Laserfiche WebLink
? The fact is that less than 33% of the costs for capital and operations are related to <br /> recycling operations. Yet some of us on the council have been portrayed as being <br /> against recycling because we question the large amount of funds proposed to be spe: <br /> on the EHRSS. <br /> ? Most of the negative comments made regarding the EHRSS deal with the issue of <br /> long hauling trash from Hilo to Puuanahulu. This issue has never been mitigated. <br /> ? Throughout the DEIS, and during public hearings and meetings, respondents inquire <br /> about the pursuit of a WRT. Most of the DEIS inquiries were made during the mon <br /> of October 2003. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM), however <br /> did not respond to those inquiries until February 2004. The standard response was <br /> "we are quickly moving to identify and select a suitable WRT for the County of <br /> Hawai`i." This slow response prompted this council to adopt Resolution No. 180-41 <br /> (draft 3) which urged the DEM to expedite the process for an RFP (Request for <br /> Proposal) for an appropriate WRT. <br /> ? DEM has contended that the only alternative if the EHRSS is not built in time, is lot <br /> hauling trash to Puuanahulu. According to the contract with URS Corporation, Tasl <br /> 7:Contingency Plan ,dated February 7, 2003, page 11, there are two options the <br /> county could pursue if events should significantly delay the startup of the EHRSS <br /> (see attached): <br /> (1) To haul all waste from the transfer stations directly to Puuanahulu and dire <br /> commercial haulers to Puuanahulu. <br /> 2) To build a temporary reload facility in Hilo until a permanent facility could be <br /> opened. <br /> ? Another serious concern I have is with the closing date of the Hilo Landfill. This is <br /> "moving target" and has to be evaluated periodically. Mayor Kim now states that <br /> "the projected closure date of the landfill is based on the assumption that the Sort <br /> Station will become operational during next fiscal year Current estimates for tl <br /> closing date range from mid to late 2006. <br /> ? The intent of Bills 237 and 238 is to "guard" the integrity of the RFP process as we <br /> move toward the selection of WRT. Money is an important concern in our <br /> deliberations, especially when the EHRSS will cost taxpayers in excess of $11.4 <br /> million. We need to insure that taxpayers are not burdened with an expense that <br /> might prove in the long run to be unnecessary. The tragedy of this issue is that the <br /> public must bear the costs of this "interim" solution when this problem has been <br /> foreseeable for decades. <br /> <br /> Attachment <br /> <br />