: BS PMAR survey - randomq - 09-10-2017
Might as well require them to be paved in gold!
RE: BS PMAR survey - kalakoa - 09-10-2017
60 foot wide roads to start
20-foot pavement on 60-foot right-of-way for a "street" which is "rural/agricultural business, industrial, or collector" (HCC 23-41).
That said, County can ("at its discretion") approve any road if they want. Example: Road 8 PEAR requires either 60-foot ("collector") or 80-foot ("secondary arterial") minimum right-of-way, and the road itself is still privately owned.
County "could" simply designate these "private" roads to be "alleys", which only need 20-feet pavement on a 20-foot right-of-way.
Better question. Road construction seems to cost at least $1M/mile. Do the subdivisions really want to be paying bond debt for the next 20 years? Water/sewer lines would be a better investment.
Seriously consider how little you would get for your money, people:
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/highway-130-funding-discussed-official-says-40m-not-enough-complete-widening
RE: BS PMAR survey - My 2 cents - 09-10-2017
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/highway-130-funding-discussed-official-says-40m-not-enough-complete-widening
I was pretty sure that someone would post this link, but I thought that this other story was related:
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/county-hiring-practices-blasted-audit
I recognize that there is at least a perceived difference between State and County, but the picture on the second story could have been used for either one. Seven "workers" in the picture, 2 are actually doing something while the other 5 watch.
RE: BS PMAR survey - Eric1600 - 09-10-2017
The audit [by the Staffing Review Committee] focused on hirings of Clerk III, Laborer II and Park Caretaker I positions in four departments: Environmental Management, Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Finance.
Of the 404 civil service positions filled in 2016, auditors reviewed 46 and found 42 contained questionable hiring practices.
It found cases in some departments where applicants were offered positions before interviews were conducted, where no references were checked, where the number of interviews were the same as vacancies even though there was a large referred list, where a random number generator instead of a skills test was used to winnow applicants, where applications with mainland addresses were discarded and other questionable practices.
And......
Mayor Harry Kim dismantled the Staffing Review Committee and froze new hiring shortly after taking office in December.
RE: BS PMAR survey - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 09-10-2017
auditors reviewed 46 and found 42 contained questionable hiring practices.
Or to look at in another way, 4 out of 46 workers were the best qualified for their position, based on a fair and equitable review of all applicants.
The Donner Party really wasn't that great of a party, was it?
RE: BS PMAR survey - mermaid53 - 09-10-2017
HPP's main drags have 60' wide roads. I spoke w/one of the engineers that happens to live in HPP. He said HPP's humpy roads and line of sight problems could be some of HPP's challenges to road dedication. Eileen O'Hara spoke after the engineer and stated there have been other private roads that were dedicated that weren't up to county standards. She said it's ultimately the county council's decision.
5-6 yrs ago road dedication was a hot topic in HPP. A survey was sent out and a majority of respondents wanted our main drags dedicated. Back then the county mentioned other issues they saw along HPP's roads that were concerning to them....encroachments on association easements which eliminate "bail out zones", driveways, not to code signage and sign installation. There are HPP policies that align w/the DOT standards, and bylaws that address the driveway and encroachment issues, but the GM and board had other priorities (i.e. CS) so we're 3 yrs behind. Prior to this HPP, was progressing towards a goal to dedicate our main roads.
The board Pres in 2016 reported at a board meeting that HPP could not dedicate our roads until the Bond was paid off. That was the first time anyone heard of this which left people scratching their heads. It became evident at yesterday's meeting he gave out misinformation.
A new transplant to the BI, state engineer Donald Smith, spoke about the work on Hwy 130. I know someone who's a neighbor of his and he lives on one of the worst roads in HPP. One of the things he mentioned about Hwy 130 is the need for good striping and reflectors...ironically this has been HPP's most serious safety hazards for the past 3 yrs. Again CS took priority.
There were other subdivision board members who attended to speak to the representatives publicly about their concerns. Things got a little contentious when someone from Orchidland spoke...he was accused of going off topic after sev minutes and asked to stop immediately. A few people yelled to let him finish but the meeting coordinator was persistent. It was interesting to hear first hand what methods other private subdivisions are attempting to resolve their road and financial issues, and further confirmed what a mess it all is. Ruderman showed up near the end of the meeting.
RE: BS PMAR survey - Chunkster - 09-10-2017
Thanks for the link, kalakoa. The real story here is twofold:
First, there is no money for PMAR anywhere in sight. All the talk about "connectivity" and emergency access is meaningless without money, and the State won't fund it. Grant funding in an amount to construct a usable rural highway in a place like Puna is unheard of, and the "special improvement district" concept means increased property taxes for the subdivision residents should they (unwisely IMHO) choose to go that way. See kalakoa's post above for a conservative cost estimate.
Second, appropriated funding for the widening of Highway 130 is no long sufficient. They have $40M, but are looking at ways to spend it other than the comprehensive improvement four lanes would provide. On top of that, the spokesperson wasn't even sure the money would be released. Imagine that.
And the icing on the cake of the meeting is the County just reciting its road dedication specs yet again without any gesture of relief or compromise for the Puna subdivisions. Those bumps and line of sight issues mermaid53 correctly mentions are very expensive to fix, as an earlier and more competent HPP Board determined. Yes, the County can accept substandard roads, but something on the scale of all of HPP's arterials is unheard of.
In short, we are screwed and we will stay screwed.
RE: BS PMAR survey - kalakoa - 09-10-2017
All the talk about "connectivity" and emergency access is meaningless without money ... County just reciting its road dedication specs yet again
I've pointed this out before but it bears repeating: these two issues are very closely related.
Pick a hypothetical "connector road", such as that proposed between Fern Acres and Kopua Farm Lots. Total distance (per the plats) would be about 2000 feet. At $1M/mile, that project costs about $375,000 (not including land acquisition), after which you have a beautiful segment of pavement (with striping and reflectors) connecting two unmaintained private roads, one of which isn't even paved.
Stated goal of the "connectivity" project is emergency egress, not casual cruising over to adjacent subdivisions -- in fact, locations of the proposed roads have been carefully chosen to discourage their use as a primary route, with the roads "staggered" so that it's not convenient to "cut through".
(At 20' wide, a 2000-foot connector is less than an acre. How much is an acre of rip-n-roll with a D9? Include fuel, delivery, and a few loads of crushed rock for good measure.)
Somehow the "dedicable standard" seems like complete overkill for the intended purpose -- and yet, it's all the County is "allowed" to build "under the existing rules and laws as written".
It's actually quite clever: PCDP working groups can put forth plans that "address the public need" while Council denies those plans as "not within the budget". Everyone can maintain the appearance of doing work "for the common good" while not actually having to deliver anything.
Meanwhile, people keep buying lots and building homes...
RE: BS PMAR survey - Chunkster - 09-10-2017
-- in fact, locations of the proposed roads have been carefully chosen to discourage their use as a primary route, with the roads "staggered" so that it's not convenient to "cut through".
While I agree that this is true at face value and probably being asserted in good faith, ask anyone in upper HPP about what lengths people will go to to get where they want to go when 130 is clogged. I have seen HPP side roads as far down as 22nd backed up when there is a meltdown on the highway. If you build it, they will come, and they will find a way around any impediment to using a residential road as a connector.