The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0177.139 1998-2000 APR-20-99 TUE 15:07 LRUREL DEKKER PHiFA}C 808 966 6977 P. 01 12ec cte~~~ fil~c.~~~ ~i y p.0. /3ox 4849 • Hilo, fiawai'i 9620-0849 Office R'el: (808) 966-6999 • Sax: (8U81 9 6 6-69 99 9nfoline: (808) 329-2886 or (808) 961-2696 Email: laurelQrecyclehawaii.org Web site: www.recycfehawatl.org April 19, 1999 Honorable James Arakaki and County Council Members Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Via facsimile SUBJECT: Bill 45 -Mayor's Proposed Budget -Councils' Agenda 4/21/99 Dear Chairman Arakaki and County Council Members, Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed budget. We strongly urge you to make an amendment reinstating the full budget for recycling programs in the Depattment of Public Works, at least to last year's level of 5500,000. The result of the recent full cost accounting of solid waste has not been grasped by this administration. Recycle Hawaii worked with the Department of Public Works in gathering data and compiling the solid waste costs. Total cost amounts to $80.74 per ton, based on 396 tons per day landfilled in the county. When cotnbining tons and costs limited to landfilling, the County spends $75 per ton. For the private sector tonnage recycled (including metals and non-diversion grant commodities), the cost to the County is estimated at $24 per ton. This success has been possible due to private sector investments, community education and financial support for hard to market commodities. The proposed budget increases Pu`uanahulu landfill operating costs ($90,000) up to $4.1 million (47°Jo of the SW budget), while recycling programs are decreased by $239,000, down to 5% of the budget. In short, the administration is proposing to nearly eliminate recycling in favor of landfilling. This strategy goes in the exact opposite direction of our Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. If the proposed budget actually becomes our FY 99/00 County budget, there are serious consequences affecting residents and businesses alike. There is little chance that a significant amount of materials will be diverted iu the near fu[ure, thus creating a real problem when the Hilo landfill soon closes (Oct. 3, '00). Then an estimated additional cost of 522 per ton for 396 tons (more than $3 million per year) will be incurred to transfer and haul all the Hito waste to Pu`uanahulu landfill. Comm. No. 1'J' 7, / 3 9 Page 1 of 2 File No. $ u D Ref, To: Presenled cou.vc~~ Ref. Date 2l -19 APR-20-99 TUE 15:08 LAUREL DEKKER PHiFAX 808 966 6977 P. 02 The private sector will not be able to wait on the sidelines until this County decides to make a real commitment to recycling. They have been carrying the ball thus far and have been jerked around for ten years with fluctuating on and off program policies. Without diversion grants, there will be no commercial or residential recycling of paper or cardboard. 5,140 tons will be sent to the landfill instead. Those businesses that are currently saving money by recycling the cardboard will have to pay additional tipping fees for that material under this proposed scenario. The commercial tipping fees of $35/ton will not be enough to offset the $75/ton cost of handling the waste, a cost of 540/ton remains-the same price as the diversion grants, but with costly consequences. Education on recycling and solid waste management will be nearly eliminated. The school and youth education programs will be eliminated. No more assemblies or school recycle challenge. No more recycling centers for school tours (except for glass and greenwaste processing centers). No more school and non-pl•ofit fundraisers for papers collected. Island-wide backyard compost workshops will be eliminated. Treecycling will be eliminated. Outreach for the remaining recycling efforts will be eliminated. Special waste collection and disposal will be minimal or eliminated-nearly 100 tons of hazardous wastes could end up in the landfill or on the ground. We will be sending a message to our children that 1) natural resources are not important, 2) it's OK to spend more money on burying rather than less on recycling, 3) we don't need to save energy, 4) it's OK to throw hazardous materials into the environment and most importantly, 5) we don't care what condition we leave the county or our environment in-letting them deal with the consequences of our wayward decisions. The above proposed situation does not have to come into fruition. Since burying our trash is the most expensive part of solid waste, then our goal should be to find an alternative. Here are a few examples: 1) If we limit the amount of tons disposed at Pu'uanahulu landfill to 200 tons per day, $200,000 can be freed up for recycling allocations. 2) Other DPW funds could be reallocated from new vehicle purchases to recycling programs. 3) Miscellaneous funds could also be reallocated to recycling. 4) Do not fund a special election. Please request an amendment to the budget that funds recycling at $500,000- at leas[ equal to last year. Mahalo for your time and your consideration. Res eetfully, Laurel A. Dekker Executive Director Page 2 of 2