HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0053.004 2012-2014 Submitted by Matt Pearson on March 28, 2013 COUNTY CLERK
COMITY OF HAWAII2
RECEIVED
Time 8:oo Awl By
Date ciao t 3
Big Island EKO Systems
Hawai'i County Council, March 28, 2013
Spoken Testimony for Resolution 31-13 & Communication 53
Furnishing& Implementing Organic Waste Diversion Sites & Compost Operations
• Aloha Councilmembers
• Representing EKO Compost
• Testifying on 2 items
o Resolution 31-13
o Communication 53
• I'd like to focus on 3 points today
1. Amending the zoning code,
2. Implementing an organics tipping fee, and
3. Highlighting actual costs of the proposed organics contract.
My testimony will begin with RESOLUTION 31-13(authorizing DEM to release RFP)
• The County has not implemented changes as recommended in the 2009 Integrated Resource Solid
Waste Management Plan (IRSWMP)
o Item#1 under Recommendations for Organics,... it states:
"Promote both large-and small-scale private organics composting operations by:
Modifying zoning rules&County Codes to relax restrictions on, &clarify,operational
requirements for composting on agricultural lands."
o The County should amend the zoning code to allow compost operations on County Ag lands
• This simple change should have been done years ago to save the County money.
• This may be the single most important step to save the County millions of dollars&
expand waste stream management options
• These zoning changes should be before writing another RFP
• Currently, per the Planning Department:
o Organic waste receiving, processing(grinding), and composting are only permitted
on County zoned General Industrial land.
o Compost operations are not considered as fertilizer or soil production,which are
allowed on County Ag zoned lands.
• Soil is a mixture of mineral&organic materials in their solid form.
• Mixing compost with other additives, as done by many composters,is soil
production & has value as a non-chemical fertilizer
• Zoning code amendments would:
o Clear"grey areas"
o Allow operations on Ag land
o Allow composters to accept material from local communities, and
o Substantially decrease the waste stream volume the County is required to manage
Comm. Nc . 3'1
Ref. Tc,;..__ ricwwevA
Ref. Dais MAR 2 `
l {,
s�iip
o These zoning changes would not remove operational oversight
• Composting is heavily regulated by the State Department of Health,which is the
permitting authority
• Facility permits may be approved after a review of design,throughput, location,
& impacts on neighbors, prior to the facility being operational
• The State Department of Health is also responsible for inspecting compost
facilities to ensure permit compliance
• Second point today is regarding tipping fees
• According to the County's FAQs,tipping fees are scheduled to go into effect April 15t•
2013
• This is a positive step for stimulating a competitive market&achieving the County's
Zero Waste goals
• These tip fees allow commercial & private composters to offer lower rates,which could
divert waste away from the County facilities
• Without tip fees in place at taxpayer subsidized facilities, it is hard for alternative
composters to cover operating costs when competing in the local market.
Moving on to Communication 53(Finance Dept.Transmittal Letter—next 3 min.)
• I'd like to highlight costs of the proposed organics contract.
• Some numbers to consider regarding costs for the duration of the proposed-contract
o A low projection of 546,000 tons of compostable material will be generated island-wide over the
next 10 years
• At$70/ton+$16-20m ($8-10m per facility) in startup costs,you're looking at$58m over 10
years
• At$90/ton+$16-20m in startup costs,you're looking at$69m over 10 years
• Keep in mind that,for each additional 10,000 ton increase,you're looking at a cost increase
of$700,000-900,000 year
• If diversion rates reach 100,000 tons/yr, or 1 million tons per 10 years,this results in an
annual operating cost of$7-9m
• Current—114,000 tons of organics landfilled annually
• Including startup costs,the overall costs to County could be estimated up to$90-110m
over a 10 year period
• These are vendor costs only and does not include County costs to sort& haul materials that
are collected
• If County approves both 5 year optional contract extensions:
• Resulting in a 20-year full-term contract
• Figures will double ($200m).
• Another factor in these projected costs is Population Growth
o According to charts, as provided in the IRSWMP
• By 2025 (12 years),the population will be around 216,000 residents
• The additional 40,000 residents will produce over 100 tons per day of organic waste.
• This will add an additional $2m-3m annually to the cost of the contract.
• This is in addition to cost figures provided earlier.
• It's important to note that the only significant differences between Resolution 34-11& Resolution
31-13 is the removal of a price cap and a significant increase of projected start up costs.
o As County contracts are currently written,all wastes collected/generated at County facilities are
required go to the current contractor(even if cheaper options are available)
o County RFPs should include clauses to allow for future potential cost saving opportunities
• This helps level the playing field for alternative facilities.
• In conclusion:
o Prior to releasing the new RFP for organics,the County should:
• Change the zoning code, and
• Implement tipping fees
o These combined changes will:
• Decrease organic waste streams for the County to manage,
• Save the County tens of millions of dollars,
• Support local businesses (such as landscapers&farmers), and
• Result in better service to the Big Island community as a whole
• Thank you for your time.
• Please consider my testimony during your discussions.
• Mahalo.
Big Island EKO Systems
Hawai'i County Council, March 28, 2013
Testimony for Resolution 31-13 & Communication 53
Furnishing & Implementing Organic Waste Diversion Sites & Compost Operations
Aloha Councilmembers:
EKO Compost is submitting this written testimony to comment on Resolution 31-13 and Communication
53, related to Furnishing& Implementing Organic Waste Diversion Sites&Compost Operations in East&
West Hawai'i.With this testimony, EKO is focusing on three points:
1. Amending the Hawaii County Zoning Code,
2. Implementing an organics tipping fee, and
3. Highlighting actual costs of the proposed organics contract.
EKO has been involved in Hawai'i County's organic waste diversion process since 2003,when EKO first
responded to the County's original compost RFP (#2036). EKO was awarded the contract and facility
operations began in July of 2005.
RESOLUTION 31-13:
Zoning Code Amendments
In 2009,the County's Integrated Resource Solid Waste Management Plan's(IRSWMP) primary
recommendation for Organics states (Section 4.6 Recommendations for Organics, pg. 4-34):
"1. Promote both large-and small-scale private organics composting operations by
- Modifying zoning rules and County codes to relax restrictions on, and clarify,
operational requirements for composting on agricultural lands."
The County has not yet implemented this simple change,which should have been done years ago.This
may be the single most important step to save the County millions of dollars and expand waste stream
management options.These zoning code changes should be made before writing and releasing another
RFP.
Currently, per the Planning Department,organic waste receiving, processing(including grinding), and
composting are only permitted on County zoned General Industrial lands.1 This is problematic in that,
island-wide,there are few lots that are zoned General Industrial. Of those lots,even fewer are suitable
for composting due to lot locations in urban areas or inadequate lot sizes.
Additionally,the County Code does not recognize compost operations as fertilizer or soil production
(which is allowed on County Ag zoned lands). Soil is defined as a mixture of mineral and organic
materials in their solid form. Compost production is soil production. Compost is also highly valued to
replace or off-set chemical fertilizer use.
1 The Planning Department did advise that obtaining a Special Permit for operations on State Agriculture lands
could be pursued, but would require Planning Commission approval.
Amending the zoning code would clear"grey" areas,allow operations on County Ag land, allow private
or commercial composters to accept material from the local community area (in turn, reducing the need
to haul organic over long distances unnecessarily), and substantially decrease the waste stream volume
the County is required to manage.
To be clear, such zoning code amendments would not remove operational oversight. Composting is
heavily regulated by the State Department of Health,which is the permitting authority for Solid Waste
Management Facilities. Facility permits may be approved by the Department of Health, but only after
undergoing a review of facility design,throughput, location, and impacts on neighbors, prior to the
facility being operational.The State Department of Health is also responsible for inspecting compost
facilities to ensure permit compliance.
Tipping Fees
According to the County's FAQ sheet regarding West Hawaii greenwaste diversion program changes,
tipping fees are scheduled to go in to effect April 1, 2013.This is a positive step for stimulating a
competitive market and achieving the County's Zero Waste goals. Implementing tipping fees allow
commercial and private composters the ability to offer competitive rates,which could divert waste away
from County facilities(resulting in reduced costs to the County while stimulating industry competition).
• Without County tip fees in place at taxpayer subsidized facilities, it is hard for alternative compost
facilities to cover operating costs when competing in the local market.
COMMUNICATION 503
County Costs for contract duration
According to RFP#2738,the County anticipates 546,000 tons of compostable material to be generated
island-wide over the 10 year contract period. At$70/ton,2 with start-up costs of$16-20m ($8-10m per
facility), a 10 year contract will cost the County$58m.At$90/ton,with start-up costs, a 10 year contract
will cost the County$69m. Each additional 10,000 tons will cost$700-900k per year.
If diversion rates reach 100,000 tons/year, or 1 million tons per 10 years, annual operating costs will be
between $7-9m. (Currently, 114,000 tons of organic waste is landfilled annually.)When startup costs are
included, overall costs to the County can be estimated to be$90-110m over 10 years.These figures
represent County costs to the vendor only, and do not include County costs to sort and haul materials
that are collected. Should the County approve both additional 5 year optional contract extensions,
resulting in a 20-year full time contract,these figures will double (around $200m). •
2 Per Resolution 31-13(emphasis added):
• "WHEREAS,...Resolution 34-11(Draft 2)...but also recited therein that it was in the best interest of the county
to contract'at an estimated price per ton not to exceed an annual average of$70';and...
• WHEREAS,...the proposal which the County determined was the best value to the County...was not priced
within the$70 per ton limit recited in Resolution 34-11(Draft 2),causing the County to cancel RFP No.2738;
and...
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that is Resolution supersedes and replaces Resolution 34-11(Draft 2),in particular
revoking the per-ton price limitation recited therein."
Population Growths
001881732 E(166172-7
Resident Ponu!ffiHn Fore t byt)istnct,Haeali 1 Cowin Per.Capda Generation 00655riton
Di4rid 27103 3035 2010 2015 920 2025 acee Jurlad,dian Pounds/Capitat9sisr
Population
!Resident Po Dion Basis
p'
Puna 31.450 37,064 42,56 48,381 54,322 57827 61452
W amaii Cot"FY 07.0e 04
South Hilo 47.572 47,193 40,427 47,204 49.437 4,432 52,,531
Honolulu County.2004' a5
8041,Hap 1,727 1.875 1,710 1,745 1,33 1935 1952
Harnett. 0,132 0,315 6.554 0,733 9,034 7,270 ,731 Maui C aunty F1'380811 142
HoAh kohala 6062 6,753 7,600 0,17; 10,514 11,143 1155' Ka'ua'i County 20715 100
South kohala 13.103 70,003 10.155 20,4333 22,780 242,50 25370 Seattle.2006' 11$
North Kona M.850 31,041 3:.033 38,620 :30,427 41,971 44/502 Metro Vanc9wH,9.0` 9.6
Swett:Kona 8,823 10,4501 11,402 12,314 13,143 133081 14858 De Fade Pupulaion 8aefs
ta'u 5.250 6.558 7.043 7.475 71542 8,347 8,571
Hoetaii County FY 07,0e 03
rata 149201 162I,000 176,750 180,000 273,050 210,150 228,700
Honolulu County.2004' 9.7
west Haoear, 59.322 94,22(1 71.463 78,776 85663 91,403 97,133
Maui Counts F005.00' 1:79
6,ot Hawm i 92 739 20700 165,207 111,524 117,137 124,747 132,,87
Annual Caoca t;Rote Karla'i Cnur;y 201}5° 7.4
West Hawaii 26% 2:2% 2.0% 17% 1.3% 12% txhtbits 21 and 28.
East Haccai'i 1.3% 13% 1.2% 1 0% 1 3% 1.2% °I)raft IRSaUMF,Kaua'l0040 y,Section 2 and Hamtar i data book
Sources.T ne proportion l resident in each District in each year 0 tom the C aunty of HSoa116enenai Plan ''Drat IRSt'u'MP,Maui Count,Table 24,and Hxmal,data book.
2!0615(Amended 0 eoronber Vi).Table 22 Sourer Economic Aosessment,276 Hauoar i.January 2000
Those proportions were multip°ed br County total forecast total r.ident Population in naoh year from
'Calculated based on information in Gay of Sea31a.23012.4e0yn3 Recycling Rare 3'577 Update,and 14701406
Hawaii Uapartment oItt Business,Economic DeYaopment,an4 Taur6m 23170.Population and Ecor,ami. kotn the 4reafer Seattle Data sheet.assumes 10;6 consloot and demetlion debit;recycling tats.
Protections t the State Hawaii 8 115 G5EU.2335 bales.A.C6.£tat
based on intwinatiwn in Metro Vaneowei.2005 GYRO Sold Waite nbda a on 0112004
Annual,Re431.Includes demol,lon,land 044169,and eonnntruobon waste.
The IRSWMP projects 216,000 Hawaii County residents by 2025, an increase of around 40,000 people.
These additional residents are projected to generate an additional 100 tons of organic waste island-wide
daily(see above charts). Based on$70/ton (provided as a price cap in Resolution 34-11)this would
result in a minimum annual increase of$2,593,863 to the County for organic waste diversion. (NOTE:
DEM deemed this price cap too low after REP bid responses were already received). Based on $90/ton,
another figure provided in the IRSWMP,this would cost an additional $3,334,932 per year beyond the
costs mentioned earlier.
Resolution Differences
It is important to note that the most significant difference between Resolution 34-11 and Resolution 31-
13 is the removal of a price cap. As County contracts are currently written, any wastes collected or
generated at County facilities are required go to the current contractor, even if cheaper options are
available in the public sector. In writing the RFP,the County should insert clauses that allow greenwaste
hauled from transfer stations to be diverted to private facilities if there is a cost savings to the tax payer.
This helps to level the playing field for alternative facilities.
Conclusion
Prior to moving forward with a new RFP for organics at this time,the County should pursue changes to
•
the Zoning Code and implement greenwaste tip fees. With these changes,the distribution of compost
sites could substantially increase so as to better serve individual communities, removing the organic
waste stream & burden from the County.This would result in significant costs savings, upwards of tens
of millions of dollars,while supporting local businesses, such as landscapers&farmers. Please consider
this testimony so that the residents of Hawaii can have economic and agricultural security.
+-, 0 0
(a O O 0 +
O �
+' O O +-,
�� o aT N O U
M * 00 °
i ++ �--I 0 0 6,
co e-1 N O
I--N O V} to U
• i N a) SZ
O 0 > O
Li O 0 0 N i
C 0 0 O II +�
c N U o VO O ro to
0 U N o 7
E
V "�
�... o ., rn
a co <-1 O
m "'
0 0
r-I 0 00 +
0 o
. m 0 o o 4,
+, QOj ee-I 0 O
VI u
W `° e1 0 0
ce C N t/} C U
O d Q.
U > O
To
ti
0 o 0 11 (L6
O O
o o � (.n
U L 0 N
0
N o E
Q
CC
O l0' O
ro
L t/} VT
Z @ 0
0
0
v O °
X O D >- 4-. t/}
V ±' 0 Q
u L O = a1 O
V co U O ra c 0 V1
v— (a N Y a1 !?
N N i/} 00 -0 a) (6
Z O N 0 N co'-
° ■ O O uw CO w
U Z O in. c a)
CC 0 C o . H
0 U aLni
,�, c >-
Q (n t/} p a, (o O •—
3 `°
0 _�' O v
� Q- 00 Oo ° = °-
v a
c 3 0
O N 0 0 a, o 3
+-■ O O .— =
0 C s.+ O C ■
EL `) rn 0 c c o
O O v
U O +. co 3 N ro ro
CC 00 vim} v c u --a •-
CL. C (� O E v (o v ai
a o ((a +' v o
0 0 0 '
O O F 3 ca
O O o u v o 1Z " 76
•L 0 N O L a, 1i a) (C6
LL
O N O la3
v} N 2 n to c cu
> I/} -VI. `n (a C in co_ o Q
V) is E O n
O O O C ++ CU 0
o C
v
V z O O D O H O
lD O qD O O of)
CI E O O C 0 u -0 o v=73 U (4 I— In 0 to = O CO C c-i O
W �, -0 o o CO +'
L N c o c C
Ts V �, a; N (O 2 p (O _°
W a 2 0 a o o la 773
Q L E (o C * t a'' W -0 co
OL �? j O n a1 O * +� N O O ^ to
4. C O Q u U ? i -6 a� C .E
I-1- CO C C. O a! L (6
O.CC ro
+�+ Z co 0 3 CO U V (�6 Y T
o O NL co C ! (o to
V O .� O C D " co cD L C a) C
C LJJ U
>. a •� L tri c) Q O yj C C C
0 LL > 0) 0 } tr, a) ra
Q_ cc * 0
* * Z 0-
u or''
N �O M