HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0075.016 2002-2004 3_.?~~, .yq F. ~J1
.TUN-95-~73 THAI 02:E~2 FM P'. F' kl~EyI=.HPI C+N - - - .+erf.wa~r
REt: ~ i`J'C~
'03 JUN 9 PIS 1?_ 31
CbUr~ ~ C;i_i~i ~r:
(;OUN7Y + iF HAWAII
p
MR. RUBBiSHMAN
COnstftlCdpn Debris • CammeraatQndUStrlal • welt-Cprttairled & 5Wtionary Compactors • ResldeCCt~;:l
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
DATE ,
FROM: KONA REFUS6 INC./MR. RUBBI5HMAN
PO BOX 326
KAILUA-KONA,HI, 96745
FAX: (8081 329-2595
PtiONE (808) 32Q9-{4~1f9~5
DOCUMENT DISCRIPTION: y~~_~ ~.3 r •l`~-L~ (~~-j;,~
I~ ~ - ~ ~n~~ ~ i j~
i~~~ ~.rz-c~<__
_
NUMBER OF PAGfiS INCLUDING COYER SHEET: Comm. Np. S '
Ref. To:
ricf. Cato but
PLEASE CALL IF YUU HAVE ANY QUF,STTOn:S. wE ARF, Z,OOKZCv'G
FORWARD TO DOING BUSINESS WITH YOU !!!!!:!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i_
~TZ
JIR-l-ta5-0? TNU 02:0L PM F1P RUSRISHf9HN 32'2595 F.a
May 2i, 2003
Mr. Tyler
I am asking that the co•:nty council table the increase of
residential credits to certain waste haclers.Where did. this
formula of a $3.63 increase come from?
Based on the Current $2.00 Credit, estblished year:. ago,
the landfill Eee went fl:om $0 to $35.00 per tor? (with a 2
bay minimum per week. Who polices that?1 This credit was
established on the theory that residential haulers were go-
ing to lose business, Not a fact. Tn taest Hawaii. we have a
major hauler of residential services (no ~-ecyciingl who
bought out his competitors because of this credit, to be-
come more profitable at o~.~r expense as tax payers.
I believe that if we are to use tax payers money, wkzich is
where this subsidy comes From, it should not be used to
line someone's pockets with no benefits back tc the commun-
iky. T would like to see this credit stopped entirely and
have tfte council Come up with a better 507,.UtiOn to our sol-
id waste problems. We are not reduc9.ng the amount of trash
hauled to our landfills.Maybe you could make this credi*_
available to a company to pick up recycleables, as most of
the materials now being recycled by residents is bei;?g hand
delivered to drop-off sites, an additional cost to the tax
payer. I hope you can get this tabled so as to study this
with the taxpayer in mind, not just certain haulers.
An increase from $2.G0 to $3.65 (180? for these haulers is
not a solution to cur waste problems. I ask again that you
reconsider this credit and look for a better way to spend
our tax dollars.
}sarbara Bela. has stated the cost of Chic credit to be a-
round $450,000.00 a year. 'this should not be allowed. This
amount o£ money could tte used in a better manner.
The current credit was to have been for a noe year period
to see what hardships were going to come to certain haulers.
It has been eight years no~.~ and these haulers have not
faced any. So bases on the past experience this $450,000.00
a year is going to go on for at least eight years, with
7,808 increases for every $.10.00 landfill increase. Please
do the math. With a 510.00 increase next year or sooner
this $450,000.00 becomes a whopping $810,000.00. Again, tax
payers monies gotr.q into some chosen few's .pockets to be-
come more profitable entre peneurs.
Flease look for solutions into this ever growing problem,
because it_ is ge.ng to be here for many year,. to co'~~e.