HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0199.001 2014-2016Margaret Wille
Council Member
District 9 - North and South Kohala
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
County of Hawai `i
Phone No. Hilo: (808) 961-8027
Phone No. Waimea: (808) 887-2043
Fax No.: (808) 887-2072
E -Mail: mwille@co.hawaii.hi.us
Hawaii County Building Holomua Center
West Hawaii Civic Center Bldg. A
25 Aupuni Street
64-1067 Mamalahoa Highway, Suite C-5
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.
Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Waimea, Hawaii 96743
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii ,96740
C-),,
n
� n
TO:
Dru Mamo Kanuha, Council Chair
A
And Members of the Hawaii County Cou
-VI C7.
FROM:
Margaret Wille, Council Member
3
qo
DATE:
March 30, 2015
a
C000,
SUBJECT:
Additional Information for Bill 32
Please find attached additional information for reference during the Bill 32 discussion on March
31, 2015.
Thank you.
M W/dh
att
Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island
Hawaii County Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer
Comm. No. 111.1
Ref. To: P I EMG .
Ref. date _ MAR ZJ 2Q1�.
RURAL COMMUNITY PAY -AS -YOU -THROW GUIDE:
Recommendations on Developing
A Community -Based Rural Pay -As -You -Throw System
November 1999
This Project was made possible in part through funding from the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, State of Hawaii Department of
Health and County of Hawaii Department of Public Works.
Prepared by Laurel A. Dekker
Recycle Hawaii
P.O. Box 4847
Hilo, HI 96720-0847
Rural Community ii PAYT Guide
®Printed on Recycled Paper with post -consumer content
FORWARD
It has been a pleasure to work with the Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee
and the Recycle Hawaii staff on the design of a Pay -As -You -Throw program that also increases
source reduction and recycling. Many community members also participated in the process of
designing this new system for the County of Hawaii. We were fortunate that some of these
people had been involved in solid waste issues on the island for many years.
I have to confess that this was not an easy task. We had our challenges along the way,
but we kept our focus on our roles and goals. And for the most part, we stayed on track. Due to
the continued efforts of the staff, committee and community, we found multiple solutions for our
solid waste concerns. We could not be more pleased with the results we have been able to
achieve with the resources and time available to us.
The beauty of a community-based project like this is that is does not really end. The
collaborative effort continues, as the current issues are dealt with and new ones surface.
Laurel A. Dekker
Recycle Hawaii
November 1999
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people who made this project possible — too many to name
them all. Our gratitude goes out to the community participants that decided
their future was important to them and provided us guidance.
Mahalo to Recycle Hawaii staff Diane Blanchard, Jo Diotalevi, Peter Martin, Ursula D'Angelo,
Cynthia Campbell and the Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee
for their undying efforts.
A special mahalo also to BJ Beamer, Leslie Botelho, Diana Burke, Donnie Catala,
Cooperative Extension Service, Nancy Crawford, Mary Furlong, Jessica Gaylord,
Kona Surf Resort, North Hawaii Community Hospital, Margaret Pahio,
Bob Platt, Ululani Rosario, Stationers Office Supply, Sabry Shehata, and Jiro Sumada.
Rural Community iii PAYT Guide
®Printed in Hawaii on Recycled Paper
Rural Community iv PAYT Guide
) 1 �
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose and How to use this Guide
B. Local case study
II. WHAT IS PAYT? 3
A. Revenue system
B. Equitable payment system
C. Opportunity for waste reduction
D. Environmental protection
III. SHOULD YOUR COMMUNITY CONSIDER PAYT? 3
A. Issues in which PAYT can help
B. Cost analysis
C. Waste composition
D. Current system
E. Community-based mechanisms
IV. CREATING A TEAM
A. Include stakeholders
B. Establish subcommittees
C. Select a private sector leader
V. ANALYSIS OF YOUR SYSTEM
A. Conduct a cost analysis
B. Determine waste composition
C. Track waste flow
D. Determine recycling and diversion rates
E. Evaluate waste hauling services
F. Review other issues
VI. DECIDING IF IT IS RIGHT
A. Solicit community input
B. Create means to get involvement
C. Determine feasibility for PAYT system
5
10
VII. PAYT OPTIONS & COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS 12
A. Define goals and time frame
B. Explore and evaluate appropriate options
C. Choose the best option
D. Determine which costs to cover, then set rates
VIII. ORDINANCES 17
A. Determine ordinance changes for PAYT system
B. Consider a package of ordinances to add complementary programs
Rural Community v PAYT Guide
IX. OUTREACH 17
A. Create a presentation
B. Take your proposed solution to group meetings
C. Conduct public meetings
X. TAKE THE SOLUTION TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY 19
A. Present community-based results to decision-making body
B. Allow for more presentations if needed
XI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSON 20
A. Summary
B. Recommendations to Other Communities
C. Lessons Learned
XII. APPENDIX
22
A. Attachments
22
B. Contacts
27
C. References
28
Rural Community vi PAYT Guide
RURAL COMMUNITY
PAY -AS -YOU -THROW GUIDE:
Recommendations on Developing a Community -Based Rural PAYT System
I. INTRODUCTION
he purpose of this Guide is to
provide a model for rural
communities that are considering
whether or not to pursue a unit -
based pricing system for trash. This type of
system is also known as Pay -As -You -Throw
(PAYT).
The Guide also provides a means for
Recycle Hawaii to share the process of
analyzing and planning for a Pay -As -You -
Throw system for the Island of Hawaii, the
largest and most rural in the Hawaiian Island
chain.
This Rural Community PAYT Guide is
best used as one of the first of many tools
available on Pay -As -You -Throw systems.
When used as an overview document, it
provides a complementary resource to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
"Pay -As -You -Throw Tool Kit" (EPA530-R-
96-013, order by phone 888-EPA-PAYT or
LOCAL CASE STUDY
online <www.epa.gov/payt/order.htm>).
These and other materials from EPA (e.g.,
videos, bulletins, other publications, and
website information), as well as studies by
researchers and other communities, provide
a comprehensive `tool box' (see References
in the Appendix).
The Guide proposes a recommended
process resulting from the experience of
Recycle Hawaii, a community-based non-
profit organization. Recycle Hawaii
received grants from EPA, State of Hawaii
Department of Health, and County of
Hawaii Department of Public Works (DPW)
to facilitate the development of a
community-based cost -recovery system that
also increased source reduction and
recycling. Using this Guide as a starting
point, each community can decide its own
issues and levels of planning.
In 1997, Recycle Hawaii saw significant solid waste problems in the county's near future.
One landfill was due to close, the county was facing a serious shortage of funds coming from
taxes, recycling/diversion was not a priority of the administration, and there was an existing
problem of illegal dumping.
Recycle Hawaii pursued a grant to find a revenue system with complementary waste
reduction methods. The Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee (HISWAC) was formed.
Recycle Hawaii conducted a solid waste cost analysis for fiscal year 1998. HISWAC and
Recycle Hawaii polled the community and determined that the community was receptive to the
concept of a PAYT system. We designed a program with parts from model rural communities.
The combined system included 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. Public meetings were held in October 1999 with favorable
reception to the proposed system. The ordinance package will be presented at the County
Rural Community 1 PAYT Guide
Council Committee of Public Works and Parks in January 2000. The proposed system can be
modified to eventually cover all solid waste costs.
r
ISLAND DEMOGRAPHICSO'AHU
NI'IHAU. KAUA'1
`1
County of Hawaii or Hond.f°
Island of Hawaii, also known as the Big Island
State of Hawaii
Population: 130,000 (1990)
Area (square miles): 4,000
Density (persons per sq/mile): 35
Households: 48,253
Household mean income: $30,169
Housing in 1-4 unit structuring: 83%
Private collection service companies: 24
County collection services:
0
County drop-off residential transfer stations
(no direct fee):
21
Municipal Solid Waste processed at transfer stations:
43%
MSW landfilled (tons per year): 145,000
Recycling/diversion rate:
16.5%
Solid waste cost ($/ton)
$80
County landfills (user fee $35/ton):
2
one at which the county pays a contractor fee of $48.72/ton,
minimum tonnage 200 tons/day.
MOLOKAI
WWI
KAHO'OLAWE
HAWAII
The island has only one municipality, the County of Hawaii. It has a population density
of 35 people per square mile on an area over 41 000 square miles (nearly four times that of Rhode
Island). The County owns two landfills but contracts with a private company to operate one of
them. The County provides 21 residential drop-off stations for rubbish, but offers neither
collection services nor recycling services. It hauls the transfer trailers from the residential
transfer stations to the landfills. The County does support recycling to some degree by offering a
$40 per ton diversion grant to those marketing certain commodities to end users.
Private collection services are available from 24 haulers in most of the population
centers, but close to 70% of the people still self -haul their rubbish. There are currently no direct
fees charged at the residential solid waste transfer stations. Taxes pay for the majority of the
solid waste costs. Landfill fees pay for 20% of the costs.
Rural Community 2 PAYT Guide
II. WHAT IS PAYT?
ith waste amounts and
disposal costs for many
communities rising,
municipal solid waste
planners increasingly need to find ways to
boost waste prevention and recycling —
in other words, waste reduction.
Pay -As -You -Throw programs are
unit -based pricing systems for solid waste
that can help meet these challenges if
implemented along with complementary
recycling and reduction programs. PAYT
systems encourage residents to reduce the
amount of waste they generate and to
recycle more.
Under pay -as -you -throw, also known
as unit -based or variable-rate pricing,
households are charged for their waste based
on the amount of trash they throw away — in
the same way that they are charged for
electricity, gas, and other utilities. Residents
receive a direct incentive to recycle more,
compost yard trimmings, reuse items, and
reduce the amount of waste they generate in
the first place.
PAYT systems encourage the three
E's: Equity, Economics, and Environment.
In a PAYT community, waste costs are
spread out more equitably; consumers get
more control over their waste costs because
when they throw away less, they pay less.
Municipalities see economic benefits with
PAYT because they become better able to
cover program expenses and reduce long-
term costs. The environment benefits due to
reduced landfill space needed and reduced
pollution in manufacturing of recycled
products versus manufacturing with virgin
materials.
III. SHOULD YOUR COMMUNITY CONSIDER PAYT?
eople resist change. It's
inherent in nature. It usually
takes a crisis to force a
change. When planning a
program like PAYT, you will find the same
resistance. The typical attitude is "if it isn't
broken, don't fix it." Yet people are
motivated by their pocketbooks. Once they
understand more about growing solid waste
costs, that revenues will need to come from
somewhere, and that PAYT can give them
better control over their waste and disposal
costs, they become more receptive. These
factors contribute to the need to thoroughly
assess your community situation before
embarking on a PAYT program. You must
be familiar with the issues and conditions
facing your community.
Rural Community
Prominent issues in which PAYT
can help are: need for revenues, closing
landfills, upcoming cost increases,
expensive landfilling or incineration costs,
disposal fees, and higher recycling goals.
PAYT seems to make more sense to people
when they see it as a solution to an existing
problem. If you choose one of these issues
as your reason for PAYT, then you can also
design your PAYT program to address that
problem.
Several of the communities in the
EPA PAYT Success Stories (EPA530-F-97-
007) mention the issues with which they
were dealing. Trinity County, California
needed more revenues. Dover, New
Hampshire wanted fees to cover costs of the
waste disposal system, but not recycling.
3 PAYT Guide
South Kingston, Rhode Island was facing
increasing tipping fees, higher processing
costs, and an ineffective flat -rate fee
program that allowed unlimited disposal
with little or no incentive to recycle.
There are other parts of the process
that need to be evaluated in order to create a
community-based PAYT system. See
Chapter V for more details on the following:
Cost analysis — Do you know all your solid
waste or program costs? Do you want to
cover your solid waste costs or just specific
program costs? Are you covering your costs
now? If you do not know the answers to
these questions, then you need to do a cost
analysis.
Waste composition — Do you know what's
in your waste stream? Do you know what
commodities, if any, could be targeted for
waste reduction from the waste stream? If
not, then you will need to conduct a waste
composition analysis.
Current system — Do you know what your
current solid waste system entails? Who
runs it? How is it paid for? Do you know
the waste stream tonnage at your solid waste
facilities or in your collection services that
could be impacted by a PAYT system? Do
you know your current recycling rates?
What are the existing recycling and
diversion services? Do you have a bulky
item and white goods program? Is there an
adequate illegal dumping program for both
education and enforcement? Are you
familiar with local educational services and
outlets? Comprehensive knowledge of these
areas will be important as the PAYT
planning process progresses.
Community-based mechanism — Do you
have a list or know a place where you might
get a list of community-based groups and
other organizations that you want to include
in the planning process? Are there
community-based organizations with whom
you can build partnerships and whose
involvement will be instrumental in
developing a successful PAYT program?
Who will you approach and how?
PAYT was attractive to Recycle Hawaii and HISWAC due to some significant challenges,
both existing and soon to manifest. The primary issues facing the County of Hawaii were landfill
closing, shortage of funds, illegal dumping, and recycling opportunities. The unlined Hilo
landfill was due to close soon. The permit extension was under consideration and likely to be
approved through October 2000 or possibly October 2003. The closing of the landfill would
mean hauling 181 tons a day (without improvements to diversion rates) to the Pu `uanahulu
landfill across the island at an estimated cost of an additional $3 million per year.
In 1998 property taxes covered 74% of the island's trash costs. The level of tax revenue
had been declining for several years, making it difficult to cover costs. The county solid waste
division was running with an operations budget cut of $2 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and faced
an even greater challenge the following year when the entire county budget was expected to fall
short by at least $10 million. With these shortages and the near closing of the Hilo landfill, the
county needed a new revenue line or tax increase in order to cover essential costs.
A dumping problem already existed on the island. Litter and dumping laws were not
adequately enforced, although convictions were on the rise. One of the problems was not having
an option to simply cite a violator with a ticket. Since littering was a criminal offense, the court
system always had to be involved. An opportunity laid in the fact that the County of Hawaii had
a better litter and dumping law than the State (which is the one most commonly used by police).
Enhanced education of interpretation and use of the county code could assist in improving
illegal dumping prevention on the island. In addition, people in the rural areas had no legal
Rural Community 4 PAYT Guide
place to dispose of bulky items. Convenient disposal would help. Although county and state
highway personnel tracked down those littering along public roads, there was no mechanism in
place to enforce the laws on private roads — which were found in many substandard
subdivisions. Increasing personal responsibility for refuse and decriminalizing the law could
make enforcement easier.
The island had opportunities in recycling and diversion. Although an estimated 16.5% of
refuse was recycled, 67% of the discards headed to the landfill had been identified as
recoverable. Unfortunately, there were limitations to increasing recycling efforts without
uniform and consistent policies throughout the county. A change requiring continuous county
recycling programs could help. The 1993 County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan was
in support of recycling changes. The ISWMP and its accepting Resolution 291-94 identified the
following areas for solid waste management improvements: establish source separation centers,
consider solid waste as a true utility, establish a user fee for residential refuse (planned for
1995), and all transfer stations should be upgraded to allow separate collection of recyclable
materials.
IV. CREATING A TEAM
n advisory committee is
essential in exploring and/or
planning for a community-
based system. Establish an
advisory committee with a wide
representation of stakeholders. Consider
representatives from local and regional solid
waste management, your local legislative
body (e.g., council), collection services,
recycling services, police, court system,
community planners, business organizations,
and non-profit organizations. Staff from
either municipal solid waste offices or other
organizations will need to manage the
process of documentation and research.
It might not be possible to deal with
all the issues at the advisory committee
meetings. You may find that there are more
issues involving one person on the
committee or more people involved with one
issue. Subcommittees can deal with specific
issues more effectively. When working with
subcommittees, you can also involve more
players (e.g., from the community) around
each issue than serve on the advisory
committee. Perhaps the advisory committee
would meet bi-monthly and the task -driven
subcommittees could meet as needed, to
provide input to the larger process.
Another recommendation is to have
a private sector person chair the advisory
committee. Private sector leadership will
help ensure buy -in and commitment from
diverse stakeholders. It will also allow
government or staff an opportunity to focus
on supporting the process.
Recycle Hawaii created an ad hoc Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee
(HISWAC) with 15 members. Representatives came from county and state governments,
recycling industry, hauling industry, commercial planning, other businesses, and non-profit
organizations. From the beginning, the HISWAC wanted to make a difference with their efforts.
The members decided that they would produce results — they would create an ordinance for the
program. They already knew that a plan or resolution would not ensure lasting results; only a
law would give implementation a chance.
Rural Cormnunity 5 PAYT Guide
We did not form subcommittees. However, our advisory committee met monthly and
dealt with many specific issues that might have been better dealt with at the subcommittee level.
Likewise, in order to deal with some of these issues, we involved many haulers on our advisory
committee. For example, the private residential haulers had been paying the landfill tipping fee
when they hauled rubbish from curbside collections since it first began in 1994. But residents
dropping off their own rubbish at the public transfer stations did not have to pay a tipping fee, so
the haulers felt their customers were slighted by the system by having to pay a tipping fee. They
were also concerned about the cost differential between the higher -cost transfer station
operations and the lower-cost landfill operations. Since the county listed transfer station and
landfill expenses as one expense category, the separate pathway costs could not be defined, and
therefore, different fees for each facility would not be likely until the accounting system changed.
Most of the interaction with other stakeholders was left up to the Recycle Hawaii staff.
V. ANALYSIS OF YOUR SYSTEM
The first step toward consideration of a PAYT program is to know the details of your
solid waste system.
CONDUCT A COST ANALYSIS
ull cost accounting will help
you see the complete picture
of all your expenses: upfront,
operational, interdepartmental,
and back -end costs. If you can allocate the
costs and revenues of the various solid waste
management pathways, including collection,
landfilling, recycling, and composting, you
will be able to manage your systems more
effectively.
EPA has excellent resources on how
to set up full cost accounting. The process
of identifying pathway costs and how to use
the information is laid out well in "Full Cost
Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste
Management: A Handbook" (EPA530-R-
95-041).
For case studies of communities
using full cost accounting, refer to "Full
Cost Accounting in Action: Case Studies of
Six Solid Waste Management Agencies"
(EPA530-R-98-018). Some communities
just started full cost accounting, others have
been tracking full costs for nearly 30 years.
It took the City and County of Honolulu a
couple of years to set up a full -cost
accounting system and now —.20 years later
— they continue to regularly re-evaluate and
modify as they go.
In Hawaii County, full cost accounting of solid waste had never been done. Recycle
Hawaii worked with accountants from the County Department of Public Works and Solid Waste
Division to identify all costs, including interdepartmental costs. Because the Department of
Public Works covered solid waste, waste water, highways, buildings, and automotive divisions, it
was a challenge to determine how much administration went to solid waste. We made some
estimates based on percentage of personnel and some based on tasks and time. The result was
an additional $2.2 million per year on top of the identified solid waste fund costs of $9.5 million
(per 1998 budget report). In fiscal year `98 the majority of funding (7401o) came from the
general fund, 20% from tipping fees, and 6% from grants and surcharges.
Rural Community 6 PAYT Guide
REVENUE SOURCES FOR THE
COUNTY OF HAWAII
FY 98
Solid waste transfer from the general find
$6,750,000
57.84%
Indirect expenses. from the general, fund
$1,838,356
15.75%
Landfill tippingfees
$2,374,766
20.35%
Other revenue (grants, vehicle surcharges, and
miscellaneous fees and charges)
$ 707,598
6.06%
TOTALS
$11,670,720
1 100.00%
DETERMINE WASTE COMPOSITION
Kn
owing your waste
omposition will provide
ou with direction for
recycling and diversion
opportunities. There are many levels of
waste sorts, from a low-cost analysis of a
few commodities to a more costly detailed
analysis of 30 or more categories. If your
community does not have a recent analysis,
you need to conduct one. At the very least,
you need to identify which commodities
make up significant portions of the waste
stream.
Fortunately, the County of Hawaii had contracted for a waste sort in 1996 Although it
did not cover the waste stream at both landfills, it offered enough information with which to
work. The analysis showed that 67% of the materials going to the Hilo landfill were
commodities that could be recovered for an alternative use — recycling, composting,
remanufacturing, or fill. Paper, cardboard, wood, yard waste, and metals comprised the largest
proportions.
TRACK WASTE FLOW
ost local government solid
waste personnel track the
tonnage of material
disposed or processed at
their solid waste facilities, as fees are
usually charged by the ton. This data will
help determine the level of services or
changes needed at the facility once a PAYT
system is established. The waste sort in
combination with tonnage data can give you
good estimates on the amount of materials
you could potentially divert from landfill
disposal in your new management system.
Hawaii County Solid Waste Division hauls all the residential trash from County solid
waste transfer stations around the island to the landfills. Since 1994, the Solid Waste Division
has been tracking tonnage from the transfer trailers at these stations. Recycle Hawaii used this
data to estimate potential waste tonnage and revenue and recycling tonnage under the proposed
new system.
DETERMINE RECYCLING AND DIVERSION RATES
Rural Community 7 PAYT Guide
o evaluate effectiveness of a
program, monitor the
recycling and diversion rates.
It is important to establish definitions and
measuring methods that are consistent with
other communities with whom you want to
compare. EPA has some suggestions in
their publication "Measuring Recycling: A
Guide for State and Local Governments"
(EPA530-R-97-011, see also
<www.epa.gov/recycle.measure>). Many
states have their own systems. EPA
publishes national statistics based on its
system. You will need to determine which
system is best for you.
In the past, the County of Hawaii had not tracked the island's rates of diversion and
recycling but had kept track of the recycled tonnage for which it paid diversion grants. Since the
early `90's, the County Department of Public Works offered recyclers a $40/ton grant for hard -
to -market commodities that went to end markets. The State Department of Health did annual
estimates of recycling and diversion by calling private parties and the County of Hawaii for
voluntary data. The system did not provide consistent results, varying from vendor to vendor
and island to island. Currently, the Department of Health is working with the counties to come
up with a uniform tracking system. In the 1997 diversion report from the Department of Health,
the data indicated a diversion rate of 16.5% in the County of Hawaii. The State had an average
diversion rate of 26% that year.
EVALUATE WASTE HAULING SERVICES
AYT has been successful with
both privately' operated trash
services and Municipal
services. The main issue to
address is how a PAYT system might
impact these services. Knowing the haulers
and working cooperatively with them will
enhance the chances of a successful PAYT
system. In many situations, more people
subscribe to collection services once a
PAYT system is implemented to save
money on what they throw away. Global
Futures Foundation reported at a recent
workshop on the success of a private
collection service once it implemented its
own PAYT system. It was so successful in
getting more customers that many other
companies followed suit and created their
own unit -pricing system.
Because the County of Hawaii does not offer any collection services, the private haulers
are an essential component of the solid waste management system on the island. There are no
permits required for hauling, nor are there franchises or other organized hauling systems. There
were 24 private haulers in 1999. The issue of residential landfill fees for private haulers versus
no direct fee for transfer station users has been a controversy since the introduction of tipping
fees at the landfills in 1994. For these reasons, our advisory committee included five rubbish
and recycling haulers from various parts of the island. We were able to address hauler's needs
and show how the proposed PAYT system would be bringing a more equitable payment situation
to those currently receiving curbside services. There was at least one company already charging
customers by the bag. As more people see the advantages of such a system, more customers are
expected to want that type of service. The PAYT hauler indicated his willingness to assist the
other haulers in learning how to do a PAYT system. Recycle Hawaii also assisted some haulers.
Rural Community 8 PAYT Guide
Recycle Hawaii saw the need to assist in publicizing information about hauling services. A
hauler questionnaire was created to help determine scope of services offered and provide data
for promotion of services. The county has indicated that it will help promote hauling services
through their solid waste division.
Rural Community 9 PAYT Guide
REVIEW OTHER ISSUES
There might be other issues that represent a challenge to your community.
Will there be public or private
marketing of recycled commodities?
• Do you have access to recycling
markets?
• What can you do to accommodate
difficult marketing opportunities?
• Do you have an education outlet for
recycling activities?
• Do you need to establish one?
Do you have a problem with illegal
dumping?
• Can it be addressed through
improved education and/or
enforcement?
• Do ordinances need to be changed?
• Do you have educational outlets for
illegal dumping prevention?
Illegal dumping was an important issue in Hawaii. To address the situation, Recycle
Hawaii and the Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee focused on prevention and
improved enforcement. Since the rural island of Hawaii has many open spaces, illegal dumping
was the primary concern of residents when the concept of PAYT was initiated. We accepted that
a problem already existed. There was agreement that more enforcement was necessary;
however, enforcement was difficult. Of the existing litter laws, more individual accountability
was necessary to get more convictions of the criminal code. Changing the law to a civil code
rather than a criminal code would also make enforcement easier — as easy as citing the violator
with a ticket. Having had experience with Keep America Beautiful and its affiliates (e.g.,
Monroe County, Florida), some of the priority areas were already known. Monroe County had
been very successful in cleaning up its illegal dumping problem in Key West. Their success was
based on more convenient access to legal disposal, personal accountability, steep penalties, and
increased enforcement. The first step we took was to look at Hawaii state and county litter laws.
Although police used the state litter law, by virtue of its language it created more of a problem
for enforcement than the existing county laws. We reviewed options for changing the county
laws to make enforcement, and ultimately compliance, more trouble-free. We worked with the
police department, prosecutor's office, corporation counsel, legislative auditor, and judicial
representatives to address potential changes.
As a result, we found that improvements could be made immediately — even without law
changes. The police could begin using the better but less familiar county code rather than the
state statute. In addition, the Community Policing program of the County Police Department
offered to take the educational aspect of illegal dumping prevention and laws to community
neighborhoods. The police also offered to highlight illegal dumping with the field officers during
roll call.
Regarding proposed changes to the laws, we addressed personal responsibility for waste
generators to get waste to a permitted facility, no matter who the hauler. We made it easier for
littering and dumping to be cited via a $25 ticket and civil penalty system as opposed to just the
Rural Community 10 PAYT Guide
criminal penalty system. However, more severe violators could still be prosecuted with stiffer
fines. Littering criminal penalties were (and are) $250-$1000 and dumping criminal fines were
proposed to increase to $500-$2000.
VI. DECIDING IF IT IS RIGHT
Before spending a lot of time on the
details of designing a PAYT system, a
community-based effort would first
determine how the community feels about
the issues and possible solutions. Get
feedback from the community. Allow
yourself 4-6 months to solicit input through
SOLICIT PUBLIC INPUT
uestions put to the
community should be
carefully planned so that the
results can be easily tallied
and provide you with direction. They
should be short and concise to allow for
quick dialog with people in your meetings or
on the street. Decide what kind of feedback
you need to create your new programs.
Do you have Municipal Solid Waste goals?
Do you know what they are?
• Waste reduction?
• Cost reduction?
• Higher recycling rates?
• Environmental protection?
Do you need revenues? Are you facing?
• Rising costs?
• Closing landfill?
• High tipping fees?
• New program expenses?
• New facility coming?
community organizations — a good way to
reach a large number of citizens. If you
have already done your analyses listed in
Chapter V, then some of the results can be
used to introduce your solicitations for
public input.
What are your revenue options?
• Raise taxes?
• Instate (or raise) user fees?
• Charge a flat fee?
What does the community want to invest in?
• Equitable payment programs?
• Long-term cost reductions?
• Recycling?
Community input can be received
through various techniques. Random
questions can be asked on the street, at
shopping centers, or at public events. You
might place large ads in the newspaper and
post notices on your web site. Another
distribution method we recommend is to
take your questions directly to community
organization meetings. Be sure to give the
background information on your situation so
the organization has a basis for
understanding your interest in a PAYT
system.
Recycle Hawaii initially chose to host public informational meetings as our primary
education and solicitation method. We showed the serious financial solid waste management
situations facing the county, talked about PAYT as a possible solution, and polled the audiences.
Rural Community 11 PAYT Guide
Unfortunately, few people attended the initial meetings — garbage disposal methods are not a
pressing concern for many citizens.
We had to regroup and make changes to our plan. In order to more effectively share the
educational message of our real solid waste costs and anticipated shortfalls, we went to
regularly scheduled meetings of community organizations. This method proved to be the most
successful in getting our message out and community feedback in. From our meetings and
random polls, the community made it clear that they already had a sense of frustration with our
solid waste management. Some knew that discussion on management options had been going on
for years. Many expressed frustration at the inconsistencies of recycling availability.
The feedback from 2000 or more people told us that: 70% wanted to pay only for what
they throw away rather than an average cost. 57% wanted to create new revenue programs, and
55% wanted to have solid waste paid for by both fees and taxes. More people (58%) wanted
mandated recycling versus optional recycling (41 %). A majority of the respondents (67yoo)
indicated they self -hauled their rubbish.
After reviewing the results of the
community feedback, your advisory
committee should determine if it is feasible
to go forward in designing a PAYT system.
If it is not feasible at this time, invite people
with opposition to the proposal to be part of
the advisory committee that can help address
the obstacles. Several communities have
used this strategy successfully, addressing
specific opposition from the meetings. In
the end, they became the biggest supporters.
Rural Community 12 PAYT Guide
VII. PAYT OPTIONS AND
COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS
DEFINE GOALS AND TIME FRAME
se the community feedback
and analysis of your solid
waste system to establish
goals of your program and
barriers to overcome. (For further
assistance, the EPA PAYT Tool Kit,
EPA530-R-96-013, has much more
information on this topic. See also
HISWAC Goals and Barriers in Appendix).
Set a time frame. Allow 4-6 months
for research on PAYT options and another
3-4 months of outreach if you want
widespread community support for new
ordinances before they get voted on. After
ordinance approval, you will need another 6
months of pre-PAYT education that explains
the new system.
Recycle Hawaii was under a tighter timeline than recommended above to complete the
steps leading up to the ordinances. Given more funds and time, we would have preferred to
conduct more outreach, including presentations on our solid waste situation and the proposed
ordinances and program changes that would offer a solution to the community.
EXPLORE AND EVALUATE APPROPRIATE OPTIONS
ore than 4,000
communities are using
some form of a PAYT
system, and each one is
different. The unit price can be per bag, can,
tag, or sticker. The revenues can cover all
costs, or the system can be two-tiered or
multi -tiered, where a flat fee or base rate is
charged to everyone (either directly or via
taxes) and additional fees are charged for the
amount thrown away.
A study by L. Skumatz et. al. in 1997
found the most common programs to be
bags (36%) and variable cans (34%).
Hybrid systems were used in 20% of the
4,400 programs identified. Tags and
stickers were used in 5% each. In some
rural unincorporated areas, drop-off
programs (as opposed to collection
programs) were commonly used with bags,
tags, punch cards, or some other method.
There are many resources available
on PAYT programs and their respective
successes. The EPA Tool Kit is the most
comprehensive. In addition to thoroughly
explaining the different types of systems, it
offers details on how to determine what you
might need. There are also articles, news
clippings, and a bibliography. Three other
helpful EPA resources are "Pay -As -You -
Throw Success Stories" (EPA530-F-97-
007), "Rate Structure Design: Setting Rates
for a Pay -As -You -Throw Program"
(EPA530-R-99-006), and "Waste
Prevention, Recycling and Composting
Options: Lessons From 30 Communities"
(EPA530-R-92-015, for ordering
information see Contacts in the Appendix).
In the first two publications, 14 success
stories identify what each community is
doing and their results. In the third
publication, each community's system and
demographics is explained and compared
Rural Community 13 PAYT Guide
with others. Trade journals are also a very
good place to find the latest evaluations and
contacts for successful programs. As in all
cases, talking directly to people working in
these programs is invaluable. For more
contacts and references, see the Appendix.
There are three primary types of
PAYT systems. Proportional systems use a
volume or weight -based system, where
residents are charged user fees by the bag or
tag or pound, according to what they throw
away. Variable rate systems are typically a
volume -based system where residents are
charged a subscription rate (by container
size) for the rubbish they generate; any
excess rubbish is charged at a higher rate.
Two-tiered or multi -tiered systems are based
on a combination of one of the above pricing
systems with direct billing of flat fees or
indirect billing through property taxes.
Once you decide what strategy will
work best in your community, you can focus
on specific options within a given type. For
example, if you decide you want to use a
proportional method, you still need to
determine whether you will use a volume or
weight based system. And if you decide
volume — will it be by the bag, can, tag,
sticker, or estimated volume?
This is where you will need to work
closely with the municipality and the
haulers. All angles need to be addressed.
Determine which system will work best for
you within the goals your cominunity has
set. Use the PAYT resources to find
CHOOSE THE BEST OPTION
ou may find that a general
evaluation of advantages,
disadvantages, and cost
considerations will help you
in selecting one option before you spend too
much time cost -analyzing all the options.
Cost considerations can help in determining
examples of communities successfully
dealing with your specific issues.
While you are looking at PAYT
options, remember to also plan your
complementary programs. PAYT works
best if there are co -existing recycling,
composting, and waste reduction
opportunities. In 1991, a study by William
Park found that rural communities initiating
PAYT systems reported 65-95%
participation in voluntary recycling
programs. Diversion/recovery rates were
20-34% (see References in the Appendix for
the article summarizing this study).
Similarly, Daniel Blume authored a
Duke University study on 14 PAYT
communities that found that waste was
reduced by 14-27% in the first year (see
References for source). The average
recycling and diversion rate was 44%.
Many of the PAYT communities have
achieved and shared their successes. Even
the Washington Post reported in February 7,
1999 that PAYT is the answer to America's
garbage dilemma. Authors William Rathje
and Robert Lilienfeld published a book
highlighting PAYT as a perfect example of
how economic incentives help people reduce
waste.
As you evaluate your comprehensive
system (PAYT and complementary
programs), keep in mind certain cost
considerations that can significantly impact
one type or another.
which method might be more feasible or
likely. For example, will the expense of
scales and the infrastructure to install them
be prohibitive? Will you need to install
power systems to run certain equipment?
What are the costs attached to public or
private operations? As a group, determine
Rural Community 14 PAYT Guide
which options you want to pursue and
research in more detail.
Recycle Hawaii and the Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee first looked at
the various types of systems, with examples from the EPA PAYT Tool Kit, video, and case
studies. For the rural island of Hawaii, we determined that a proportional system would be most
appropriate. The initial system would be two-tiered since property taxes fund solid waste at 74%
and because community feedback results indicated most people wanted solid waste costs to be
covered by a combination of taxes and fees. The long-term goal from our Integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan suggested that solid waste should eventually be considered as a utility, like
your gas or electric bill, covering costs by paying for what you throw away.
We compared volume and weight -based systems. Many options for containers were
considered from not using containers to bags to 90 gallon cans. We also addressed the issue of
public versus private transfer stations.
Using criteria from our goals, strategies, and barriers plus additional criteria of
feasibility' and `how easy it would be to do,' we determined that the estimated volume -based
system was the best for our community. We planned to upgrade 19 of our 21 drop-off transfer
stations to add recycling and bulky item drop-off. Later, pavilions could be constructed for
reuse materials. The transfer stations would be gated and operate at reduced hours. For six 10 -
hour days, a public employee caretaker at transfer stations would assess fees, monitor site for
potential abuse, and compact the containers as needed. Reducing hours and number of transfer
stations even more could save the county significant additional costs.
Since recycling was currently a private sector function, recycling at the transfer stations
would be contracted out. A recommendation was made to create incentives for local operators
rather than larger outside organizations. We would start with a few strong commodities and
later target metals and greenwaste, as more revenues became available.
For security purposes we decided that a pre paid punch card purchased at retail outlets
would be used instead of cash. A handheld computer would provide some accountability for the
caretaker's activities — the volume fee would be recorded, with receipts going to the resident and
into the machine. As there is a privatization limitation in the state now, the decision was made to
use public employees. If that situation changed, the Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory
Committee agreed that private transfer stations would be more cost-effective.
The model most closely resembling ours was Trinity County, California. They operated 8
drop-off transfer stations over 3, 000 square miles with a population of only 13, 000. They also
used a volume -based system. Their operation provided mobile recycling containers periodically
at the transfer station; we proposed to have recycling opportunities available at the transfer
stations for the full 10 hours each day.
Other models for our PAYT system included Lane County, Oregon. It is very rural and
large with a population density of 67 people per square mile. The county offered drop-off
transfer stations with recycling and reuse opportunities. Their current recovery rate is 40%.
Their remote stations were only open one day a week to keep costs down. Each community had
partnerships with non-profit organizations for reuse materials. South Kingston, Rhode Island
switched from a flat fee to a per -bag fee and found that people reduced their waste by 75%.
Convenient access to recycling was a key. They also allowed people to choose private haulers
or the drop-off facility. In Arundel, Maine, the city used punch cards instead of cash at their
scaled transfer stations. They found the system worked very well; they processed people faster
Rural Community 15 PAYT Guide
without cash transactions. They also set up partnerships with the community through volunteer
citizens helping run the reuse areas. In Dover, New Hampshire, the PAYT pay per -bag program
and recycling produced 50% reduction in the first year. They also emphasized easy and
convenient drop-off of bulky items and recyclables.
Illegal dumping was a primary concern for us. We already had a problem and therefore
knew that something had to be done to change the current system. We looked at the methods
other communities used for enforcement and looked closely at our laws. We found that the
county had a better code than the state; yet the state law was the one cited by the county police.
Through meetings with the police, prosecutors, judges, corporation counsel and Department of
Public Works, we identified areas of improvement. We could change the code for easier
enforcement, and use programs in the current system for additional education — both to the
police and community neighborhoods. A desire for more community stewardship and
partnership on illegal dumping prevention was unanimous.
DETERMINE COSTS OF THE OPTION
0 nce you choose your option, you
will need to determine costs for
planning, outreach, and
implementation. Your PAYT
program and its complementary programs
could have costs related to:
• modifications to infrastructure
• personnel
• administration
• materials
• equipment
• operations and maintenance
• payment and collection costs
• outreach and publicity
• enforcement
• litter cleanup
• bulky item handling
You might find a neighboring
community or local business that could help
with some cost estimates on equipment or
operations with which you are unfamiliar.
For example, if you are considering
purchasing recycling containers but have
never bought them before, a neighboring
community with experience in recycling
could enlighten you to dealers, shipping, and
hauling considerations. You should
determine all costs associated with the
comprehensive system, even if you will be
subsidizing your PAYT fees with taxes.
You need to know how much you have to
raise to cover costs.
HISWAC and Recycle Hawaii first highlighted cost considerations, then detailed costs.
The biggest expense was public employee union labor to monitor 19 transfer stations (two of the
21 stations were very small). The next largest component was the diversion credits that the
county would pay out to the private sector to process and market diverted recyclables. Hauling
recyclables and bulky items from transfer stations plus recycling education costs made up the
majority of the remaining expenses. The other costs were nominal in comparison; gates, punch
cards, small monitor booths, portable toilet and water facilities, cell phones, and hand-held
computers for tracking and recording the punch card payments at the transfer stations. We
assumed that the recycling contractor would invest in the containers in order to have the 5 -year
contract, but in the bid, the county would have to cover costs of hauling recyclables from all the
transfer stations.
Rural Community 16 PAYT Guide
We calculated the amount of expected revenue from the transfer station's tonnage and
stayed within that amount when planning the program parameters. This was one reason to
reduce the number of transfer stations and hours of operations. We expected that additional
stations would be closed, and some would be open fewer days to cut costs even further.
To illustrate the economic benefits of PAYT, we made long-term cost estimates for the
county. We compared cost trends for PAYT versus a non-PAYT system. The difference between
the two was not much in the beginning, but the PAYT system showed a $3 million dollar savings
after 25 years.
We also created graphs showing the amount of taxes that would be needed under three
scenarios. Under the current system, tipping fee rate, and low diversion rate, the tax portion of
solid waste would increase to $14.5 million after 5 years. Under the PAYT system with the same
tipping fee rate, taxes would only have to cover $11.7 million. But as time goes on, a third self-
sustaining PAYT system could bring dependence on taxes to zero, and have user fees cover all
the costs.
DETERMINE WHICH COSTS TO COVER THEN SET RATES
hen you know the costs of
your proposed program and
what you want to cover with
your costs, you can determine
the rate you need to charge. Some
communities use existing rates or those from
neighboring communities. Some
communities cover 100% of their costs and
some subsidize the costs through taxes.
Some identify collection costs only or
recycling and diversion only for PAYT
revenues. In a few communities, all costs
are covered through fees, but some of the
facilities' "profits" cover "losses" from
more costly facilities. We recommend that
you spend some time reviewing the EPA
guidebooks on setting rates (see "PAYT
Tool Kit" and "Rate Structure Design:
Setting Rates for a Pay -As -You -Throw
Program" in EPA References in the
Appendix).
Recycle Hawaii and the Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee used the existing
rate at our county's landfills as the starting point for transfer station fees. The amount was only
20% of costs but seemed reasonable and affordable. We determined that the county could
generate an additional $2.2 million from the transfer station tonnage at $35/ton. The volume -
rate equivalent was determined to be $0.25 per 15 -gallon bag and $0.50 per 30 -gallon bag, or
$2.50 per cubic yard. That rate happens to be 1/4 that of Trinity County's current rate. If the
community later decides it wants solid waste to become self-sustaining, the fees will rise to $1.65
a bag ($110/ton) over a 10 year period (the minimum period we recommend to graduate the
fees).
Knowing the revenues and the basic system we wanted to provide, we kept the costs down
to fall within the funds expected from the PAYT system. As our county expected to face serious
financial shortfall in the current and coming years, this was important. We also made sure that
all our costs for the comprehensive system were included — PAYT start-up and annual costs,
recycling staff and transportation of recyclables (via contract), and illegal dumping prevention
costs for bulky item drop-off
Rural Community 17 PAYT Guide
Rural Community 18 PAYT Guide
VIII. ORDINANCES
f you are establishing ordinances
or making changes to existing
ordinances, you will have to plan
the process of reviewing your
and other communities' laws, verifying legal
authority, drafting the new laws, and getting
thein approved. If you are addressing more
than one issue, you might consider grouping
them in separate bills so that at least some of
them can pass. Depending what areas of the
law you want to change, you will want to
involve the appropriate municipality
department personnel that will actually be
working within the proposed changes.
Most communities are very willing
to share their laws as well as their solid
waste systems. Some are now posting their
codes on the Internet so access to
information is getting easier. The range of
ordinances for PAYT systems is extreme —
from as brief as one paragraph stating that
there will be fees for solid waste to pages
and pages on the details of the system.
Some are resolutions; some are ordinances.
Some are local and some are state. You will
need to work at the level needed for the
changes you want.
After reviewing the state and county litter codes, Recycle Hawaii and HISWACfound that
all the County of Hawaii laws relating to littering, dumping, and trash were located in Chapter
20, the Refuse Code. We were able to simply modify the existing code to address problem areas
and opportunities. The ordinance package contained three parts. Illegal dumping changes
offered easier enforcement contained three parts. Illegal dumping changes offered easier
enforcement and increased personal responsibility. The recycling section created a mandate for
on going recycling and diversion programs in order to have more consistency than the past on -
again, off -again recycling policies. The user fee section created a more equitable payment
system for all waste generators at all county solid waste facilities based on the same rate as the
current landfill charge (see Attachments in the Appendix for the proposed ordinances).
The process we went through required multiple sessions with staff, HISWAC,
government, and legal representatives. We focused on creating changes that covered PAYT and
its complementary systems. The resulting codes for recycling programs and equitable user fees
were quite simple and straightforward. The illegal dumping code changes, on the other hand,
were complex and confusing. The complete articles on littering and dumping had not been
reworked since 1976 We attempted to cover the most important elements, realizing that more
changes would probably be required in the future.
IX. OUTREACH
Communicating with the public
should be an on going process. However,
you will probably fmd, during discussions
and meetings, there will always be questions
you cannot answer until you have completed
all the necessary preparation for your
proposed system. Newspaper articles,
community mailings, web site articles, and
continued discussions with organizations
and individuals will ensure that your efforts
remain community-based. As you learn
more about the desired program, you can
Rural Community 19 PAYT Guide
share updates. Ideally, newspaper space
should be available for these updates (unless
you have a reporter on your advisory
committee that will do the articles for you).
Be sure to include references to your web
site and EPA's web site
<www.epa.gov/payt> in your publicity.
Once you have defined the
parameters of your proposed programs,
anticipated costs, appropriate legislation,
and benefits to your community, you will be
ready to prepare for your community
presentations. Plan to host (or find a host
for) public meetings where you can share
your whole story. Whatever the reasons
were that got you interested in pursuing
PAYT are probably the same reasons in
which the public will take interest. You will
want to emphasize these aspects in your
presentation. If you are able to budget funds
to advertise the meetings, you will likely
find that the investment will pay off by
getting more public participation.
Depending on the number of public
meetings and type of facilities available, you
can create effective and affordable
presentations. For those without experience
in hosting educational and interactive
meetings, consultation with marketing firms
or university specialists is recommended.
The more meetings, the better your
grassroots support. Computerized
presentations with programs like
PowerPointTM offer the most resource -
efficient presentations, if you have access to
the expensive equipment needed to run
them. Where that equipment is not
available, conversion to overheads is an easy
step. In order to hold the attention of your
audience during the presentation, you might
consider distributing your handouts
afterwards, rather than beforehand.
There are always difficulties in
reaching large numbers of people in rural
areas. Technology can help. Use of
interactive satellite video -conferencing
and/or videotaping for repeated showings on
cable or local television might be a good
way to involve more people. Most
importantly, whatever you can add to your
website will make it easier to reach much
higher numbers of people — rural areas often
do not have access to videoconferencing or
even cable TV, but most public libraries do
offer access to the Internet.
You will probably have a choice
between hosting public meetings on your
own (before the new ordinances are
presented to your council) or waiting until
the council hosts its own "hearing." In some
cases, there will be both. If you have been
using a community-based approach
throughout the planning process, you might
consider doing your presentation that way
too. There are advantages to removing the
political forces. However, it will be
important to do extensive advertising in
order to get a good representation of the
public at the meetings.
The approach Recycle Hawaii and HISWAC started with was different than the one we
ended up with and recommended above. Initially, we planned and hosted public meetings during
the early feedback stage but did not plan on doing public meetings once the program was
detailed out. We had instead planned on providing educational support for our County Council
during the anticipated public hearings that they would sponsor.
There were two main reasons we decided to host the public meetings ourselves before the
County Council hearings. First, we had been doing a community-based effort all along. The
Council had been informed but was not leading the way. Typically, council hearings were
simply an avenue for public comment, not interactive dialog. We felt it would be in the
community's best interest to conduct the meetings ourselves, in the way we felt would be most
Rural Community 20 PAYT Guide
productive. The second reason for the switch was the hesitation on the council's part to
introduce the ordinances. Due to an upcoming election year, council members were reluctant to
be putting forth a new proposal.
The final public meetings were held in October '99 to present the proposed system and
offer opportunities for questions and answers. We created overhead sheets from PowerPointTM
because we found access to the computer projector equipment difficult. We were fortunate to
have a marketing professor from the university assist us with the preparation. We also consulted
with private marketing firms. Because our time and budget were very limited, we could only
offer two meetings. In order to assist with the distribution of the presentation, we hired a
videographer to tape the meetings. As a non-profit organization, we had access to free public
cable television programming.
The public response was favorable, although the meetings were not as well attended as
we had hoped. We had many flyers to announce the meetings, directly mailed to 500 individuals
or organizations, and supplied details on the process and announced the meetings in a monthly
newspaper (circulation over 6,000). Information was also available on Recycle Hawaii's web
site <www.recyclehawaii.org>. What we didn't have was good newspaper or radio coverage.
Our daily papers and radio stations provided article space and community calendar space only
on a limited basis — in the case of the meetings we saw little placement of the press releases in
the papers. As we did not budget for any paid advertising, we could not get adequate
announcement coverage. For those that attended the meetings (including some council
members), the educational process was successful. They heard the problems, the reasons PA YT
was being considered, and the solutions the proposed system was offering. Most were supportive
of the plan. One or two were not fully satisfied that we had countered the potential impact on
illegal dumping and were concerned about the financial obligations that citizens in a poor
economy would have to take on when the fees began. The most important point made by the
public was that as a community we had been talking and planning about solid waste for many
years, so the time had come to stop talking and start doing. This proposal offered a place to
start.
X. TAKE THE SOLUTION TO THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY
n most cases, communities will
need to take ordinances or
revisions to their legislative body
— either locally or regionally. Whatever
level you are working on, remember to
consider the time frame required to process
bills. If you are fortunate enough to have a
council member and/or a solid waste
representative on your committee and they
can spearhead this part of the process, you
will be better off than doing it on your own.
Allow more time for outreach during
this process. You can continue to go to
community meetings and submit articles to
your papers. Your local council might also
want your educational materials and/or
support during the consideration of the bills.
We were always aware that the legislative process was outside of our private sector
realm. We could have dialog with the public and design the program, but the laws rested in the
Rural Community 21 PAYT Guide
hands of the county government. There was a concern throughout most of our project that we
would have to turn over the reigns at one point to someone else — someone in the public system
who would submit the ordinances for consideration. The community also knew that if we could
not convince the council to pass the ordinances, we would not be able to get the programs
implemented. Our only recourse was to get grassroots support and do the best we could to get
council support.
The good news for our efforts was that the County Department of Public Works (DPW)
and the Mayor were supportive of the final proposed system and would support it at the council.
We also accepted the fact that since it was up to DPW to implement the programs, they would
have to work out the mechanics and therefore make appropriate modifications to the plan. In the
end, DPW accepted this too.
XI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSON
Acommunity-based effort to
change or create a solid
waste pricing system like
Pay -As -You -Throw, requires a group effort
of committed citizens. The group can
expect a long and thorough .process of
outreach and research. Enough funds will
need to be allocated for publicity and project
support. Anticipation of a time period of
two years or so will help the committee
cover all the bases. The result of this team
effort will far surpass the typical top-down
approach. Even if your plan does not get
implemented as you intended, the
educational process for you, your
community, and your government will be
beneficial in the long run. You will have
built collaboration into the government
process which in turns strengthens the
community.
Rural communities considering
PAYT will find many resources available to
them. Successful communities using some
form of PAYT and EPA publications will be
the most helpful. As described in the Rural
Community PAYT Guide, there are many
solid waste challenges that a PAYT system
can help resolve. By following the process
presented here and using the many resources
available, your rural community can also
establish a successful PAYT program.
ba conclusion of the Hawaii County effort, we needed to find a way to offset rising solid
waste costs. The shortage of funds available from taxes enunciated the problem. The proposed
system prepared by HISWAC and Recycle Hawaii offered a solution that could help the island in
both the short and long-term. Implementation could be possible with the help of the County
Council, Administration, and general public.
Rural Community 22 PAYT Guide
RECOMMENDATIONS TO OTHER COMMUNITIES
• Take the time to analyze your current system so that your options can be looked at
realistically.
• Use the community feedback to create goals that can guide you throughout the
process of designing your PAYT system. Identify barriers to the process that you
can strategize to overcome.
• Establish complementary programs in order for your PAYT system to work its
best. Waste reduction and diversion can only occur where there are opportunities
to do so.
• Do as much outreach as possible. Budget for paid advertising.
• Allow plenty of time to plan your PAYT system (two years minimum).
• Set up a mechanism within your advisory committee to address specific issues.
Involve a larger group of people through subcommittees if appropriate.
• Get commitment from your advisory committee to see the process through.
• Build an alliance with someone in the local government to carry your community-
based efforts through to the legislative and implementation stages.
• Get community support before the ordinances go to the legislative body so the
council will support them too.
• Use the Rural Community PAYT Guide to get you started.
LESSONS LEARNED
• Through the PAYT project, we found opportunities to prevent illegal dumping
and improve recycling.
• The PAYT project was an educational experience for us; the collaborative process
provided a bridge between the government and the people while working toward
the same end.
• Community dialog was very encouraging. The community meetings were an
essential part of that process that allowed communication to go two ways.
• We found EPA PAYT resources to be very helpful. Videos from EPA and the
one we produced made it possible to provide a visual concept of what PAYT
could be.
• PAYT communities and EPA staff were important to the educational process of
understanding PAYT and its options.
• The Internet proved to be a valuable resource and outreach tool for our rural
conununity. Many public facilities provided equipment for public use.
• A new rural PAYT video with transfer station drop-off systems would be
beneficial to rural communities considering PAYT. Many citizens wanted to see
what it would really look like in our rural community where we have few areas
with curbside services.
• Next project of this type will have a budget for advertising, more outreach in the
final stage, improvements to the advisory committee structure and more rural -
specific examples shared with the community.
Rural Community 23 PAYT Guide
XII. APPENDIX
ATTACHMENTS
Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Summary of Goals and Barriers. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Proposed Ordinances. 1999.
Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee
SUMMARY OF GOALS, STRATEGIES & BARRIERS
March 19, 1999
Community Solid Waste Management Goals
• Reduce waste going to the landfill (an incentive to reduce costs)
• Find new mechanisms to pay for SW costs
• Reduce or minimize growing SW costs
Goals For Establishing A Cost -Recovery System
• Create a flexible payment program to meet the needs of diverse population centers and
incomes
• 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 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
Barriers To Implementing Alternative Programs (e.g. PAYT)
• Geographical challenges — how can we share costs and services in urban and rural
communities
• Vast open areas — easy illegal dumping if not dealt with
• Perception of no -cost dump fee at transfer stations
• Inconvenient recycling now
• Little litter enforcement
• Depressed economy
Rural Community 24 PAYT Guide
• Educating all sectors
• Cultural perceptions and behaviors
Rural Community 25 PAYT Guide
PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES
FOR NEW SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN HAWAII COUNTY
November 1999
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
orossed thfo ^1'; items being added [are in brackets].
ORDINANCE CHANGES RELATING TO ILLEGAL DUMPING PREVENTION
-Changes to take effect immediately
Hawaii County Code Chapter 20
Refuse
Article 1 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 rubbish] 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.]
Rural Community 26 PAYT Guide
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.
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)] Any person who violates the provisions of this article shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to
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 .]
Section 20-39. Abandoned refrigerators. removal of lock required.
[(a)] 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, er 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.]
Section 20-45. Penalty.
[(a)] 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 pick up 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.
Rural Community 27 PAYT Guide
(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.]
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.
• The County shall provide recycling and diversion programs on a continuing basis.
• Administrative rules shall set forth the parameters of such programs that will promote
recycling and diversion of materials from landfilling.
• 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 the 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 1, 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 solid fiwi* [landfill] without first obtaining a disposal
permit issued by the engineer and making payment of the permit fees required herein.
No person shall dispose of refuse at any county landfill without first obtaining a disposal
permit issued by the engineer. Persons notrepresenting y business federal or state ^gene"
Rural Community 28 PAYT Guide
religious entity or r^fi* ^ zati [or entities] need not obtain a permit to dispose of
refuse at a county transfer station.
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.
• Acceptance at Transfer Stations
(2) Prohibited materials shall include all eeFiff ily h ••'^a rubbish, garbage, swill or
refuse [from commercial haulers], prohibited materials as defined by the State department
of health and partially listed herein, refuse generated by ^ business, or State
religious entity or nenpr-efit organization, 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.
• 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.
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) Administrative rules shall provide partial credit to commercial haulers for
residential waste. The amount of the credit shall be no less than two dollars per
month for each household from which the hauler collects refuse.
(d) [(c)] The mayor, with the approval of the council, may temporarily 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.
Rural Community 29 PAYT Guide
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:
(1) Landfill [and Transfer Station] Disposal.
Rate by weight at landfill facilities: $35 per ton prorated accordingly.
[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.]
(B) (C) [In cases where the scale is temporarily not available at the landfill, the] rate
by vehicle size and volume [shall be]:...
CONTACTS
City of Dover, Dean Peschel, Environmental Projects Manager, 288 Central Ave., Dover, NH
03820-4169, Phone: 603/743-6094, Fax: 603/743-6096, Email: dean.peschel@ci.dover.nh.us,
Web site: www.ci.dover.nh.us
State of Hawaii Department of Health, Carrie McCabe, Recycling Coordinator, 919 Ala Moana
Blvd., Rm. 210, Honolulu, HI 96814, Phone: 808/586-4240, Fax: 808/586-7509,
Email: emccabe@eha.health.state.hi.us
County of Hawaii Department of Public Works, Jiro Sumada, Deputy Chief Engineer, 25 Aupuni
St., Hilo, HI 96720, Phone: 808/961-8321, Fax: 808/961-8630
US EPA Pay -As -You -Throw Products, 110 Hartwell Ave., Lexington, MA 02421-3136
Helpline and Orderline: 888/EPA-PAYT, Fax: 781/674-2851
Ordering online: www.epa.gov/payt/order.htm, Email: rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov
EPA RCRA Hotline 800/424-9346 or TDD 800/553-7672
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Jessica Gaylord, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Phone: 415/744-2122, Fax: 415/744-1044,
Email: gaylord.jessica@epa.gov
Global Futures Foundation, Wendy Pratt, PO Box 160526, Sacramento, CA 95818,
Phone: 530/756-3600, Fax: 530/756-5211, Web site: www.globalff.org
or contact Wendy at wbpratt@aol.com
Lane County Department of Public Works, Tanya Baker, Waste Reduction Specialist, 3100 E.
17`" Ave., Eugene, OR 97403, Phone: 541/682-4339, Fax: 541/682-2353,
Email: tanya.k.baker@co.lane.or.us
Rural Community 30 PAYT Guide
Monroe County Solid Waste Management Division, Sheri L. Gosselin, Customer Service
Coordinator, 5100 College Road, Room 506, Key West, Florida 33040, Phone: 305/292-4536,
Fax: 305/292, Budget and Monroe County Code and Ordinances on website
www.co.monroe.fl.us
Monroe County, Florida, Donnie Catala, Enforcement Officer for Illegal Dumping, Phone:
305/289-2410, Fax: 305/289-2498
Recycle Hawaii, Laurel Dekker, P.O. Box 4847, Hilo, HI 96720-0847
Phone: 808/961-2676, email: info@recyclehawaii.org, Web site www.recyclehawaii.org
or email Laurel at LaurelOcean@excite.com
SERA, Inc., Lisa Skumatz, 1511 Third Ave. Suite 1000, Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206/624-8508, FAX: 206/624-2950, email: skumatz@serainc.com
Town of Arundel, Donna Rooney, Transfer Station Manager, Phone: 201/284-9225
Town of South Kingston, Jon R. Schock, Utilities Director, P.O. Box 31, Wakefield, RI 02880-
0031, Phone: 401/789-9331, Fax: 401/782-8068
Trinity County, Diana Burke, Solid Waste General Services, P.O. Box 2700, Weaverville, CA
96093-2700, Phone: 530/623-1326, Email: dburke@trinitycounty.org
REFERENCES
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 L. Pay -As -You -Throw: Offering Residents a Recycling and Source Reduction
Incentive. MSW Management. Nov/Dec 1997.
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. EPA530-R-95-041. September 1997.
EPA. Full Cost Accounting in Action: Case Studies of Six Solid Waste Management Agencies.
EPA Office of Solid Waste. EPA530-R-98-018. December 1998.
Rural Community 31 PAYT Guide
EPA. Measuring Recycling.• A Guide for State and Local Governments. EPA530-R-97-011.
www.epa.gov/recycle.measure 1997.
EPA. Pay -As -You -Throw: A New Trend in Sustainable Solid Waste Management. Video. 1998.
EPA. Pay -As -You -Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing of Municipal Solid Waste. EPA
Office of Solid Waste. EPA530-R-94-004. April 1994.
EPA. Pay -As -You -Throw Success Stories. EPA530-F-97-007. April 1997.
EPA. Pay -As -You -Throw Tool Kit. EPA Office of Solid Waste. EPA530-R-96-013. September
1996.
EPA. PAYT Bulletins. "Rate Structure Design Booklet Now Available." EPA530-N-99-002.
Spring 1999. "Climate Change, PAYT and You." EPA530-N-99-004. Summer 1999.
EPA. Rate Structure Design: Setting Rates for a Pay -As -You -Throw Program. EPA Office of
Solid Waste. EPA530-R-99-006. January 1999.
EPA. Waste Prevention, Recycling and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 Communities.
EPA530-R-92-015. February 1994.
EPA Website: www.epa.gov/payt
National Association of Counties and International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.
Solid Waste Management and the Greenhouse Effect. www.naco.org July 1999.
Park, William M. Using Volume -Based User Fees in Rural Areas: How do they work? Resource
Recycling. January 1995.
Rathje, William. Talkin' Trash. Washington Post. February 7, 1999.
Rathje, William and Robert Lilienfeld. Use Less Stuff.- Environmental Solutions for Who We
Really Are. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Community Feedback Summary. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Community Trash Management Meetings. Video. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Complete PAYT System Options. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Municipal Solid Waste, County of Hawaii DPW Revenue/Expenditures/Assets.
1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Improving Solid Waste Management in Hawaii. 8:2. February 1999, May 1999.
Why Can't We Have Trash Only When We Can Afford It? 8:8. August 1999. Solid Waste —
Rural Community 32 PAYT Guide
A
Rising Costs and Greenhouse Gases. 8:10. October 1999. Public Meetings Cover New Trash
System. 8:11. Newsletters, published also in Ka'u Landing and Hawaii Island Journal November
1999.
Recycle Hawaii. PA YT System Evaluation. 1999
Recycle Hawaii. Proposed Ordinances. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Reducing Solid Waste is a Personal Choice. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Summary of New Trash Management Strategy. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Transfer Station Weight and Flow Distribution Table. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii. Trash Management Recommendations. 1999.
Recycle Hawaii Website: www.recyclehawaii.org
Recycle Hawaii. What is Really in Our Trash? 1999.
Rural Community Assistance Corporation. Big Island Reuse Feasibility Study. Prepared for
DBEDT-Clean Hawaii Center. 1999.
Rural Community Assistance Corporation. Recycling and Reuse on the Big Island of Hawaii: A
Vision and Action Plan. December 1998.
Skumatz, Lisa A. and Hans Van Dusen, Jennie Carton. Illegal Dumping: Incidents, Drivers and
Strategies. SERA Research Report Series. No. 9431-1. November 1994.
Skumatz, Lisa and Erin Truitt and John Green. The State of Variable Rates: Economic Signals
Move Into the Main Stream. Resource Recycling. August 1997.
Rural Community 33 PAYT Guide