HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0585.000 1998-2000 12ec cle~~~ filawai'i
y
p.0. Yjox 4849 !silo, fiawai'' ~ 9642U-Q849
9nfoiine: (808) 329-2886 or ~fl8f 961 ~5~6
Email: info~recyciehawaii.org W~9 sJk~. ~yHnN,~¢c~c(~A,awaii.org
November 23, 1999 ((;;tl;_ 11.,`x; ~~'I~'
TO: Mayor Stephen Yamashiro
?Hawai`i County Council Members
County DPW Chief Yanabu
FROM: Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee
RE: Solid Waste Management Recommendations
Dear D i' - a ers, n-,,,,,, R~-a.cwtc.~
J
As you know, Recycle Hawaii and the Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee
have been working on solid waste issues and options. As an ad hoc committee of
Recycle Hawaii, the HISWAC hereby submits to you recommendations for a new solid
waste revenue system and complementary programs for the County of Hawaii.
Enclosed are supporting documents for the past year-and-a-half's research and
community-based planning efforts that offer a solution to some of the solid waste
dilemmas facing our county.
We are pleased to say that this solution brings an opportunity to I) improve the island's
illegal dumping program, 2) improve recycling and diversion and 3) provide a revenue
source that can eventually cover all solid waste costs. These recommendations are based
on a proven system used by thousands of other communities nationwide.
Thank-you for your consideration in passing these ordinances.
SinSin
e~ ~`~'~1C,I
aurel A. Dekker
For the HISWAC
BJ Beamer Dale Burton Mike Dubois
Paul Eggel Jenda Johnson Margaret Pahio n
James Leonard Carrie McCabe Bob Platt L'°pun, N°. ~f
Jim Rhodes Ululani Rosario John Santangelo REF
Jiro Sumada Rick Walton H]f0 NO•
Res. a wP
enclosures
Ref. Date ~ 1 4 lAl~,
ti 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt, educational organization, serving the 1,
f' ig <Jsland
~j Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROJECT FLOW CHART
In 1997, Recycle Hawaii saw significant
solid waste problems in the county's near future.
Recycle Hawaii pursued a grant to find a revenue system with
complementary waste reduction methods.
The Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee was formed.
Recycle Hawaii conducted a full cost accounting summary for fiscal year 1998.
HISAWC and Recycle Hawaii surveyed the community.
HISWAC determined tha the community was receptive
to the concept of a PAYT system.
A model following other rural communities was selected.
The combined system includes mechanisms that l) reduce and prevent
illegal dumping, 2) increase recycling and diversion and 3) establish
equitable user fees for both commercial and residential waste generators.
Public meetings were held in October 1999.
The ordinance package will be presented at the County Council
Committee of Public Wo ks and Parks in January 2000.
The proposed system can be designed
to eventually cover all solid waste costs.
Recycle Hawaii 1 11/12/99
SOLID WASTE ISSUES
In 1997, Recycle Hawaii saw significant solid waste problems in the county's near future.
Hilo Landfill closing-Increased costs to handle waste-Shortage of funds to cover rising costs
HILO LANDFILL CLOSING: In 1991 the Environmental Protection Agency announced that all
unlined landfills must close due to their negative impacts on the environtnent. The county has
received multiple permit extensions from the state in order to have time to set up a sound waste
management system as an alternative. To date, an alternative system has not been set up. The
current permit extension is still under consideration and likely to be approved through October 2000
or possibly through October 2003. The closing of the landfill will mean hauling 181 tons a day to
the Pu`uanahulu landfill at a cost of an additional $3 million per year (per Recycle Hawaii research
and DPW data) UNLESS an alternative system is implemented, for an alternative cost.
FINANCIAL SHORTFALL: The current county revenue system to cover our island trash costs
comes from taxes (74%), user fees (20%) and other sources (6%). [See attachment Are We
Throwing Our Money Away ?and attachment on Municipal Solid Waste, County of Hawaii DPW
Reve~u~es/Expenditures/Assets The county solid waste division is running with an operations
budget cut of $2 million this year and faces an even greater challenge next year when the entire
county budget is expected to fall short at least $10 million. Sometime in the next few years, the Hilo
landfill will close. When that happens, the island faces significant increases in annual costs.
Without a new revenue line or tax increase, we will not be able to cover essential costs.
TRASH OR RESOURCES? We produce a lot of trash. The Island of Hawaii landfills nearly
145,000 tons per year-6.2 pounds per person per day or more than 1 ton per person per year.
Although an estimated IS% is recycled, 67% of the discards headed to the landfill has been
identified as recoverable [resource: 1996 DPW Waste Canposition Analysis, see also resource What
is Really in our Trnsh?]. Unfortunately there are limitations to increasing recycling efforts without
uniform and consistent policies throughout the county. A change must be made to require
continuous county recycling programs.
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN: The County ISWMP and its Resolution
291-94 of acceptance identified several areas for solid waste management improvements. The
following are among them: establish source separation centers, consider solid waste as a true utility,
establish a user fee for residential refuse (planned for'95), and all transfer stations should be
upgraded to allow separate collection of recyclable materials [resource: ISWMP for the County of
Hawaii 1993]. These concepts are also supported in a 1998 document prepared by Rural
Community Assistance Corporation and many community members, Recycling and Reuse on the
Island of Hawaii [see resource list and see resource Reducing Solid Waste is a Personal Choice].
GRAM' SUI'1'ORT
Recycle Hawaii pursued a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, with support from the
County of Hawaii Department of Public Works and State of Hawaii Department of Health. Its
purpose was to find a revenue system with complementary waste reduction methods that would
provide a means for better stewardship and reduced impact on climate change.
Recycle Hawaii 2 I I/l8/99
HISWAC
The Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee was formed with 15 community
representatives from general business, recycling/hauling business, government and non-profit
organizations [see H/SWAG List attached]. HISWAC met monthly from December '98 to
September '99 and again in November. HISWAC's role was to guide Recycle Hawaii in project
planning, development and outreach. /n the future, we hope that a permanent community
committee (e.g., Solid Waste and Environment Committee or Commission) can be established for
maintaining dialog and input with DPW.
COST ANALYSIS
Due to the lack of an existing cost analysis of the County's solid waste division, Recycle Hawaii
conducted a full cost accounting summary for fiscal year 1998 with support from DPW. The county
landfilled an average of 396 tons per day in FY98. That's more than one ton per person per year.
$ 11.67 million was spent on direct and indirect solid waste costs. We pay $80 per ton or
approximately $1.20 per 30-gallon bag. [See attachments Municipal Solid Waste, County of Hawaii
DPW Revenues/Ezpertditures/Assets and Are We Throwing Our Money Away? Additional resources:
EPA Full Cost Accounting handbook and EPA's Full Cost Accounting in Action.]
? ? fn die fitture, it is recommended that the county separate costs related !o transfer stations from
those for landfills and recycling. Doing so will enable the county to see the pathways where the
fiords are going and to establish a memo to recover those costs more appropriately.
SURVEYS
HISAWC and Recycle Hawaii surveyed the community to find out if a type of revenue system
called Pay-As-You-Throw was right for the island. The public was surveyed through random street
surveys, community organization mailings, community organization meetings and general public
meetings.
600 surveys were returned, some representing individuals and some representing organizations (total
representation was nearly 2,000). 70% preferred to pay only for what they throw away compared to
paying an average cost (24%). 57% want to initiate new revenue programs to cover rising costs
rather than raise taxes (6%). 55% preferred to pay for trash through both taxes and fees. 75%
indicated that they recycle now, and 96% of the respondents were willing to recycle. S8% preferred
mandated recycling to optional recycling (41%). [See resources on Survey Results in Percent and
Survey Responses by District. A summary of survey and meeting comments is contained in the
resource Community Feedback SumrnaryJ.
Based on the feedback and survey results, HISWAC determined that the community was receptive
to the concept of aPay-As-You-Throw system.
GOALS & STRATEGIES
Also in response to the surveys and community feedback, HISWAC and Recycle Hawaii outlined
the summary of the project goals and strategies.
COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS
Recycle Hawaii 3 I I/18/99
• Find new mechanisms to pay for solid waste costs
• Reduce or minimize growing solid waste costs
GOALS FOR ESTABLISHING ACOST-RECOVERY SYSTEM
• Create a more equitable payment program
• Consider island economics and demographics when determining rates -consider leaving some
payment to come from taxes initially to create more incentive for participation
• Consider phases for implementation
• Create a flexible payment program to meet the needs of diverse population centers and incomes
• Create an easy/practical fee collection program
• Create incentives for local economic development
• Create convenient recovery and waste reduction programs
• Compare long-term cost reduction for investments
• Consider long-term impact on the environment
MODEL SYSTEMS AND LOCAL OPPORTUNITIES
Recycle Hawaii researched materials from EPA, the Internet, governments and national trade
magazines to find models that would work here. Communities providing best examples for us are
those in rural areas, those using transfer stations for drop-off and those with good illegal dumping
prevention programs in place. Communities offering some model programs are Trinity County, CA;
South Kingston, RI; Dover, NH; Falmouth, ME; Vancouver, WA; Gainesville, FL; and Monroe
County, FL (see attachments of PAYT Success Stories). Trinity County a[ 4 people per square mile
is even more rural than Hawaii Island at 35 people per square mile.
More than 4,000 communities are using a revenue system that charges people for what they
generate and throw away, similar to our current landfill fee system. This type of system follows the
premise that we should pay for utilities based on what we use -like electricity, gas, water and trash.
It provide residents with an opportunity to reduce their waste and control their trash costs. Many
communities have gone from a financially challenged tax-based system to aself-sustaining pay-as-
you-throw system (PAYT). In a study of 14 communities using PAYT, waste was reduced 14-27%
in the 1"year. [Resource: Under What Conditions Should Cities Adopt Volume-Based Pricing For
Residential Solid Waste Collection?, Duke University.]
There are opportunities in our recycling situation that can lead us to a better system. Because
more than 60% of our trash is recyclable, recycling now costs less than landfilling and we have a
cooperating private sector, this county can create a system that reduces waste going to landfills and
likewise reduces costs. With a PAYT system in place, recycling plays an even more important role.
This county has a better litter and dumping code than the state (which is the one used most
commonly by police). Enhanced education of interpretation and use of the county code can assist in
improving illegal dumping prevention on the island. Convenient disposal of white goods and bulky
items will also help.
PAYT OPTIONS
A model following other rural communities with transfer station drop-offs was selected as the most
appropriate under current conditions. The system would be implemented through the passing of a
package of ordinance modifications to the Hawaii County Refuse Code (see attachment of Proposed
Ordinances).
Recycle Hawaii 4 11/18/99
To get to this point, several options were explored in detail for advantages, disadvantages and cost
considerations (for details see attachment of PAYT System Evaluation and resource summary of
Complete PAYT System Options). The range of final options included bags and tags, weight by
scales, estimated volume. In addition, other options were explored but dismissed based on the
unfeasibility under our current conditions (county provided cans, Fla[ rate fee, solid waste fee on the
tax statement, recycling credits on the taxes, solid waste enterprise fund for all solid waste costs and
the consideration of a private-run transfer station).
PAYT systems have many benefits. The most prominent are I) Economical -communities are able
to cover program expenses and reduce long-term costs; 2) Environmental -less waste is produced,
more recyclable products are used and therefore less negative impact is made on the environment; 3)
Equitable -consumers pay only for what they throw away, if they generate less, they pay less.
? ? Other revenue systems to be considered in the future are advance disposal fees (ADF) on items
corrtirtg in to the state orcounty-current state law prohibits counties from setting their own
surcharges or taxes. Grants are often available for municipalities to embark on rtew and resource-
e~cient programs. Minty communities have received these types of benefits for their solid waste
operations. ? ? Options for recycling credits on taxes could be considered if solid waste does not
became self-sustaining with PAYT fees.
PROPOSED SYSTEM
The proposed combined system includes mechanisms that 1) reduce and prevent illegal dumping, 2)
increase recycling and diversion and 3) establish equitable user fees for both commercial and
residential waste generators where you pay less if you throw away less.
The PAYT fee system will only be implemented after the first two components are implemented.
The process will gradually phase in program components, taking 2 years to get to fee
implementation (see PAYT Timeline attachment). The system carries the same fees and rate
currently charged to residents and businesses at both landfills ($35/ton or $0.50 per 30-gallon bag
and $0.25 for I S-gallon bag). Users of transfer stations will buy pre-paid punch cazds; permitted
commercial users of landfills may continue to operate under a billing system.
Illegal Dumping Prevention Program focuses on use of the county code and expanded
education. The code modifications will improve and simplify enforcement. The program will
contain education for police, neighborhoods and the general public. The police department,
prosecutors office and highways division have all expressed support for the proposed improvements.
The community policing program can assist with the outreach. Partnerships can be formed with
communities for better stewardship and voluntary compliance. More people can be involved in
identifying violators. Under the PAYT system, convenient access to legal disposal of bulky items
and white goods at transfer stations will improve the prevention component. In addition, the Mayor
can proclaim periodic "amnesty days" for trash to assist with community stewardship efforts. Much
of the education and enforcement using the county code can be initiated immediately. Initially, much
of the education and improvements to enforcement can be implemented, even without changes to the
ordinances. ? ? lrt the future, additional vehicle drop-off sites would be beneficial to reducing
illegal dumping of autos and metals.
Complementary Recycling Programs include upgrading of the transfer stations to provide
access to easy and convenient recycling, uniformity around the island and on-going recycling
Recycle Hawaii 5 1 I/1 R/99
programs. To begin with, a recycling coordinator will be hired to plan, oversee and monitor [he
programs. Recycling remains optional for the consumer, without a direct recycling fee. 19 of the 21
transfer stations have been budgeted to receive recycling drop-off containers by way of private
contracts. Contractors will be required to collect and market specific marketable commodities. The
contracts are based on 5-year operating periods, but contractors are limited to only one section of the
county (suggested are 3 regions of 6-8 transfer stations each-see attached Transfer Station Weight
And Flow Distribution Table). Initially, more recycling can be done under a "no-cost" bid for use of
the transfer stations to collect recyclables. Reuse cetcters or "swap s/cops" can be cast-effective
at the transfer stations, especially when done in partnerships with community organizations or other
businesses. As the PAYT program gets rolling and staff time becomes more available, reuse centers
should be implemented at as many transfer stations as possible to reduce waste. A recent study has
shown them to be feasible and supported by the community [resource Big Island Reuse Feasibility
StudyJ. In tlce near future, when more revenues are available, metals and greenwaste are the
primary commodities to divert from the waste stream at the transfer stations.
The Pay-as-you-throw system will be implemented ~y ~jlg~ the first two components are
in place. The system will gradually phase in over a 2-year period. Transfer station hours are
reduced and gates installed [o reduce costs. 19 of the 2 ( transfer stations are budgeted to have
manned monitor booths. An educational campaign modeled after the EPA PAYT Tool Kit
campaign will run for at least six months prior to implementation. The public will be notified
through flyers, posters, utility bill inserts, community meetings and other means. People disposing
of trash at the transfer stations will pay only for what they throw away using pre-paid punch cards
that are bought at their local grocer. Attendants will use hand-held computers to maintain
accountability. People will pay less for I bag than for 10 bags. As a result of this incentive,
communities have proven that people will reduce their consumption and control their costs.
Commercial and residential waste generators will pay the same tipping fee that they currently pay at
the landfill ($35/ton or $0.25 fora 13-gallon kitchen bag and $0.50 fora 30-gallon trash bag). The
rate is equivalent to $2.50 per cubic yard. Initially, the rate is kept low and highly subsidized to
keep it affordable for everyone. Private hauling service remains optional. Those operating
community cleanup campaigns can work with state and county highways for special bags and
disposal options. ? ? A reduction in rice number of Transfer stations ro/6 has been recommended to
offer more options that are more affordable. ? ? /n tlce future, the rates and services can be
adjusted to reflect actual costs for services..
PUBLIC MEETINGS
The ordinance package contains 3 parts. Illegal dumping changes offer easier enforcement and
increased personal responsibility. The recycling section creates a mandate for on-going recycling
and diversion programs. The user fee section creates a more equitable payment system for all waste
generators at the same rate as the current landfill charge.
Public meetings were held in October '99 to present the proposed system and offer opportunities for
questions and answers. The response was favorable. The meetings were videotaped and will be
aired on cable TV over the next couple months. Information is also available on Recycle Hawaii 's
web site <www.recyclehawaii.org>. The EPA website <www.epa.gov/payt> offers additional
information on PAYT systems and climate change.
Recycle Hawaii 6 I I/l8/99
ORDINANCES
Corporation counsel will furrnally rewrite the drafted ordinances in order for the County Council
Committee of Public Works and Parks to present them in January (see attachment of Proposed
Ordinances). ? ? /n the frdure more work should be done on the County Refuse Code. Definitions
under littering and dumping are ambiguous and somewhat redundant. Amore thorough review of
the Refuse Code is recommended.
The ordinances offer a solid waste management foundation for more opportunities to follow. The
proposed changes are submitted for the purpose of improving the protection of public health, safety
and general welfare in addition to carrying out the responsibilities of the County of Hawaii as stated
in its charter to conserve natural resources and preserve our natural beauty. Future generations will
benefit through improved stewardship of our natural and financial resources.
The proposed changes also offer a means for this county to follow State of Hawaii Act 324 which
was adopted as Chapter 342 G HRS, "Hawai'i should strive to prevent [he unnecessary generation of
waste and should strive to minimize the amount of waste generated..."
Likewise the County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and Resolution 291-94
call for actions contained within these ordinances.
COSTS
Initially, HISWAC is recommending that taxes continue to be the primary source of solid waste
funds for now. As the program proves its worthiness, the fees can be graduated [o eventually handle
100%a of costs.
? ? The system can be designed to eventually cover all solid waste costs -meeting the solid waste
goal thnt the mayor has of "zero impact on the general fiord " A minimum l0-year period is
recommended to become a setf-sustaining fund.
In the first full year of PAYT, the county can anticipate revenues for corresponding PAYT,
recycling and illegal dumping programs of over $2 million (based on the amount of trash dropped at
transfer stations last year.)
The Trash Cost Trends chart on the next page shows the coming costs for solid waste, in which two
systems are depicted -one following the current trend with long-hauling and landfilling as the
primary waste management method and the other showing what can happen in the PAYT scenario.
In both cases, an assumption is made that the Hilo landfill will close by 2005. In addition, a super
transfer station is anticipated to be part of the new infrastructure, amortized over 10 years. A cost
increase of I% per year is included.
The PAYT system assumes that [here will be a 20% reduction and diversion in the first year,
growing to 30% by 2005 and 40% by 2010 (these are typical estimates). A 5% reduction of waste
by reuse and precycling is included in these percentages. By reducing the waste headed to the
landfill, the landfill life is extended. Given a 40% diversion rate, a 30-year landfill extends to 42
years, thereby decreasing annual costs even further. [n this scenario, the contract with Waste
Management Inc. can still be maintained, as up to 50% can be diverted from the waste stream and
Recycle Hawaii 7 I I/IS/99
o ~
3K r> w .v
v m c
C A N T N N
a
r
° m m
m ~
°
N •
•
to
N
O
N
O •
O , •
N •
• •
•
~ •
O •
N , •
N ao ` • t0
O ~ 1 ,
N •
•
I~ a ' • m
Z o° 'n
NW N
LL
•
IA q•
N O ~ -~~Q
~ N
> ~ ~
U
Q N ,
• I •
•
~ ~ • •
~ I
•
~ I
01 •
~
n
O
T
H
~ pN
~ m O
E
d
N N
b N
y N
m $ E $ m
m =
rn ~ y ~ a ~
t~ O O m r O N V f") N O W aD I~ t0 N Y Y7 N r y
C L N r ~ r r r r r C N N a'
0010 d E E
0
O ~ m v
ESi11MlEp CIIflREM REUFNUE TRENDS
M.Ype
of ~9V3 3000 S 1011 :OU
OoiMn
u
n
~e
1~
n
u
n
to
E
E iATF1
r
e
5
~ YI
1 / I I IANOFILL fEE! I I I
an...Yn.T U........
.wm.~.e MiYN ~v~wR .rM...m
E!lPMSEp FAYT REVFMIE TREMS ICUMENF FEElI
MiMM~
d L Y93 3W3 ]0 1 }p 5
OYYFiF
~]P
n
~s ~ -
u ~
q ~
V OED
rv TAAES
~ PA'F7 VSG FEE1
.....r rnvr...... w....~..~
F...w r~N.w~.I FAR
ESPIMtEp FUi1111E R~YF REVENUE TRENpS
MYgn~
OI I ~9% :Opl }Ip5•
Do~M 1
~S
O
v
v
~a
u r
v I
n
le TAl(E!
3
r
a
3
PAYT UlFR FEES
5
i
1
~~.r RRVr~r
wm•rmi..~.~rvarr
IIRn en Ti~OO s e 100 rF N~wrpl
still leave the minimum tonnage of 200 tons per day to go to the landfill. In 25 years, that
restriction will no longer apply.
The PAYT system is expected to cost $1 1.7 million in 2002, where the non-PAYT or current system
is expected to cost $12.0 million. The start-up costs for PAYT are amortized over (0 years and are
expected to be $25,872 annually. The annual PAYT cost estimates are detailed on the attached
Estimated PAYT Costs spreadsheet.
In 2005 PAYT is estimated at $14.9 and non-PAYT at $15.8. By the time we reach 2030, the
difference between the PAYT and non-PAYT system has grown.
The first two revenue charts on the previous page show the comparison of tax dependence on the
current system and the PAYT system. The pattern of the current trend shows taxes rising
considerably to cover growing costs. The comparison between the two shows the need for raising
taxes at a higher rate than fees. Over time, this difference becomes even more significant.
The third revenue chart shows the decreasing tax dependence in aself-sustaining system. In the
self-sustaining PAYT system, where fees are raised to cover all costs, the taxes are eventually
eliminated from covering solid waste costs.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, the county needs to find a way to offset rising solid waste costs. The shortage of
funds available from taxes enunciates the problem. The proposed system prepared by HISWAC and
Recycle Hawaii offers a solution that can help the island in both the short and long-term.
Implementation is possible with the help of the County Council, Administration and general public.
Recycle Hawaii l0 l 1/18/99
ATTACHMENT LIST
Are We Throwing Our Money Away? Recycle Hawaii. 1999.
Estimated PAYT Costs. Recycle Hawaii. 1999.
I-[awaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee (HISWAC) List. 1998-1999.
Municipal Solid Waste, County of Hawaii DPW Revenue/Expenditures/Assets. Recycle
1 lawai' i. 1999.
PAYT Success Stories. EPA 530-F-97-0007. April 1997.
PAYT System Evaluation. Recycle Hawaii. 1999
PAYT Timeline. Recycle Hawaii. 1999
Proposed Ordinances. Recycle Hawaii. 1999.
Transfer Station Weight and Flow Distribution Table. Recycle Hawaii. 1999
RESOURCES LIST
Barrett Consulting Group. Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii.
1993.
Blume, Daniel. "Under What Conditions Should Cities Adopt Volume-Based Pricing For
Residential Solid Waste Collection?" Master's Memo, Institute of Policy Sciences and Public
Affairs, Duke University. May 1991.
Canterbury, Janice. Pay-As-You-Throw Tool Kit. EPA Office of Solid Waste. EPA 530-8-96-
013. September 1996.
Canterbury, Janice. Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Leazned About Unit Pricing of Municipal
Solid Waste. EPA Office of Solid Waste. EPA 530-R-94-004. April 1994.
Canterbury, Janice. Rate Structure Design: Setting Rates for aPay-As-You-Throw Program.
EPA Office of Solid Waste. EPA 530-R-99-006. January 1999.
County of Hawaii Department of Public Works Waste Composition Analysis 1996.
EPA. Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook. EPA Office
of Solid Waste. EPA 530-R-95-041. September 1997.
Recycle Hawaii 1 11/23/1999
EPA. Full Cost Accounting in Action: Case Studies of Six Solid Waste Management Agencies.
EPA Office of Solid Waste. EPA 530-R-98-018. December 1998.
EPA. Pay-As-You-Throw Success Stories. EPA 530-F-97-007. April 1997.
EPA: PAYT Bulletins
EPA: PAYT video. Pay-As-You-Throw: A New Trend in Sustainable Solid Waste
Management. 1998.
EPA: Waste Prevention, Recycling and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 Communities.
EI'A 530-R-92-015. February 1994.
EPA Website www.epa.eov/oavt
National Association of Counties and International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.
Solid waste Management and the Greenhouse Effect. www.naco.ore. July 1999.
Park, William M. "Using Volume-Based User Fees in Rutal Areas: How do they work?"
Resource Recycling. January 1995.
Recycle Hawaii. Community Feedback Summary. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Complete PAYT System Options. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Newsletters. February, May, August, October, November 1999.
Recycle Hawaii Website www.recyclehawaii.ore
Recycle Hawaii. Reducing Solid Waste is a Personal Choice. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Summary of New Trash Management Strategy. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Survey. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Survey Results by Percent and District. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. What is Really in Our Trashl 1999.
Rural Conununity Assistance Corporation. Big Island Reuse Feasibility Study. Prepared for
DBEDT-Clean l lawaii Center. 1999.
Rural Community Assistance Corporation. Recycling and Reuse on the Big Island of Hawaii: A
Vision and Action Plan. December 1998.
Recycle Hawaii 2 11/23/1999
Are we throwing our money away?
Let's ut it to
p ~ ~ L T
better use
i~ ~
Did you know: 1 ~i 1
• We are facing both a budget and a -i
landfill shortage for our "rubbish," or
municipal solid waste (MSW). ~ ~
• The Hilo landfill will soon be full. I
~ _
• A $2 million budget cut is being I
proposed for solid waste in ~Y99/00.
• We are already paying over $80 per ton. ~
When the Hilo landfill closes, the costs will L
be even higher. Current costs estimates equate to $1.20
• 77% of the MSW costs are used to receive, per 3u lbs. of nhS'v4 disposed (including
transport and bury our trash. visitor and commercial waste.)
Hauling charges are extra.
n;P Unless there Is some waste stream
diversion soon, we face the inability Total waste' generated is equivalent to each of the Island's
to handle the waste In Hllo and pay 130,000 residents generating 6.1 pounds per day, or 2,226
Tor the long distance hauling. pounds per year)
'visitor and commercial waste generation included
Hawaii County Municipal Solid Waste Costs/Revenues
Percent of Costs Percent of Revenues
D lendlllls 8 Iranaler
stations: 77%
¦ stall support Irum
other depts.: 59:
O charges to SWD l O transler from general tax land: 58%.
Irom automotive R ~ Intllreel tax landing (bonds, depreeletlon, Inlerdepenmant): 16X
other depts.: 5.:
O glass reeyeling 8 0 glass reeycling program (state Industry eurcherpe): 2%
other recycling ~landllll tipping lees: 20%
programs: 5% ¦ vehicle tllsposal land lase (licensee, permits, lowing, storepe): 4%
¦ vehicle disposal: 69l O lendllll permit tees: 0%
¦ miscelleneoue: 0
r •
Printed on Rerycled Paper 3/99
. -
What ~s really ~n our Trash ~
We can make a
personal choice to
STATE* reduce our "waste" HILO**
that goes to the
landfill.
Paper Paper
2l% ~ 22.6%
- w~ Yard & Wood Green Waste
Waste 24% ~ 9.8%
Food Waste Wood Waste
6.3% 12.4
S: ~
4 Plastics ~ Plastics
Glass Glass
Metals Metals
~ 10.5% 5.3%
28.8% ~ Other 40.2%***
710/_ ,~_6Q%
o Recyclabl
taken from DEED Publication -draft Integrated Solid Waste management Plan I by each County,
1992, based on 1991 estimates.
From Hilo Waste Composition Analysis, 1996.
'''Includes food waste, constnrclion aggregates 8. other.
~`I Municipal Solid Waste, County Of Hawaii, DPW
Revenues/Expenditures/Assets
Fiscal Year 1997/1998
Source Of Revenues For Municipal Solid Waste:
Public Tax Source Fee Source
Transfer From Gen. Fund: $ 6,750,000
Indirect Funding:
Leae Current Year Equipment $ 1,838,356
State Grants:
Used Oil Collection b $ 12,500
Glass Recycling Program $ 216,000
Landfill Tipping Fees: $ 2,374,766
Landfill Permit Fees: $ 10,175
Miscellaneous: $ 346
Vehicle Disposal Fund: ,
Licenses b Permits $ 467,692
Towing Charges $ 266
Vehicle Storage Fees $ 619
Revenues $ 8,588,356 $ 3,082,364
Total Revenues $11,670,720
Total Hawaii County MSW Costs 1997/1998:
Solid Waste Division Expenditures: $ 9,041,042
(Less Equipment)
All County Department Allocations To MSW: $ 610,171
Capital Costs: $ 1,289,240
Annual Depreciation Of Aaset: $ 555,267
Back-End Costs: tai (Landfill)
$ 175,000
Total Costs $11,670,720
Created By Recycle Hawaii Page 1 of 6 Final Revision 3/17/99
Solid Waste Division Expenditures:
Landfill/Transfer Station Labor tai $ 1,545,258
Landfill/Transfer Station Operations $ 5,562 033
Landfill/Transfer Station Equipment * ($592,069) $ ~ 0
Recycling Programs $ 320,985
Glass Recycling Program $ 213 374
Vehicle Disposal Fund $ 675,394
Interdepartmental Charges $ 554,036
Miscellaneous Expenses $ 179,962
Total SWD Expenditures $ 9,041,042
* Current year equipment expenditures are eliminated because
equipment is included in the depreciation schedule.
Allocation O£ Budgets To Solid Waste
Budget Allocation *
Finance•
Admire & Budget $1,290,268 $ 80,771
Purchasing $ 654,886 $ 40,996
Accounts $ 577,582 $ 36,157
Treasury $ 772,085 $ 48,332
Data Processing $ 653,843 $ 40,930
Corporate Counsel: $2,186,470 $ 136,873
(less Family Support Services)
Chief Engineer Office: $ 666,094 $ 200,361
Civil Service• $ 882,705 $ 25,751
# Of County Emp. 2,269
# Of Solid Waste Emp. 71
3.138
* Allocation Percentages
Chlet Engineer 30.08\
Civil Service 3.138
All Others 6.26\
Amounts Rounded to nearer[ whole Collar
Total Allocation $ 610,171
Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 2 of 6 Final Revision 3/17/99
Cagiital Projects Expenditures For County MSW, 1988 1998 tsl
Year Otter Landfills Puuanahcilu Only AS1 Projects
1988 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 350,449
1989 $ 60,000 $ 48,700 $ 1.98,911
1990 $ 59,808 $ 8,550 $ 103,986
1991 $ 0 $ 0 $ 26,978
1992 $ 0 $ 266,240 $ 616,240
1993 $ 630,088 $ 831,809 $ 1,561,897
1994 $2,478,917 $2,660,497 $ 5,859,496
1995 $1,404,663 $ 257,234 $ 1,661,697
1996 $1,456,345 $ 4,000 $ 1,511,441
1997 $ 128,245 $ 0 $ 161,537
1998 $ 92,873 $ 0 $ 125,652
Tan Year Coats $6,610,939 $4,177,030 $12,278,484
Ave. Cost/Yr. $ 661,094 $ 417,703 $ 1,227,848
Annual Sond Interest Debt Service: 15ex51,zz7,eael $ 61,392
Annual Capital Projects Total Expenditures $ 1,289,240
Solid Waste Division Assets:
Vehicles Depreciated Value
Heavy Trucks (11) $ 787,669
Medium Trucks (5) $ 157,025
Pickup Trucks (18) $ 415,388
Tractors (4) $ 905,931
Trailers (40) $2,739,956
Loaders/Baekhoea (3) $ 179,747
Forklifts (1) $ 21,791
Other Heavy Equipment $ 347,248
Light Equipment $ 31,767
Office/Communications $ 306,149
Miscellaneous $ 3,488
Solid Waata Division Total $5,896,159
Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 3 of 6 Final Revision 3/17/99
Annual Depreciation Of Assets
Heavy Trucks: (20 Years} $ 55,000
Medium Trucks: (20 Years) $ 6,250
Light Trucks: {15 Years) $ 24,000
Tractors: {2C Years) $ 60,000
Tzailers: {10 Years) $ 300,000
Passenger Vehicles: {7 Years) $ 11,000
Loaders/Backhoes: {20 Years) $ 12,000
Forklift: (20 Years) $ 1,250
Heavy Equipment: {20 Years) $ 20,000
Light Equipment: i7 Years) $ 4,538
OfficelCommunications: (5 Years) ~ 61,229
(Total Annual Depreciation $ 555,267
Landfill Annual Post Closure Costs: cz~
Kealakehe Post Closura Costs: $ 175,000
Total Rnrual Landfill Post Closure Costs $ 175,000
Total Municipal Solid Waste Costs:
-
T u - B S awai Lauri `
~urre Grssa = s o ,
Total MSW Operating Costs: $11,570,720
Total MSW Oparating Revenua: $ 3,082,369
Tax Source Annual MSW costs to Hawaii County $ 8,588,356
Tax Source Costs Par Ton: ~ -„--'on~:idr~- 59.92/ton
t=€~aLrd by F .z :-i---.'.1'; Par•- : X11 F~ 2-~=?ai IZ:'c~tiun Ijl a`7'-i
Endnotes
1) This document, designed and compiled by Recycle Hawaii,
represents the first attempt at full cost accounting for the
County of Hawaii, municipal solid waste. Data came from County
Of Hawaii, DPW records of actual dollars expended or received.
DPW accountants have reviewed this data for accuracy.
The summary does not include external, or true costs that incur
due to the MSW management system in place.(e.g., social,
environmental, economic impact on small businesses, etc.).
2) Costs are listed only for Kealakehe landfill, as estimated,
based on current activities. Costs do not include any anticipated
closing or yearly post-closure casts for the Hilo landfill, which
are estimated to be $12 million and $75,000 respectively.
3) The use of the term landfill in county records reflects the
combined costs of labor, operations and equipment for all
landfills and transfer stations.
4) Allocation percentages for each department within the county
administration are based on their best estimates of the time and
resources devoted to solid waste issues and personnel. The DPW
accountant determined the final allocation amount based on the
department or division's budget or number of employees. Solid
waste employees represent 3.138 of all civil service employees.
The figures are based on the 98/99 fiscal year budget.
5) Capital Projects are those expenditures which are not part of
the regular operating budget, but which are intended for
development or improvement of the county's solid waste
infrastructure (e.g., construction of a new transfer station,
closure of a landfill, or major repairs to an existing facility).
Annual capital projects expenditures were averaged over a ten-
year period, as no single year's expenditures reflect a norm.
Since capital expenditures are funded by general bonding,
expenses for interest on the average yearly capital expenditures
are estimated at 5$. The cost/value of land has not been
included in these calculations.
6) The County of Hawaii replaces equipment only on an as Headed
basis. There is no fozmal replacement schedule or equipment
replacement reserve funding. Equipment is purchased out of
current operational funds, therefore, we have conservatively
estimated annual depreciation costs for equipment and other
assets based on information obtained from the county solid waste
division and comparisons with other municipalities.
7) Total daily tonnage Of MSW for East fi West Hawaii is 396.
Currently the county tips 181 tons/day without fee at Hilo. There
is a Disposal fee of $48.72/ton for the 215 tons a day of MSW
which goes to Puuanahulu. This analysis shows that the present
cost per ton to the county for MSW disposal is 80.74.
Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 5 of 6 Final Revision 3/17/99
*Additional Cost Information
If all the county MSW were hauled to Puuanahulu, the total MSW
per/ton cost would increase, partially due to the nearly $1
million increase in the daily disposal fee expense (the actual
disposal cost per ton will decrease). Additional costs will be
incurred for the expense of transporting the 181 tons/day from
Hilo to Puuanahulu (the increased number of trucks and trailers
needed, the additional employees required to drive and service
the vehicles, etc.). For every one million dollars additional
annual cost, there is an approximate increase of $7 per ton.
It should be noted that the anticipated 1999 year Capital
Projects Fund appropriation of $12,000,000 to finance the closing
of the Hilo Landfill would increase county MSW costs by an
average of $710,000/yr. for 30 Years, assuming a 58 rate of
interest. Post closure costs of $75,000/yr have been estimated
by the county, however, the annual post closure costs at the
Kailua landfill are $175,000.
According to the 1996 Hilo Waste Composition Analysis, the waste
stream entering the Hilo landfill includes the following
materials by percentage: metal (5.3s), glass (2.3s), plastic (x.46),
cardboard (15.4s), newsprint (2.6s), white paper (4.cs), greenwaste
(9. es) , wood (12.4) , (xotai 6os) . Even if only half of these
materials were diverted from the waste stream at their source
through recycling, MSW tonnage and the associated costs to the
county would be significantly reduced.
According to the latest EPA figures, a Pay As You Throw (pAYT)
program wedded to an aggressive recycling campaign is reducing
the volume of MSW by as much as 508 in a growing number of US
communities. With an integrated approach to waste management,
involving a complete recycling and marketing program, reuse,
remanufacturinq industry, C6D reclamation, and organics recovery
plant, the County of Hawaii could reduce its waste stream by 50$
or more. In addition to saving the county a great deal of money,
such an approach would create jobs, while cleaning up the
environment.
Creatcd by Recycle Hawaii Page 6 of 6 Final Rcvision 3/17/99
HAWAII ISLAND SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 98/99
Big Island Recycle & Rubbish, Rick Walton
PO Box 1458, Kealakekua, HI 96750 Ph 323-2274
Business Services Hawaii, Margaret Pahio
962 Auwae St., Hilo, HI 96720 Ph 959-1436 Fax 959-1224
County Of Hawaii -DPW, Jiro Sumada, Deputy Chief Engineer
25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, HI 96720 Ph 961-8321 Fax 961-8630
Hawaii On Stage Productions, Jim Rhodes
PO Box 1131, Kea'au, HI 96749 Ph 935-3233
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Jenda Johnson
PO Box 52, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 Ph 967-8845 Fax 967-8890
Naalehu Fruit Stand, John Santangelo
PO Box 31, Naalehu, HI, 96772 Ph 929-9009 Fax 929-9009
North Hawaii Community Hospital, BJ Beamer, Facility Manager
67-1125 Mamalahoa Highway, Kamuela, HI 96743 Ph 881-4685 Fax 881-4674
North Hawaii Community Hospital, Paul Eggel, Facility Manager
67-1125 Mamalahoa Highway, Kamuela, HI 96743 Ph 881-4685 Fax 881-4674
Orchid Isle Rubbish & Recycling, Ululani Rosario
485 Railroad Ave., Hilo, HI 96720 Ph 959-0475 Fax 959-6081
PBR Hawaii -Hilo Office, James Leonard
101 Aupuni St., Suite 310, Hilo, HI 96720 Ph 961-3333 Fax 961-4989
PFI Rubbish & Recycling, Bob Platt
PO Box 4570, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ph 329-3440 Fax
329-6278
Rainbow Recycling, Mike Dubois
PO Box 2813, Kamuela, HI 96743 Ph 885-1075 Fax 885-1075
Recycle Hawaii, Laurel Dekker, Executive Director
P.O. Box 4847, Hilo, HI 96720-0847 Ph 981-2878 Fex 935-8946
Rural Community Assistance Corp., Dale Burton
234 Wainuenue Ave., Hilo, HI 96720 Ph 935-8404 Fax
969-7727
State Dept. Of Health -Office of Solid Waste Management, Carrie McCabe
919 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 210, Honolulu, HI 96814 Ph 586-4243 Fax 586-7509
w
o
~ N
N m
i ~ filar vM;}:a,. , V D
~ v,~r
~ ~"~G
~ np ~,'b.,,y.a yq~:
N ~
^r
~t ~ _
ey..,.
N
V
m~
W ~ ~ V
~ ''r
;h; ~/~j~
` u.
y
~
c~ ,
~ a~
N 9®
T
~f~sP~fP~
w O
o f~O~
~ eG/~~fe s
,off
o,
qyr . m
o FyGCy lV
Oar ~ •
N
•
~j +
l a'
i
Trinity County, California
riniry County began a PAYT incentive pro- per year, which covers administration, some
gram in Seprember 199G. The county is maintenance of the I~ndfill, and other costs.
spread our over about 3,100 square miles The combination of the benefit assessment and
with only 13,000 residents. We offer a tom- tipping fees covers what it costs to maintain the
binrd drop-off and curbside collection program. landfill and transfer sites, all administrative fees,
and everything else that is involved in solid
waste. It also includes long-term care of the
The X5.00 per cubic yard fee is based landfill and operation of recycling drop-off
on the county's cost for landfilling the centers at two of the eight transfer stations.
MSW Other costs are covered under a We also encourage participation in recycling
`benefit assessment,` the first tier of our by adding an additional incentive through ben-
~ efit assessment discounts. Residents who bring
multi-[feted system. Each household
unit is charged $ I00 per year, which in recyclable materials are given a discount
covers administration, some mainte- ($0.025 per pound of the weight of the recy-
clables they bring in) ofFtheit benefit azsess-
nance of the landfill, and other costs. ment, with a ceiling of 40 percent of their
annual assessment. Businesses are limited to a
Before we considered the program, we 25 percent discount. The program has been
decided i[ was necessary to do some kind of a very successful for us, and hopefully more
revenue increase. The County Board decided communities will institute these types of pro-
. chat rather than raise the benefit assessment grams-helping us reach goals of 50 percent
across the board, it would institute tipping Fees reduction in waste or more!
charged per household. That way, those people
' who arc recycling heavily or arc a single person
in a household and don't gencrare very much ,
garbage arc getting a break for no[ creating hpale~lon-•, " ~-`~,13 000 Met
waste. ti ~ w::+.g a r ' ,'+rx` s v -
SfarYdate X1996 -
Under our program, residence are charged ~'%~'W+t a-
Rafe alrvcf4re:
~ Multi Ter
$5.(10 per cubic yard for disposal at the county's ~ .;.r,-,,ir.4-Yarw,~?ry-e;Z;•-:~:~st - -
dro off vansfcr station and landfill. Residents ` meet 5700'p_dr'yrarforfirst•fier fee; f5.00
who have refuse pickup are charged $1.00 for _';;y psrCdueydrd'er`51.00 per 33-gallon
each 33-gallon can, which is based on the coun- -:met for second-tier fse
ry's estimate that [here are approximately six cans _ - ..w_.....,-
in acubic yard. The $5.00 per cubic yard fee is
hascd on nc~ county's cost for landfilling MSW.
(hhc•r costs arc covered under a'benefit
assessment.' nc~ first tier of our multi-tiered
system. Each household unit is charged 5100
30
ail
j ~
O
C ~ ~ O A ~ % i !
kiR~°3t
p$ 005 O .31 o m M ~r ~i~.;~ j<
~ ~oG~ ~ F
gg b
p3o. ~ 3~ ~`°b~ S ~ g4',~ Z~4'spo y~' Cij ~~~++'S~~ ~.hY .'8 ~•HS
~ ~ ~ $ b 6 S ~ q ~ Y ~ O ~ ~ 27 ~ a ~ `Mrl Ya °J 9~" ~ ~ ~~aaC `S
~ .
~ ~ ~~0~~3~~ ~ ~o~
5 A °a 3 327 ~ ~ $ ~ 2S ~ ~ E ..I` g.~ 5 ~ p ~ S r°'t e ~ S ~°o .x ~ 8
w ~ u,o ~ ~ q~i;aT~m 5'~
# a ~ r
_ q ~
.....L..+~ E ~ o. u L. A. rfl. F~ ~ ci•H 4vy ip ~Ny~ ~ .fl.
r} a O. ~1 •J
h q O ~ O ~
-t ;--j--~i 8 ~ ~ `Sc ''p, s v 8 0 $x ~n ~ ~ 6~. 3y ~ ~3 8 v~_ ? ysy ~ S~
- f o L ~ ~ ~ ~ y 1~ O ~ ~ ~ 9 `M a W ~ 'O O - ~ O l+ ~ A
E p G u y C C to u 6 C p q ~ YI G ~ W C` C
c c ~ C ..r. ~ J. ~ ~ '7.
EPA530-F-97-007b
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
,
~OVeI", New Hampshire
~u~:
j
' • • ~ 26,000
Pay-as-you-throw has proven to be
. • . Rural a very e f
fective means o f managing
• - Bag and Tag Dover's SO~IC~ Waste.
October 1991
-
s Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
The City of Dover is a community of back to the council 4 months later with 10
approximately 26,000 people on New recommendations.
Hampshire's seacoast. Our municipal landfill The committee urged the immediate estab-
was closed in 1979, and at that time the city lishment of a drop-off recycling center
entered into a relationship with a private designed to collect a wide range ofmaterials.
hauler for collection and disposal at a pri- The recycling center opened in May 1990. It
vately owned and operated landfill. The city uickl became ve
collected approximately 24,000 tons of trash 9 y ry Popular and a source of
civic pride.
each year, o(which approximately II,000
tons were residential refuse. The recycling center was rvn initially as an
all-volunteer effort Aker a few months, the
Before 1989, pover had no recycling pro- city hired a solid waste coordinator, who
gram. Any and all trash residents wished began working in Conjunction with the ad
to discard was left at the curb, and 3 hoc committee and several city councilors
truck routes were needed to collect the to urge the establishment of
refuse daily. The cost of refuse collection curbside recycling
and disposal was escalating rapidly.
Responding to citizen pressure. the
We argued that the Dover city council
costs for producing created an ad • ,`p4 i'N SPN ~M
hoc commrttce
wastes should be ~-+.~~7.„„~ '
on recycling in ~
borne by the user tea,, ~
the fall of 1989. =.:.,w^+^"'<""•~~.~., •,•f,',~Efu ~am~5{~icr
and the costs o f The commrttce.
PRTMENT
recycling, because o f chaired by Gary (y;,{~ °1 ~°Urt' CE90EP
GlmorC. Cdy COUn- ~OMMUMTY SERV RO cCTS pryiSiON
ILS SOC/oI and £NY~N()NMENTPLP
environmental Cdor. COn5i5[Cd O( UC "n, •r \<W ~~am~rib(rla µsR& ~°~rr";;ra
c~;nt ~ntcrested res' t;lq~
..ene fits should be dr,•, ~
and a ca_~nai
borne by the city. ~-r"~~:n~ao~c rr,r
~~•,-,~.~:r,~.,.,~ ~~~c-~
and the bag and tag program, which How Does It Work?
~ was then unknown in northern New
The city no longer provides for the col-
England.
lection and disposal of private dump-
sters. Commercial generators pay the
Overcoming Public Dissent fees associated with the collection and
The three public meetings we held disposal. For the residents, payment of
were filled with heated vocal dissent. the collection and disposal of wastes is
However, we soon convinced the public accomplished through the purchase of
to accept these programs with a couple bags and/or adhesive tags.
of basic premises. The first premise was A special revenue fund was established
that recyclable materials are a commod- to pay (or the collection, disposal, and
ity, and anything that is disposed of in administrative costs associated with our
~•r e
the landfill is waste. We argued that the residential solid waste. The fees generat-
costs (or producing wastes should be ed by the sale of the bags and tags go
borne by the user and that the costs of into this fund as revenue. The goal is to
recycling, because of its social and envi- maintain a neutral fund balance that can
ronmental benefits, should be borne by sustain the program, but not to build a
the city. large balance.
In September 1991, the city began curb-
side collection of recyclables, and a $ucce5s: Saving Money and
month later the bag and tag program Reducing Waste
was implemented. In conjunction with
the establishment of these programs. As mentioned earlier, Dover used to
~ the city council created a Citizen's Solid produce approximately II,000 tons per
Waste Advisory Committee responsible year of residential solid waste. Last year,
for overseeing these programs. we produced approximately 3.900 tons.
In 1990 our budget (or solid waste was
Since the program was initiated we approximately $1.2 million. Next year's
have had annual public meetings and
budget (including trash and recycling) is
have raised the price once. We have approximately $878,000. Our current
not had any significant public dissent at recycling rate is well over 50 percent
any meetings since the program's incep- for our residential waste stream-
tion. Overall, the program has been despite it being strictly voluntary.
well received by the community and has
proven to be a very effective means of
_ ~
~ managing Dover's solid waste.
4~
~
\
u'
2
i-
ti ti ~
+L ti~
.r ~
EPA530-F-97.007e
PAY-AS-YOU-THROW SUCCESS STORIES
N SOl,lt~'1 KIr1gStOW11~ Rhode Island
~ ° • 30,000 With pay-as-you-throw, the overage family
• - • Suburban o f four has reduced its solid waste stream
• - • • . ~ Drop-off, Tags to one tagged bag o f waste and one bag
• d » ~ - August 1994 o f recyclables per week.
Getting Started: Why Pay-As-You-Throw?
Solid waste for South Kingstown and its and abuse of a flat-rate annual vehicle pass
regional partner Narragansett is processed program, which provided unlimited disposal
at the town's Rose Hill Regional Transfer with little or no incentive to recycle materials.
Station (RHRTS). Given the community's Because of these concerns, South Kingstown
oceanfront shoreline, the approximate year- and Narragansett initiated avolume-based tag
round population of 22,000 residents swells solid waste disposal system and a voluntary
to an estimated 30.000 persons in the sum- source reduc[ion recycling program (or
mer months. Residents of both communities RHRTS residential users.
can dispose of solid waste by either con-
tracting with a private refuse hauler or by How Does It Work?
directly accessing the transfer station. Under the tag solid waste disposal system,
Aker facility operations began at RHRTS in each residential user directly accessing the
1983. the disposal cost to "direct access" resi- transfer station is required to purchase
dential users continued to escalate. This refuse tags ($10.00 (or 10 tags) for solid
increase in disposal costs waz due in part to waste disposal. Residential RHRTS customers
increasing tipping fees, higher processing costs, place a tag on each garbage bag
The success o f both
XIMCIj'
the volume-based ,~o~
~poA,°+~. Town of South Kingstown, Rhode Isl:.
disposal system and ;~.'v '~';•~i v.o. e.. s+
+~~X p. ~,r w..a,eia. a~ oxnaeoon
the enhanced ~ ` s
recycling facility has sp'oyeau~n't~'~~ aur'a'
exceeded all
pre-operational -
TGWN Of SOUTH K~NGSTOti
expectations.
(35-pound/33-gallon limit) prior to dispos- glass, and many others. Yard waste,
,
al. Refuse tags were chosen in lieu of bags uncontaminated wood demolition, and
ei,
to provide residents free choice with ferrous and nonferrous scrap metals are
regard to the size and type of refuse bag also recycled, but are assessed a tip fee
~ they were accustomed to using. due to associated processing costs.
Some residents continue to use trash
cans for refuse disposal. The RHRTS Success: Saving Money and
operates az a solid waste enterprise Reducing Waste
fund, and operational costs are covered
by the cost of the refuse tags. The success of both the volume-based
disposal system and enhanced recycling
Utilization of the recycling center by facility has exceeded all pre-operational
residential RHRTS users continues to expectations. The capture ratio o(recy-
remain a voluntary decision. Residents clables from direct access residential
who maximize their recycling efforts users has consistently reached approxi-
can minimize tag purchases and reduce mately 40 percent, with levels as high
yir
their overall solid waste disposal costs. az 51 percent (not including bulky or
RHRTS residential users with wasteful recyclable yard waste). Recycling cap-
disposal habits who choose not to lure ratios approach 60 percent if yard
recycle must consequently purchase ~,~,aste and bulky recycled waste esti-
additional tags. mates are included.
Complementary Programs Under the PAYT program, RHRTS resi-
dential users discharged approximately
Residential users can dispose o(bulky 2,175 tons during fiscal year 1994-95, as
waste and yard waste at a rate o(S cents compared with 7608 tons in fiscal year
and 3.5 cents per pound, respectively 1991-92 under the former vehicle sticker
Residents may also elect to purchase yard program. The average family of (our has
waste bags at a cost of 75 cents each reduced its solid waste stream to one
(which includes the disposal fee) (or dis- tagged bag and one bag of recyclables
posal of grass clippings and leaves. per week. This equates to a total yearly
In addition, the town constructed new refuse disposal cost o($52 per year,
recycling disposal facilities for direct which is a $40 savings from the previous
access residential users that became year's average cost of $92. Elderly and
operational on August I, 1994. The single resdents have reported a reduc-
enhanced recycling center accepts a lion in solid waste disposal to as low as
- wide variety of materials that can be one refuse bag every f+vo weeks, for a
~ q
recycled by revdents at no cost, includ- total yearly refuse disposal cost of $26.
` 4 ing aluminum, steel, plastic, newspaper.
^ ~ .
i`
f.1~~~, 12 R tir I _
DRAFT DOCUMENT
PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES
FOR NEW SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN HAWAII COUNTY
The proposed changes are submitted for the purpose of improving the protection of public health,
safety and general welfare in addition to carrying out the responsibilities of the County of
Hawaii as stated in its charter to conserve natural resources and preserve our natural beauty.
Future generations will benefit through improved stewardship of our natural and financial
resources.
Per the State of Hawaii Act 324 which was adopted as Chapter 342 G HRS, "Hawai'i should
strive to prevent the unnecessary generation of waste and should strive to minimize the amount
of waste generated..."
Per the County of Hawaii Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and Resolution 291-94
adopting it, the following (among others) were to be implemented:
• Establish source separation centers.
• Consider solid waste as a true utility.
• Establish a user fee for residential refuse (planned for'95).
• All transfer stations should be upgraded to allow separate collection of recyclable materials.
With these parameters in mind, we present the proposed changes. Items being deleted are
sressed-thFeagH; items being added [aze in brackets].
ORDINANCE CHANGES RELATING TO ILLEGAL DUMPING PREVENTION
-Changes to take effect immediately
Hawaii County Code Chapter 20
Refuse
Article I Littering.
Section 20-2.
[(c) All persons shall dispose of their refuse in permitted solid waste facilities; responsibility
is that of the waste generator whether he/she/it hauls it or not.]
Section 20-5. Litter prohibited on occupied private property.
[(a)] No person shall throw or deposit litter (or household tvbbish] on any occupied [or vacant]
private property, whether owned by that person or not, except that the owner or person in control
of private property may maintain any authorized private receptacle for collection in a manner
that litter will be prevented from being carded or deposited by the elements upon any street,
sidewalk, or other public place or upon any private property.
[(b) No person shall throw or deposit litter or household rubbish in any private receptacle unless
given written authorization to do so.]
Section 20-7. Summons or citation for violation.
A police officer [or person authorized by the Mayor] shall use a form of summons or citation
provided by the County in citing a violator of any provision of this article.
Recycle Hawaii Page I 11/12/99
Section 20-8. Penalty.
[(a) Any person who violates the provisions of this article shall be subject to a civil fine in the
amount of $25 to be paid within 15 days, or court action will be taken.
(b)j Any person who violates the provisions of this article shall, upon conviction, be sentencedto
pay a fine not less than $250 and not more than $1,000....
[(c)] If the court judges the violator...
Article 3. Refuse Disposal.
Section 20-31. Definitions.
"Prohibited materials" include, but are not limited to, ...[whole tires...]
["White goods" means discarded, enamel coated major appliances, such as washing machines,
clothes dryers, hot water heaters, stoves or refrigerators .J
Section 20-39. Abandoned refrigerators. .
[(a)J No person shall abandon any...
[(b) No person shall leave, abandon, dump or place any refrigerator, white goods or
appliances of any kind upon any premise of another.]
Section 20-41. Dumping refuse prohibited.
[(a)] No person shall dump or place refuse (or household garbage] in or upon any vacant lot,
public place, eF upon the premises of another or in any unauthorized private receptacle].
[(b) All persons shall dispose of their refuse in permitted solid waste facilities; responsibility is
that of the waste generator whether he/she/it hauls it or not.j
Section 20-45. Penalty.
[(a)J Any violation of this article is a misdemeanor and any person violating the provisions set
forth shall be issued a citation in the amount of $25 to be paid within 15 days, or court action
will be taken.
[(b)] Any violation of this article is a misdemeanor, and any person [who violates the provisions
of this article shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not less than $500 and not more
than $2,000 for each offense, and/or ordered to pickup remove litter from a public place under
the supervision of the department of public works or the department of parks and recreation for a
period of time as would satisfy the given fine with one hour of service being equivalent to $5 of
the fine amount.
(c) If the court judges the violator to be incapable of litter removal and pickup, the court may
provide some other community work as it deems appropriate. All persons who are caught
littering shall be required to remove the litter that they caused or shall be liable for the costs of
removing that litter.]
Recycle Hawaii Pagc ? I I/I?/99
ORDINANCE CHANGES RELATING TO DIVERSION PROGRAMS
-Changes to take effect immediately
Hawaii County Code Chapter 20
Refuse
[Article 5. Recycling and Diversion Programs.
Section 20-50. Recycling and Diversion.
(a) The County shall provide recycling and diversion programs on a continuing basis.
(b) Administrative rules shall set forth the parameters of such programs that will promote
recycling and diversion of materials from landfilling.
(c) Diversion grants shall be considered over landfilling expenses and be limited only by the
amount of the landfilling budget. The evaluation process of such considerations shall be
written in administrative rules and shall include but not be limited to short-term and long-
term economics, environmental impacts, and [he health, safety and welfare of the
community.]
ORDINANCE CHANGES RELATING TO EQUITABLE USER FEES
-New illegal dumping prevention program and expanded recycling program to be in place
prior to these amendments taking effect.
-Changes to take effect July I, 2002
Hawaii County Code Chapter 20
Refuse
Article 3. Refuse Disposal.
Section 20-31. Definitions.
["Commercial haulers" means those businesses charging for services to haul residential or
business rubbish, garbage, swill or refuse.]
Section 20-35. Permit required for refuse disposal.
(a) No business, Federal or State agency, religious entity or nonprofit organization shall dispose
of refuse at any County sel-id-wasEe-fasi}iby [landfill] without first obtaining a disposal
permit issued by the engineer and making payment of the permit fees required herein.
(b) No person shall dispose of refuse at any county landfill without first obtaining a disposal
permit issued by the engineer. Persons ° ° • ~'°a~--~ ~
ago ;o~-.~.'ib:..., [or entities] need not obtain a permit to
dispose of refuse at a county transfer station.
(c) An application for a disposal permit shall be submitted to the engineer on a form furnished
by the department.
Section 20-43. Acceptance of refuse for disposal; restrictions.
(b) Acceptance at Transfer Stations
(2) Prohibited materials shall include all rubbish, garbage, swill or
refuse (from commercial haulers], prohibited materials as defined by the State department
of health and partially listed herein, ,
Recycle Hawaii Page 3 I (/12/99
° ^ -^c~• ^ construction and demolition wastes,
abandoned vehicles, dead animals, animal carcasses and other similar organic wastes.
[Businesses or residents hauling their own rubbish may be accepted at the transfer stations.]
Article 4. Solid Waste Fees.
Section 20-46. Disposal fees.
(a) Any refuse, except for prohibited materials, delivered by a business, Federal or State
agency, religious entity, nonprofit organization or private citizen to the working face of a
County landfill [or transfer station] shall be charged by the ton or fraction thereof at rates as
set forth herein.
(b) In addition to the per ton charge or volume charge, items which cannot be disposed in the
working face of the landfill [or transfer station] in accordance with usual disposal practices
or which require special handling and/or arrangements by landfill personnel shall be
assessed a special handling charge at rates as set forth herein. Such items shall include but
may not be limited to asbestos and confidential document destruction or other disposal
requiring a witness. Whole tires will not be accepted at any County landfill [or transfer
station]. All wire or cable must be cut to four-foot lengths prior to disposal at any County
landfill .
[(c)] The mayor, with the approval of the council, may temporazily rescind the solid waste
disposal fees for [up to] a one-week period.
Section 20 47. Collection of fees.
(a) All charges shall be collected by the solid waste division of the department of public works
[directly from users of solid waste facilities or by any means established by the department].
Billings shall be made monthly. Payments are due before the end of the month following the
month in which charges are incurred. A finance charge of 1.5 percent monthly (annual rate
of eighteen percent) shall be charged on all balances which are sixty or more days overdue.
In addition to this, access to County solid waste facilities may be denied until the account is
current.
Section 20-49. Fee schedule.
(a) Charge rates shall be established as follows:
(I) Landfill [and Transfer Station] Disposal.
(A) Rate by weight at landfill facilities: $35 per ton prorated accordingly.
(B) [Rate by estimated volume at transfer stations: Pro-rated according to $35 per ton.
A complete listing of charges by the bag ($.25 per 15 gallon and $.50 per 30
gallon) and cubic yard ($2.50 per cubic yard) shall be provided by the department
for user convenience.]
(C) (In cases where the scale is temporarily not available at the landfill, the] rate
by vehicle size and volume [shall be]:...
Recycle Hawaii Page 4 ~ 1/lygg
J p U f`I
7 ~
cC1 J G ? ~ G ~ X
O~ ~ O •p ~ G O C O L Tn
_ C ~
~c cE oS~~oc~,ccc'~A.°..
W u u m ~ o M o D ° o a- u
S p O u ~n u V
E.. f/1 ~ ~ ~ 7 'O O - ya' - to 'QC u N 0_q
O a ~ d ~ L U ~ ¢ ~ fH Q 1J ~ ~ W C.1 v7
V U .
3
A T C N
^u 3 y p p
V1 p• ~ h A DO 'O C U N
H o.c >,vu, ~ 2 n u .o_
Q v u o ~Y u N^u ~ E Nv0 c ...ti
~ c ~ .u. E h ~ `o ',,c'_ `o u ,.uu. e~Ev C `o •u h o `
~ N E N E C Z c o e p o •o c c ~ ~
m o L
~ ZoG d °u ~av'a°,a0.u' un°.vaa E'v~Z
~ . . . .
W ~ ~ o
W O r ~ l0 N N C rT N 9 Z C O L aT. 3
E" u Z 2 m ~ o ~ u -u_- v. a o v> n• n c E u u 'c
E.., Q c E v u ~ ~ v °L' ~ n• o u c h o~ c c.~ ~ c~ .u. $
Q Z u •eca .v n~ C c° N° ~ F ~ u a> u A~ p~~ ~ ~a 2 u
C+ E s a u E y c ~ N v im- _ u m u s N c c o N u u
~ c u m= ~ m a ~ a~i u u c m e m o u e= C o m o c C ~ s
Q °u E ~ ~ > ° v u o ~ ; u 'u c C 9 = H c ~ ~ u ~ ~ o..~ 'm ~e
u ~ o .u. a s L ~ u~ u c.' u v p •p > s.
N N~ Q• O C O ~'Y > L V N U> O N N N L u~ C u
v T v A o" 3 m `c° `o' ~ Z o v u° v o E o u s o~ u
o u o L° o u u ti c° .u. ~ aNi ~ p m .C H p o K o °u E E N o a~i o~ •o
a L'o. 2~.E ~aYU o~°'.o E.. or°~vi uW d u H a~.u0., En. F- a
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
N a
L ~pUp V ~ N 2 ~ p T N C 'O C lVO N V V F.
h c~ ~ ~ o v' s° y E u c m e m o aQ. - y,
Z s E c. c° °c °`3 ~ u ~ _ v Q v •o ~ ~ GL t o ..1 o c v ~ a
O E N V Y A ~ o r ~ o vi p d n u a~ c o e Q c 4 A E e
Cl. u u u "u •o. E~ •'c c~ a `o E m` a! •v n F •A c~ c O u a T c v
Q 'c $ E ~ ~ 3 u ~ F" o ° u € a v m > u > a > > N o
E^ ~ `o " •u ."u. j• a ~ is v E v A a E A R 4. n v o u y E o• o. ~ E
0. ~ o E m r 3 u c o u y am` .v 3 c E v o
~ o'^ p. <f >.t cL°, u -N• ~ a~a ea G w o¢•o.Z'° ~L_•s
~ u H u v c o N c E E> .'u m° v u y E~ •p u u¢ "
~.O r ~ _ G' C C N ~J N`. m N .3 G m u
Q u~ o v a N .p C 9 a N G ~a u c~ u c C, n
u 0 u N p u O N u u i y •K W u 3 C~ A u~ U A u L O h s Y
3c:'v3 ~CFtLt u- >,a''v m~ mu yZrq av mz ¢r7~oaUUn.U
I ~ ~ ~Iil~l m
N ~ , I~
C I N
N ~ ~ L ~ N ~ ~ ~
'o a ~a m° E ~ ~ ~ I ~i
w ~ ~ in E a
c J U L ~ '
O t L ~
p O
C m m N N ~ II !I i ~ it
I I
C = 3 i i l l
C J J O a x I ,4
U~ N O~ J G
Y1 C O p~~ E ap0~ M O C IFa•• N
'r@)`t/ SSE g ~ yS XE I I ~m
tl°w`~° `a-° L ~yn •3 `°o w ~ $E~ ~L am a
o ~ ° @~~~ c ~ ~ $ aQ~ cN~E Bali
a v" c d 8 8 t w c~' w 8 n"a Qw NON o f
E d~ n n`m m`mM nF~-wN ~ vc~m 5@~°eV 3d
~ me o~w. ~n~ ~ca of $ daOc men -c
uNi fnc ~ FN-i. °_O~ ~ m$ y m EXOE V~ ~ `p y~
~ m
Q F-ta ~ rnm N ~ '~~>ar ow odo'88 win to L I
O N HEN ~ ~ N N N N L`U W L E no
N~ N N N N N O b l0 N Ol YI w~~. N L C O) n) t!1 C
Esc ~ E~ E`~~° Ea~ito,~~ vL` E~ EvE'Z ~~Eo Eo6 I ~
Nr C N N T NO~~O NNwn ~n NL N> E ~j• d 7~0 NN I
W O y ~ N N Yl 1~ N N O O c E N W to O O > l0 N~ ~
m c.~ to v to ww w _m c c c m m> Q H U ~ m L w en a ~ en
-c - t
ej g n ~ S O
~n o w ~
7 p ~ ~ ~
C ^ N
C l7
a ~ w w w w ~ ~
N y
8 Dl
W. N O O ~ . I OI8 O
a ° go $ o d
C 1~ t0 ~O n
y R O O ~
c D a o 10 ~
O w w w w N
I
d
F Y
N
i a ~ ~ °o E 3
o o 0 0
o n ~ a E '
u~ m w w n~ ~ i
w N ~ ~ So II-
C trS 2 y ~ ~ N ~ ~ I
- y ~~n ~ Cy O O!w
c ~y t~ E c~ l
• g $ nc
rd w o 8' ~ E g 'm v)
w L F-
co_ o d
8 Q haw
o E
C O W' ° ` Y
m U ~ W Q
H w 2 a ~
~ LL ~ Z
O
C ti Q m C7 m F'• 'tp
w O O ? U 2N' N
~ , c ~ a o rn a °
NI ° w ~ z ~ °wr~ a=i
°
`m ~ a en z ° _ ~ I ~Oa m ~
w - ~v~JiJ x o x a a i aU~i ~
In ~ f- O ~ Z J a W W U Z I F- ~
~ r a O w ~ w ° ~ C~ p
F- a C7 m a a U ~ a~lm H
' ~ i
~ i i i, m
F, m ~i, I N
N i I N
> O i I i
N O 11 i
~ n ii
M 1
C ~ ~
n ~ I
~ ~ l0
~O ~ ~ I
U m D u.
N b C G i
LL N 7 w ~ N" d ~ = u1 G N G
'Tag ~ ~i ~ c~ $ c n e m
~ N~ p Y p m~ N 10 0 0
N {pY N C N'Q NY O p 7~~ ~ N N~ N
N~ MO. Lp.N Cam= UL lO ._d ~ N~ a0
p O) ~YNp dICLY 10 _ CO N E Z O) N
a EE ~Y~y caa~^~ ~ NHin° c ~m
O. ~ O) t0 O. N ~ ~ O ~ 1fI r0 O.~ ~ N N C ~ N >
~ of cr~~~pp~ ~oc3oo c+> S~~tv ma y m°
On 8layJ C~~L O) cn ~c~ 3'" e C i
w (n= yaoa ~o-~mc o ~g• o c8 Boa I i
a G ~ C C x po6'n C r ~ ~ NN
mSrJ.' to 1°'~r uloCL E o,~ E ~
d'~ y d o o m` o~ N ~ m ~.s ~ aNi " d c ~ o a~ I
ES2 EYErn Ed;~~9 ~ ~cEo ~ o mv" ~
7~ii E n E c
> >6._c ~~c.-mom m d~ o~ Eo~L° $
NN N=N t0 N E ~~(0 a. > 10~~ H.+ N~ Nfh
mw m,.,3 c~ m NC9~a5 ~ lOL1AM w m w_ mm m N c
- -
0 O - $ .o v
0 0 0 5Z a m
U ~ °o ~ 25 ~ tea,
G N M ~ ~ Iwp
Q M fA W N O N
_ _ _ m
c oo ~--o 0 4 °o c c d
Y p °o 0 0 0 °o ~ m
0 0 m o fO• tO- ti c
N V N ~ V _ r O
f~ N r ..m.
W IA IA {q N b .N.,
- ~ • - - ~ - i ~ N
o s
O M ~I ~ ~
p ~ ~ at v ~`op'~ c
C /0 N 3 I ~ I 7~
~ Q c m E o
d ~ ~ ° j; op °o °`o ~ T'
dj N ~
O N _ O ~ n N N
p C M OD C~ l0 N 7 Q D
Ca (.1 O ~ 69 L L
W O tD N N (n _N d H Z C
d' ~ W _ M- _ t F" N _ N a N a
a ~ ~ 8
o a ~I
o: I Q my>'~y
O N v m c
rL'
LL O ~ ~ >
F N o c c
C7 C7 p C7 U J O N U I OU e
.7 ? Q ~ Z ~ C7 ~ ~ ~ O N N~ 8
U U U J F- Z Z J U J y m I y
N Y U > } J w a JI ~ Q E E~ E ~
W W O W W O ~ U ~ O ~ O N y~ N
z xw ~ o: a F- aa!a
_ - ~ In i0
T m m N O1
N ~ N
Q
Y
Q Q Q Q
C o 0 0 0 0 o G O Q O O ~
O O O~~ n S S Y Y Y d
~ ~ ® ~ 0 ~
T o 0 0 0 0 0
~ N r O M N (O ~ ~ I
~ (O I~ (D f~ n ,'VIII I ~I ~
N I r I f,,, I I
d I IIII jI IiII'iII!IIi~I
~ 0 0 o e o o I I I I IIII
~p (O f~ N N ~ r ~•-F
~ f0 N N f7 N f p
l0 ~ i li Ij III
O ~ i it I~ III III _
N I~ ~jl it i~~ ~i I~1
G ~I ~I'I ' m
F' C o 0 0 o e o I II I' III ~I ~I III~~I'ir~ ~
U O N f0 N sf O I i ,I;, I„ 'II ~
i 111 ~I I I m
~ I IIII II-'~I IIIIII) I I ~
o ~ I I I it I
I it I~'"I i' I~
> 7 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iI~I Ill it
m N r I~ M M ~ ~ ! Ij! Ili I! ~~I I~ IIII I
N t I~ N N ~Ci m u~ i illllli~llll', l ~
Z d I' I
11 '~ril Ir
II I. I.. 11 'i~1
g ! jl ;ill, ~ ij ~ I Ii i I.
I
I
> 7 m N i0 GO (D I III~ii ail ii~.. III IIII ~I
~ U N h C v u7 cam' iijili I, IIIIIIII ~
y ~
!t~
a III
C o D o e o e I illli ~'~I I III 1~ I
O O O N N ~i i' i I ~
U liili I II~I~ i
W Y O O O O O O III Ii IIIIji I Q.
N f~ C7 ~ m r O i lei ~ VIII f
C n (O ~O ~ l0 O I IIIIrIIIIIIII~ III I ~
l0 I I 1
E I 11 II I (IIII '
I ~I ,I;, I I;I;III!I I VIII
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~IIIIr1 IIil' I IIII III ~iI
O N M f00 N<~ I V III IIII~~ II~IIIIii~ I ~I~I I c
j II~~ ~I~I IIII IIII III IIIIII I I Ii~ '
j I;
I '.,~I;r lirlrtl
III'II'~I~ I W
N ~ ~ ~ Ili it I i 'S7
y N pOj M pOj N Orf '~'I ~II~ ' jII ~ ~
C ~ ".N.. ~ ~ ~ ~IIII.,I d.~
a II'I I'I ;III! c
W O
y i Ir,!IIIII 2
Q IliIII'. I I ~
~ Y g _ _ _ I„I,I
~ ~ O Q~ ~ Z Z a' ~ aE ~ a° `a° ~ ~ ~ ~
0 2 2 a Y Y d °m m° .°o N °v ~ °w o 0
° Ju ~
0
- '
co PPE
~ \
N ~
~ (L)asieJ
~ Ju
o
O A~UO ~(Ed
n ~ ~J)a6EJ2AE
N
o JU
o O
\ ~ 1
.°n 43oQ ~o
a 3 ~ v
N penowaJ ~ ~ ~ ~
N
'7 ~ ~5)A~UO ~O ~ ~ 1
r
u JU
o ~
'at ~nEy-~aS
~
'L N Qln0
O
'J N J U 9i
J
a'o e~Epuew ~
~ uoi~do ~
v
0
Ju y-~
i_,Tj ~ lou we
0 3
~ W wE
C~ ~ Ju
~ ~
J
°v Sou op
N
op
n
~oiJ~s~p
~ Ju
N
~ UMO
a
j. lU9J
N ~
N ~ JU
N _ ~
i. ~ney-~~es a
m ~ ~
Q glno
Ju
Q 6Jo
N nP!
;p>.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O
N O W t0 R N
r
• , ,
. .
~ i ~
How do they work?
mplementinl; volume-based user fees in rural
locales is easier, and snore successful, than
conventional wisdom would have us believe.
lyy ~~G'illiam M. Park ,
As the "soli) w;nte crisis" has unfolJerl over
die last five to Ill years. must auentiun has
been (ek~uscd on urban anJ suburban arcas,
where huge volumes ul suliJ waste anJ re-
cydahlcs nm51 M managed Naturally then.
disaissiuns n(the rule of user (sec in soli)
waste management, p:uticularly volume- or ~
weightb:uett fees. have centrreJ un dxir im- I
plcnxntatum widrin a anuczt ul Jrxv-hr-Jav
garktge asst recycling cYrllydion. But in umx
once, culluttinn nl 4did waste and rctydnt+lec
m rural conununitics dmrugh a Jrop-o(i cyti-
tem Iwces an even greater challenge, partic-
ularly (rote the stanJpuint of linancing this
public service :mJ providing incentives (or
unucc rcdudiun anJ recycling.
Hisu rncnlly, cord conununitics have Go:eJ
relatively low strliJ wage management culls '
that in must cases was (unJcJ by gencr:d
pnry>L~ty lazes. Bul links Fuve ch:utguxl. Furl- waste mmtagatxnt legislation, orc in n pot- haulm or by imp4meming what la typlcal-
cr.J lanJlill regulations :utJ slate nlanJatee licul:vly dillicult situation. Because low pop- ly callala"convenience centd'sydem. Such
(ur more comprehensive collection cyaents ulatiun Jrnsitics limit the incentive to private a system involves a number o(conveniendy
and diversion of rnaleri:Js from Innd(ills haulers to serve residents in outlying areas, hxateJ sites with access cnntrulleJ during
through rcryding nr other means have many oval coumies have goose into the art- open hours by an aucnJant, where residents
ch:mged dx situation JramaUCnlly, cxarer- Icction business by nmvcrling uIJ IanJlill cvt Jmp off Uxir huuselxilJ garhtge :urJ per-
b:umg du inherent JilTiculties o(small total sites to trans(rr stations primarily (or self- baps srparne om a numbcnr(recydaMe nw-
lxrpulaliun baut :mJ low prpulation Jcnsi-
tiec Ihat coral armmunitirs (ace.
William M. Park is pnrfcxxv o(AgnnJtural F.eonumiec nnJ is a0ilimal with the Waste Managenrenl
CUStc have nun to the pmu That Ilxy rep- Krscan'h anJ Fwluc;nwn halilulc :n the Univcnuy of'Ibnnessee in Knoxville. The nsuuch was cun-
rcunl a majardaint on coral amununitY huJ- JucmJ while the author wax a vi+iting pm(ecsor m the Wesmm Kunl Ihvelupm<nt Center at Uregon
gels. Kural counties, u(ICn mggeJ as dx "re- Slate llnivenily. in amjmxliun wish the N:niunal Kural SWJies Cnnumuec, a project sgmvrteJ by the
s(>.msible unit of govcmmeni' in state soli) Kellogg romrJatinn.
Kgnln¢~d by p<-nni.vuo Irmo Itr~caunc Knvc ling. C(1 14in IUS~i1I, 11m Luu(llli 9]!96-115411 5115-22 %-1319.
165
terials. As cuch. Ihr yurstion naturdly atis- An uplate"1 inJicated the number of "vari-
esaboutwhethelvnlume-base) user ices ~ - able rate pricing'progmnlcbyclaleacu(e:tr-
f VHUFs1 could, or shuulJ, he ingtlentenleJ ~ ly IyY Comact was made witlt stale agency
within such a syclcnl. - Irrxnutcl w Ihirsc .ones with the highrcl nunt-
Accnnline to cum enlional wisdom, the bee o(pmgrams, ns well as other persons
? Residents can a-Juce volume-base)
?uswcr drlhis question is."No." Kurd solid knuwlalgcahlca~~utrumludidwaslcmm~-
waae m;magrn anJ elerled nif icials may, user fees by separating «cyclaMe ;reene•m acrn.c the country.
«adily acknoss lalgr the two ha>ic areumellls materials from waste. IieennrJly. This pnxess ylrldaxl sir ex;un-
in suplxnt ufvolume-haled user Iree, name. plcs within a Jnrp~nlT contest Ihal varieJ wills
ly dlc equity o(huuscholJs paying in pro- ? Bxkyard composting allows «si- «sfxrt dr geogrgrhic mtd Janugmphir char-
- dents to control their user (ees. ;xycri>licz of dte juri~Jictiun, :LC well ac ch;v-
? $ vial wastes ( and Jehris, white
p' Y• rfs~irssw as lirrnlirtdalive page yo stiumtairc
grxxls, htmiture, tires. etc) nn; usual' was acm lu Ibe Ikrson uunl douly involve)
ly accepted m rlnryt-olT'sites at a with ?duuniurnion of tllc udul waste nlan-
nominal cost, or none al all. ngrnknl syclem and was utixl as:m nudine tin
:Ill L'CICIri1Pt' ICICIrhOnC Inla'n Il' W.
C'onutel was alto made with elecleJ nlli~
potion kr the amount of soli) wash they gen- cult or odters in exh conntnmity who cool)
crate and Ihr incC olive cuch fern offer fur proviJe come perslxctive un either the pdil-
sxrtuce«Juclion:vulrecycling. fluwcver, ic:J anJ aJwiuislrnive comideraturm in inr
wort would Ire equally quick to Ix iiul out th:n plaucnnng die user Ice cycinn or d;c unprds
volumrhascJ fees m:q' encowage some rrs- ul the system. both posilice anJ negative.
iJenls to employ in;ggrmpo:ur Jispn:d meth- this :micle pnrviJec a summary of contpa-
rxJc, c.g., illegal Jungring ur un-site homing rthlr inlircm:uinu from all sis case studies.
or burying- "I~hcy wool) :Jso likely eytress More JcmilcJ infimuarion un each c::ee muJy
concern alxxn other lx rssihlr lwluical anJ aJ- will lrc irxauJcJ in acongnrhalsise repot to
Advertisement minisuati cc ingx~Jintenls. be published later
lhic ann'cmiunal wixlum i. «Occtal as
well by the ahuna• of any explicit anentiun C'harncteri.cties
to the nlral Jnrp oll collection context in the Inlbnnauun nn the basic geographic anJ do-
several Inc:) dccisiunmakcr guitks w unit nurgr:grhic charlclrristics tier cuch jurisJlr
pricing Thal have been published in «cent lion is pre~rmttl w~fnhle I. Thu infimn:nion
years. the purpose ul tltc rescareh reprrteJ tknunnlr:ncs the wile v:vintion acn nc Ihcju-
ulxnt in Ihic:utidc is to call innryucstion This risJicuuns with rcy><cl w land area, popula-
eoncemional w'ialom by assessing the rspr- lion, popul:vian )rosily', :mJ the estimate)
rirncc of sever.) meal nnnnnmiticc that h:rv'e prrccnmgr :uul nundx•r of «cidrnls who use
iniplententttl volumrh:uttl user Ices within the drop-oll svaenl.
a drop-otT collection content. lLc juricJicliuns prnmycJ httc cunsid-
The fnu step involved idemilicalion of ere) user fee systems for a Icw months to
uhal arc cmtsiJc«J to Ixo successful cnanr norm Ihan Iwo ya•arc he(nre Ihey were inr
ples. A June 199} ankle in Rr•.vnurr Rrrr- plenx~nuxl. Iklare user lixtt cyclcnls we« im-
din,l' 1"Cuuununity aJoplion VI variable rotes: plcmoilcd, waclc management was IunJeJ
Advertisement
~,f, vnu<r H,~,. f,uc lanu,vy IYOS
166
~ Geugnrphic and demographic charncleristics
1ZLL441s 114LSl4L 1 °nP It1411@!< Tl(L WroLheRf ld . ,
of jurisdiction County County County County(1) County Town ,
5ute Indiana Minnesota Oregon Wisconsin Georgia Vermon[
Anew (square miles) 433 576 4,620 915 269 50
1Malpopulation 36,600 18,500 298,000 37,300 35,000 2,700
Population density
'(per square mile) BS 32 ~ 65 41 130 - ~ 54
Population, percent - ~ "
:-using drop-offeites 50% 35% 50% 20% 45% ~ ' 75%' ~ t
lbtal population _
- using drop-off silos ~ 18,300 6,500 149,000 7.500 15,600 2,000 ,
(t) Volume-ba+od toes frtl koplentemed by 11 mwru within Matwe Camry. ~ ~ ~ ~ '
Stance; William M. Pak, 1994. - '
by general propcny tax revenues in lime sac- agement cysrem at the lime user fees were When the Town of Wcathcrslield. Vermont
es, a serial property tax levy in one rise and implentcn[rd. DuMris County. Indiana anJ initiate) user fors, it alw expanded its set of
a Oat per p:ucel aeaesantent in the other AI- Tilt County, Georgia converted un existing recyclable materials collecteJ.
though the aJministrmive and Ixilitical as- waste collection drop box system to a con- The basic characteristics of each user fee
pests of the amsiJeration anJ implements- venience center xystenr, and recycling up- system are summarized in Table 2. All ex-
tiun penal vary across the cases, and in every pununities were initiate). In Houston Court- cept Isle County were implemental between
case rcprcsem an intcrr+ting scary. space line- ty, Minnesota, collection of solid waste anJ 14tX) and l y42. In terms u(tlre 9ype' o(sys-
iwtions du not prnnit a Detailed di.u:ucsiun of recyclable materials was proviJed by the lane, two rcyuire purchase of a special bag, .
rack nne. Acommun clement. however, was county fur the first time. In Lane County, two rcyuire purchase of a mken w sticker to
a amcenrd effort to puhlicize plans to im- Oregon, existing transfer sites were secure), attach Iu the residents' own bag, anJ two re-
planent the user fee well ;dual u(time anJ recycling was ezpandrJ and a recycling seal- quire cash paynxnt at dK JmpoO site fur the
k1 eJucde eisidents as to the need art) logic it was intruJuceJ. In general, towns in Mun- eisidents' own bags. Converting the (ees to
fur it. me County. Wisconsin inrplentemal user foes a anrsistrnl basic inJicates a range x(50.50
Anothcrcnnanunality was that signif ic:uu at the time small individual town dumps were W 52.00 per 30-gallon bag. Although none
changes were made in the xdiJ wage man- close) sal were axivenal to transfer stations. o(the systems charge fur rrcyclablts, Huus-
~ User fee systems: Basic elements
1urisdictioo r-IZi116115 }j4L51411 1~[tC h1mmG Tilt W~rfrercfieW ,s_
Ds[e initiated April'91 Oct.'91 luly'80 ` - '90•'92, OcL'92 ~July'91~:>s.~.
Type of bag Own Own Own Purchased Purcha+ed~ Own
Fee mechanism Sticker Cash Cash Bag - Bag , ~ Toktm ~ '
Pee per unit of volurro 5.75/45-gel. 51.30/34gd.(I) 52.00/32-gd.(2) 51.10/33-gal. ~ ~ 5130/36-gd.(3) ~ SL00/3(kgaf:
Mioimumfa 50.75 51.30 56.00 SL10 ~ -50.45 ~ 51.00
Credit m payment for No Buy-back for 51.50 credit No No " No
tayclables aluminum for IO lbs. + ~ ~ -
Fee paid at drop-off sits Yes Yes Yes Yn No ~ ' ~ ~ No ; :
Fee paid at municipal offices Ya No No Yea No_ ~ ~ Yes'
F« paid at stores No No No ~ No - Yes - - Yes ' •
Pmcentege of total cost 33% 26% !00%(4) ' ~ Vmiablo 63% 57% ~
covored by fee ~ ~ -
(kneralPropntYtaxfund(ng Yes Ya ~ Nu Yes ~ +~~~"~~%Yea No -
Flat assessment No 5.75MH/month No No No 525/perceUyear
Oat. = Gsllan. . ~ . L .
HH . Houeetrold. - -
(q Or L07 per pound. - - ~ ~ .
(2) Other rates: S I2 per pickup load a SS per cubic yard. - - - .
(!)Other bag sifts and tm: 5.45 per 8 gallon and 5.73 per 16 Balton. ~ ~ ~ ~ `
(4) Although the solid waste martegemcnt rystem L seltaupporting overall, the curd drop-o((colladon toorpareat Ia "suhaidixad" m some esteet
by other system components. ~ ~
Saura: William M. Pule, 1994, - ~ - ~ -
Hnuun'r Nnw LnX January 1445®
167
ton County buys hack aluminum anJ Lane trot over their 't•fd:
County otters a $ I .Sp credit (or users who "garbage bill" a
separate uw at leant ll3 prmnds o(m:ydables and can tun-
per visit. Irihwe to pub-
With regard to overall solid waste man- tic acceptance
agcnlent system financing, only Lame Cuun- of a user fcc ~
ry covers all of its solid wane management system, MO51
spsll
system costs with user fees, although landfill The six pn. a ltaUfS
tipping Ices du, N+wane extent, subsidize the grams prcsen4
system of drop-ulT sites that serve prim:uily eJ here accept ~
meal sell-haulers, Vf3UFs in the other sys- a wide variety _
tcnu coverfmm 26 to 63 perecnt of the foal o(recyclable
soli) waste monagement system cost, with materials. The
the remainder covered by ad valorem prop- basic five ma-
eny taxes in three cases, all mmual per parcel serials - alu-
assessment in one case, anJacombination of minuet cans,
prolxny taxes and a monthly per household glans conlain-
acsessnlem in the other. These "hybriJ" li- ers, sleet cans,
nancing drategics allow per bag tees to be old newspapers
kept mthe rel:uively modest levels noted and old cotta- ~ " ""'4'~'•'
aMwe, thus limiting the incentive fur inap- gate) contain- Since 19A0, l~nr County, Oregon hnr chorgrd user fees noel given mry-
pnyxiatc divlwsal. ers -are ac- [ling rrediGr u! its nrrnl trnn.rfrr s!nliorrr, .nu'h ns this one in Crcr+vedl.
cepted in all of
the SYSIL'1115, :md ~ VC SystCrllS:K'cepl p1aClICS, srtes r:mging total l1aC lU 15, [311' nU1116Cr Of
Recyclables and special wastes magazines ;old at (cast urge additional type of hours open ranging from about 10 to KU, and
Uiscussiuns of volume-base) user fcc sys- paper. the tonnage of recyclable materials h:mdled
toms t}'pically emphasize the importance of Civen Ule variation acrtxs dxjuriulictknvs per site in 199.7 ranging (rum 4J to 275 tuns.
pnwiding households with an opportunity with respect to land area and population, one Trchnolagics oust lix collecting and tmrls-
mrcJuce their costs by separating materials would expect variation as well in the open p>ning materials and arrangernents fur pnx:-
lia recycling. Together with source reduc- [tonal characteristics and technologies use) cssing :uKl m:aketing alw vary wifely, as J+es
[ion options such as backyanl composting, within the systems. As inJicnted in Table 1, the rule of private sector limo in relation to
Vf3UFs allow rcsiJents some degree of con- this is indeed the case, with the aunlber of these activities.
~ Recycling system characteristles
1~IQII ~ QJi4411 ~ l~ ' ~15~4~ r. , ~1JIhC69C~~
Nmnbc of rlmp-off sites 8 5 l5 f per town 1' ~7~ r '"11
Hairs opm per wok 1432 12 10.60 ` 8 _ r
Average tans of ttxycbtbk 52 NA. 273 ; ~ VineNe ~ 43' : ° n. a' . ~
makriats pa site in 1993 - :
Oooteiners fa recyclebles 4 cy. dumpatets 20 cy. closed top 90 gal `Venable 'Ilu'kr wilb ' Bttakets end
a/cprtpatLtletds whiled cart ` " ' ~ catnpertnieas r' Osylortls ;
` Veeiebk
'1laaspottetionof Countyttucks~ Countyttrrcks ~Aivem -~:'Prlwte ~it:' CutmtyhtK'.lrs'`''•`
' rxyclebka coo0tit'tata ~'heulea `r" S^:!i- .7tz;~ ~-`r>P' t +.v'-;~
Ptotzssing aal market- Local selvage . ~ County 1NRF , r. - l°rlvste ~,Privtrle firm-- '(f ~ IviRP s +rt Toam fritr+'+
~iugofrayclables yard :.CvI1N - ty --k}T,,Z„R44.i., li~j1 f.r!(='
f"
NJt. v Na aveilabla Cy.: Ctirbk ymd. MRP,• MeenMle recm'eq' LCUitY• _ J , t, r t .
6. a+~~f. It+~':
Scarce: wllivn M. Park, 1994. - .
Rccommendatiuns by solid waste man- Pos{llve lmpacLS ing a significant difference.
agcmcm professionals reganling trcamKml n( While volume-base) user tees ate often jus- While dcfinilive "before and otter' figures
special wastes such as yarJ debris, white: lifted on equity grounds, one would certain- isolating the effect on soli) waste tonnages
gurlJs, furniture and tires gnlerally entpha- ly hope that dley would rcJuce Jte amount of requiring disp>al cape lacking. Mere was ev-
size the importance of pnrviding timely, con- solid waste teyuning Disposal, as a result of idence of small e6solute reductions in thrtt
vrnicnt anJ luwrostrr{uiuns (or disp+saL Al- the incentives provide)(or separauun and cases. Inane uthrrcase, soli) waste tonnage
tlawgh the ways these special wades arc hart- source reduction efforts on the part a( rest- stnyeJ roughly cunstnnt even tlwugh signif-
dleJ varies across the six systems. must ac- dents. Although the in(ontmtion available on leant economic and population growth was
ceps them at nu Iv nominal ttrit at +mr tx more Ibis subject was somewhat uncertain and di(- taking place. Reprxted increases in wnnage
drop-all sites, t}ICreby limiting any iucemive Gcult to interprca in most cases, t}a:re is a g«rkl of recyclables collected account fur part of
k,r rccidrme m Jo something inappmpriatc bit of eviJence ar suggest that the incentives the Decreases in disposal « xtnege, Fwt it 1s im-
with items or materials of Ihcsc sons. provided by these user tee systems are rank- possible to know how much of the rematn-
der of the decreases
were due to actual ~ Measures otimpact on recycling
source reduction efftxts ~ -
Y ' i c 7cyr . tK t KC }J ~ ics-1' W =~3tt v
°~"~k;~~.'~'r,
motivate) by the ~ ~ ;.k}t ,~s.,~ +
VBUFs anJ how much ~ t, t r
was Juc to other fiu;tort ~ + `s r a ° ~ u.~%hBY n k 9' F ti,}.~'~'S^'d'~r '~~N~~
Although it was dif- PMidpebori in ttxycGng (i) 63% ~s 9396` x,'1$!16.+ x N.A: ~ +8096 ~"`~~"'"yi•,
Recyciablbtemvercd(2) 43. , t46` 34 a ~ 98 ~~'z38: 14$.' ~ a
licull to calculate a vabJ ' ~f
DlYelatq~IEWYQf'Ietla (3) pf;A. 1N12tj49; ,1 tt. jg~t+ a.~ ~,r
diversion or recovery ° 'Ile" ° . "}U~` i~'~j~ Y~k'~.~s',, t{ yG~:
rete kx the mraf JruPr'R N.A.. Not evulabi~ ~ j.,.y e t~~~~'O+t~Yr3 .~,;s t„ gar i4 e'~'~ri #^~kMr'~~~ iF .t,iF,'
s stems alone, as note) ~ ~ ~ ~'~F" ~ ~ ~
Y (l)Penz:euge oftditknb uaiagii0ea torte Yv)lio ae'Quahe aaot6teec7elahTea, meltdhfhsE
in Table 4, three cuunues aotmhiin Ouboie aed 7Stl eotrpia adroo;6 aheiyhns - ~ 3'¢''#'z'3"~rr~i., ,
haJ cumpmed county (2)la ponds percapita in1993. Pat typ(pleet ofredddddil fndeeWi; ~wxlduq~o,p~"
wide rates (ur state rc- vrioasfomrdpriper:F1=tk(stort'sfN MasOYtrihSeMss.~T~.Otidiryrr(d071W~~jlt~1'MIIM~wIYbk'RhK~
puns that range)from es4dBdviddd 6f~~YPoP~'Q.~[6e1l8mittiervtedEyrtbe)~`I(n~M1lacUoil ~~s:-.
20 to 34 percent. In uJ- ataorJmisdatioos,~mwsr~e edlsaedaoy EatadnrpuQaYeslidYitied~+ ~ iN/pti~N~y,
ditiun, in(onnauon fmm (3)fn Qeiomtia 1997. Tliex drvailooheaovdj'rates'ueJatltdfegaew6JermdmusEoehidtl aolfeebdintatbstb~:
the Town of Weothers- ~~-r~hd~aaaescnm tl~~~~"Y4S dik~'y~tt{8 W
fielJ indicate) a diver- $amce: V1rJgrsnM Patk,-199A. t ~ <r4"
lion or recovery rate of - ~ ~ ~ ~ "r " r~
aM>ut 29 pere:enl.
Per capita mnounts o(recyclables collect- side recycling collection in some municipal- doors ami soli) waste managers. The range
ed were conrputeJ in four o(the cases, base) hies. Annual pounds per capita were 146 for acmes the five cans was 65 m 95 pocent, with
nn rough estimates of the number of people Houston and 98 for Monroe. the average at l;0 percent, which is rclaevely
using the tLop-oli systems. Fa Dubois, Lane, Finally, perhaps az useful an indicator as high compami to previous ~stirnatev (or dmp-
and Tilt counties, annual recovery rangeH arty o(Itre impact of VOUFs in drew case soot- off recycling systems elsewhere without vol-
From 40 to 60 pounds per capita. For the ies is the level of participation in the scparn- ume-based user fee Systems.
Town of WeathersfielJ, approximately I50 Lion o(recyclables, measured in percent. In
pounds per capim were mllecad in 1993. Fur two of tM cases, participation haJ Mxn care- Problems
Houston anJ Monroe counties, only a eewn- fully nwnitorcd or tracked over a long period As note) in the introductory section, con-
tywiJc generation rate cool) be cumputeJ, of time; in Juee others, an estimate was made vcntional wiulom has it that user fee systems
which thus incluJeJ recyclables from curb on Jre basis of gerreml observations by anen- in a meal dmp-ofTcollxtion system content
Advertisement
®Rtcnun~e Rny~~linG January IV95
~7~
m likely m generate serious problems in the in some nmd areas, although concern was ez- propriate financing strategy for all rural ar-
formufincreasedillegaldumpingand presseJ in some cases akx>ut buming o(ulh- eas, the ezperienm o(these rural counties and
buming, as well as less serious ones such as cr materials. To avoid any problems widr ez- towns warrants lire folbwing conclusions.
excessive compaction, use u( private cum- cessive compaction, Houston County insti- Implementing a volwnc-based user fee sys-
tttercial collection containers and out- tutcdaweight limit o(30 puunek per bag from rem inaruraldrop-ot(contextappenrsfeasi-
o(-jurisdiction disposal. Although at least the beginning. In several cases, minor prob- blc acroscawide purge o(gcogmphic:mdde-
one of these problems was noted a5 minor in lenu with use of prvate commercial collet- nxtgl;tphic co(Rlitions, as well as a wide range
each of the systems studied, in au case JiJ tiun containers wan eliminated with the use o(system characteristics, without prohibitive
soli) waste m:magers urek~ctcd ollicials view o(laeks. Tilt County initially haJ s(nne proM administrative problems or costs.
arty problem ac serious enough to undertake lem with residents going across the county Most residents appear willing to support
a fundamental mconsiderttion of the user fee line to use unattended containers al n waste fur at least aceepp a volume-based user fee
system. It is good to keep in mind, however, collection drop lmx system in a neighlwring system if they are well informed o(du need
that these assessmems are admittedly sub- county. but those containers wcrc soon rclo- (or and logic of the system in advance. end
jative ;rod are based nn interviews with pco- cared away from the county line. are given reasonable options (tx gaining sunx
plc cloudy involved with exh system who Another concern expressed often is that measure of control over their total hill. Hy-
mry have same vested interest in ponmying administration o(a VBUF system in a coral brill financing strategics allow per-bag fees
their system in the best light. drop-off cnntezt might he infeasible or pro- m he kept at rnrxlcst Icvds. Suppnn comes
In severd cases, where ;ut increase in ille- hibitively costly. Although minor adminis- more eacily if VI3UFs arc initiatud m the time
gut dumping cecuned, a show of willingness lratis'e adjustrnenis have been made akRtg the o(a significant enhancemem o(the collec-
to enform applicable ordinances w:r5 app:v- way in all of the systems, in no case were the lion system.
endy sufficient n> reduce the illegal dumping basic administrative changes major impedi- V t3UFs within rural drop-of(collection
fairly quickly to nurre usual levels. Atypical nicnts. In addition. in most cases adminis- systems appear capable u( motivating rela-
appnsa(:h hat been w idcmify the respmsihle lmtive cults wcrc not inereaced substantial- tivdy high levels o(p:vticipalinn in the sep-
parry (mm mail in houxhold garbage and ly, because the commitment h:Rl already been anlion of recyclables, thus contributing to
send a leucr stating that cleanup is reyuircd male. voile sep:u'etely from dte VHUP yues- relntivrly high per capita gencmtian rotes (or
by a certain date, with the threat of a modest tion, to have attended drop-o((sites. Ousts typical recyclables and countywide diveaion
fine if it is not dune. Srmte atunties have puM asscx:iated with sale of the bags, stickers or or recovery rotes.
IishrJ names in the newspapers or reywred tokens hive been minimal, atd nu billing sys- At least minor problems with increased il-
citirenc Io aplxxar before acountyjudge. The rem is reyuircd in:my u(dx systems. legal dumping and buming can he expected.
increased buming in srnnc cases was nut nec_ but a show of willingness to enforce ordi-
essarily hrokeJ upon ac a problem, because Conclusions n:utces against such practices can tool to fair-
buming ofclean w(KKI or paper is allowable Although V l3UPs may not M: the most ap- ly quick subsidence. l~fl
Advertisement
(.Ink to; un RR wrv ke turd
vnrnt RrnrLng Lmuary I`Y)5®
~7~
Summary of Recycle Hawaii's Community Meetings on Resource Management
February- October, 1999
Throughout 1999 Recycle Hawaii conducted several community meetings to discuss resource
management options with members of the public. Recycle Hawaii also attended a variety of
community association and organization meetings to receive input regazding these matters. The
following is a brief summary of the concerns that were expressed repeatedly by Big Island
residents.
1. Advanced Disposal Fees
At every meeting, ADF's (Advanced Disposal Fees) or "Bottle Bills" were brought up.
Many felt that ADF's would be an effective way to ensure proper disposal and/or
recycling of products. ADF's could also increase recycling and provide funding for more
and improved programs.
2. Recycling
Residents continually asked for more convenient drop-off recycling centers. They
pointed out that recycling needed to be easier and less complicated. Comments included:
"Make aone-stop recycling `hut' at the transfer station - or make it part of our
neighborhoods!" "Now it is too faz - it is too complicated to get rid of recyclables -put
bins in the neighborhood." "It is difficult to recycle -got to drive to a different place to
recycle." "Make recycling EASY!!!! Recycling is not easy:' Others commented that
they would like to see more incentives for recycling. Consistency regazding recycling
was stressed by many.
3. Education
Residents suggested that there be more education efforts about recycling. It was stressed
that education is the key to attitude and behavior changes.' They recommended more
work in the schools, churches, work places and with community groups.
4. Illegal Dumping
Illegal dumping was a concern at most of the meetings. Many people brought up the
problem of abandoned vehicles. Concern about illegal dumping ranged from feaz of
"Gestapo' practices, to outrage that more was not being done at this time. Some
expressed a desire for more prevention education while others wanted to see more
enforcement.
5. MSW Management Systems
Discussions regazding municipal solid waste management systems ranged from
suggestions to develop MRF facilities and re-use centers to adamant statements against
incineration.
6. Pay-As-You-Throw
Initial response to aPay-As-You-Throw system was hesitant, and sometimes resistant
however, as people were provided education about the program, they frequently
expressed support. Most support the idea of an equitable program that chazges people for
what they throw away.
And finally, several people said in effect, "Stop talking, stop planning, let's just do it."