The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0227.004 1998-2000 IM L1R-05-99 FRI 16:08 Lr-1UREL DE Y.KEF.~ PH ~4 Y, 808 966 6977 P!~1 I2~C Cle~~' F~ QWaI - u ~i p.0. fox 4844 • Hilo, Karniai'i 96420-0844 " ' Office ri¢L• (808) 966-69si ~ fax: (808) 966-69:741 9nfoline: (808) 329-2Et<€~ or (808) 961-2646 r.;;'._ . Email: [auralUdrecyclehawa!l.org t~~1eb site: www.recyclehawall.org February l0, 1999 Sendinga.pages TO: Councilman Dominic Yagong, via facsimil. 2tci- ea lz FROM: Laurel Dekker, Executive Director RE: Resource Management Education Dear Dominic, Thank you for your response to my retlvesi to offer educational information to the Council. I concur that a special meeting is a good idea. With so many solid "waste" decisions under the Council's consideration, the need for information is important and timely. There are several people that have shown an interest in assisting us in this educational effort. We see the purpose to be tlrrt:efold: to share some background information in resource management, to share information on using island resources and to present new management concepts for our island. We are suggesting that speakers take 15-30 minutes to cover their area. These are some speakers that we would like to invite: • Laurel Dekker, Recycle Hawaii -background on resource management, information resources, and the EPA project (community-based planning for a management system and cost recovery system for the island) being done in concert with the County, the State and a Hawaii Island Solid Waste Advisory Committee. • Jay West, Peak Creations/Aries Graphics -new resource management concept of a Recycling and Reuse Enterprise !RARE) Park, a private integrated materials recovery facility. The RARE Park is part of an island recycling vision created by dozens of Big Island:rs. The vision addresses all aspects of the recycling circle, from education to collection to sales of new products. The RARE Park offers an opportunit;~ for businesses to work cooperatively collecting, processing or reusing, reramrfachuing and selling new recycled products or exporting "raw" recycled products for sale to other markets. • Dale Button, Rural Community Asst ranee Corporation -new management concept, feasibility of a Reuse Center. RCAC is in the process of conducting _ a feasibility analysis for a reuse center en the island. Items being looked at include construction materials, painis and other items that do not currently have outlets. • Dennis Ciganerio, Peak Creations/Arcs Graphics -use of island resources and how a facility like the RARE Par'< could affect his developing business in hot cast glass remanufacturing. 227. o~`f R 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt, edsrcatlonal 1; ~-r,[zation, servln~%CR1~'8~' ~F dy Penned an Rec~~cled '..-c~r.(able Paper File No. Ref. To: Presented SP PWI•C Ref. Date 3 - 8 ' 4 MAR-05-99 FRI 16:08 LHUR.EL DEYKER °'H ~~i 808 966 6977 F..+2 • Ululani Rosario, Recycling Systems 'awaii -use of island resources and how the RARE Park concept affects her existing recycling center, glass remanufacturing business and rubbish hauling business. • Rob Tucker, Castleblock -use of resources for economic development. Castleblock distributes recycled content building materials and is considering cons[ruction of a plant to process certain recycled materials. • Peter Martin, SUNRISE W.E.S.T. (tiVaste Elimination Systems Technologies) -use of island resources and how WEST can process organics to recover a significant portion of the waste stream when used in combination with source- separated recycling. • Others? These examples are by no means all inchrsive of resource management efforts on island or off island. We will not attempt to lay ou[ the whole plan for East Hawaii. or the island. It is important to involve the Council and the rest of the community in the planning process. Our intent is to present a variety of informational sources that will lead us closer to developing a sound integrated resource management plan. Thanks for your leadership in the process! Below is a list of names and addresses of suggested speakers. Sincerely, Luuref?l. Dekker Recycle Hawaii, Laurel Dekker, P.O. Box 484 i, Hilo, HI 96720, 966-6977 Peak Creations/Aries Graphics. Jay West and Dennis Ciganerio, PO Box 6239, Kamuela, HI 96743, 885-7812 Rural Community Assistance Corp., Dale Burton, 234 Waianuenue Ave., Hilo HI96720, 935-8404 Recycling Systems Hawaii, Inc., Ululani Rosario, 185 Railroad Ave., Hilo HI 96720, 959-1712 SUNRISE W.Ir.S.T. Peter Martin, 75-431 Hoene St., Kailua-Kona, HI 96740, 326-7859 Casfleblock, Rob Tucker, PO Box 6097, Hilo. I-il 96720, 969-9336 R 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt, educatlona! orr~~j~atlon, serving the rjlg 9s[and Printed a~ Recycled mid ,^cc~rfoble Paper l2ec cle~~~ flawai ~i y p.O.1jox 4849 • fii/o, f~lawal'i • 96920-0849 Office tel: (808) 966-6999 • Sax: (808) 966-6999 9nfollne: (808) 329-2886 or (808) 961-2696 Email: Iaurel~recyclehawail.org Web site: www.recyclehawaii.org March 8, 1999 TO: Public Works & Pazks Committee Chair, Dominic Yagong and other members of Hawaii County Council FROM: Laurel Dekker, Executive Director RE: Information on Resource Management in Hawaii County Dear Committee Chair Yagong and all of [he Council, I want to thank you for this opportunity to share some history and perhaps insight into our county's resource management (usually referred to as solid waste management). I am especially appreciative of the effort made by this Council to address the growing concern for an integrated system. Your invitation to Recycle Hawaii and others that are here today should offer some exciting perspectives on what to do with our island community`s "trash." I will be talking about: • current practices and costs • policies and guidelines directing us • opportunities to get us where we want to go In this presentation, I will also refer to Recycle Hawaii's resource management project sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, County of Hawaii Department of Public works and State Department of Health. Recycle Hawaii is coordinating the effort to work with the community to identify a waste management system that meets community goals and covers necessary costs. The project stazted with a cost analysis. In a couple months alternative systems will be identified. Within five months, alternative options and cost comparisons will be completed. Community input will be solicited along the way and progress reports will go out to those interested. Your role as County Council is important to collaborate in the planning process and in [he legislative stage. We are fortunate that this project is very timely. Please feel free to contact me anytime for more information or to discuss matters further. We as a community can collaborate to create the most appropriate systems for our island. Mahalo again for your efforts. Sincerely, Laurel A. Dekker enclosures f1501(c) (3) tax-exem~t, educational organization, serving the Y,><ig 9sland Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper Are we throwing our money away? Let's ut it to ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~r better use - J , , Did you know: 1 1 • We are facing both a budget and a J 1 landfill shortage for our "rubbish," or municipal solid waste (MSW). ~ ~ • The Hilo landfill will soon be full. • A $2 million budget cut is being proposed for solid waste in FY99/00. • We are already paying nearly $SO per ton. When the Hilo landfill closes, the costs will L be even higher. Current costs estimates equate to $1.20 • 77% of the MSW costs are used to receive, per 30 lbs. of MSW disposed (including visitor and commercial waste. transport and bury our trash. Hauling charges are extra. ) ~ Unless there is some waste stream diversion soon, we face the Inability Total waste" generated is equivalent to each of the Island's to handle the waste in Hilo and pay 130,000 residents generating 6.2 pounds per day, or 2,280 for the long distance hauling. pounds per year) 'visitor and commercial waste generation included Hawaii County Municipal Solid Waste Costs/Revenues Percent of Costs Percent of Revenues ® landfills & transfer Stations: 77°k ¦ staff support from other depts.: 5% O charges to SWD ®trensler from general tax fund: 58% from automotive & ~Indlrect tax funding (bonds, depreciation, Interdepartment): 16°/ other depts.: 5% O glass recycling R o 91ass recycling program (state Industry surcharge): 2% other recycling Olandfill tipping fees: 20% programs: 5% ¦vehicle disposal fund fees (licenses, permits, towing, storage): 4% ¦vehicle disposal: 6°/ ¦ landfill permit tees: 0% ¦ miscellaneous: 0% I . I ~ • • Printed on Recycled Paper ;`i~ ;r 1Cyaste I~~~ii"1~riKKis.~ahi+~ved t~t~ l "~~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~c~F~:< ~t~ti~ ~r~duCtion (waste preveltiori ~ reuse)~>'~r~~i I~~~cyol~r~~`: +r3opsd~i+~i~ g9ir~Iit waste in ~ Waste Yeduc6on is,A'bealc tolttfldFl to the " vtybiW~yt„i~~iUt~l~tguaing ~ gaf6~gt,fllui Ias~tNabtAlYtH8irs316dr~ pruct~tba~t~t((ail§i~trs~eft.~~or ~ w,~~1~~rbblero °~ed8iltaurt'sr~itlbt(oq-~'._ eoitiil~taii;t?dl solldt~at~ lit ttiN . ackrlaUy~,rev~nta the;genefafl~fjl tit"Watts It larig tdfpi p eihphasiEing v~~te. ~ "the flat dace, tt comes p~Pr~ bier ~ ; =rtdtreflon nd ft~trrrere cart d~aipit madafltaient b ~i+'~r`t~ r~ prodri ig§t~ f+~it~~iWtHrrlous His elrt~dy gtir~ ~ . ~ . ,2`,ortlp~il~ i`ttluir~ ~ ~t tgglfi9 ' , Yeductio~i; tt4 CIIPig`~~ ~j~'~~~" ark reio~oiH n$b re~lntetdr~&it, pr~ferr~d,.'at~e Y~,fp~fl9na and Fa~Wtah Ida iF~s4d,+n th°oy ~r~ beceas~ tri~y ~dtige; ~ otHil~f ~tta~~" nb tdVi~rust~ ~ ' ` ~ going to landflua ai~g~h~~wa t~s~tirdea Reduce n9 O y Reuse tf cohlaintrs, S other'." ale goods instead of tit Recycle & Compost ~CAerl materials. ~ ~r~ f at home 8 support commet~; ; eds.; Landfill & Incinerate e ty ate Sources: Recycle Hawai I & EPA "Consumers Handbook Reducing Solid Waste" hat is really in our Tra$ W h~ We can make a personal choice to sTaTE* reduce Our "WSSte" xll.o** that goes to the landfill. Paper Paper . 21% 22.6% Yard & Wood Green Waste Waste 24% 9.8% Food Waste Wood Waste ¦ 6.3% 12.4 y Plastics Plastics 5.2% 7.4% Glass Glass 4.2°~0 2.3°~0 Metals Metals 10.5% 53% ¦ 28.8% Other 40.2%*** 71 % - Rec table - 60% yc `taken from DEED Publication -draft Integrated Solid Waste management Plans prepared by each County, 1992, based on 1991 estimates. " From Hilo Waste Composition Analysis, 1996. •••Includes food waste, oonstniction aggregates 8 other. Municipal Solid Waste t'MSW) Revenue Options 1) Tax revenues fund all MSW activities -with or without recycling or quantity limitations. 2) Tax expenditures for MSW are recovered in fees, based on either a flat rate or on the quantity of waste generated. a. User fees charged for all waste disposals, based on either the volume or weight of waste disposed. This method is commonly referred to as Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT). b. MSW functions can be treated as a utility, with the community govemment sending bills, based on a flat rate, to all households. 3) MSW activities are paid by a combination of taxes and fees. All of these options are presently in use in various communities throughout the US. Communities that utilize flat rate fees, regardless of the quantity of waste generated, do not provide economic incentives for reducing waste, reusing materials, or recycling. The County of Hawaii relies primarily (74%) on the tax base for its revenues and secondarily on tipping fees (20%) and other fee programs (6%). MSW Management Options Any of the following options can be carried out by public employees and equipment, by private companies under contract to the local government, or by any combination of the two. The EPA studies do show that publicly contracted private companies offer the most cost-effective collection service. Currently, private companies do all the hauling on the Big Island. The County owns both landfills but has a private company contracted to do some of the work at the Puuanahulu landfill. The County handles all the work and equipment related to transfer stations and transporting MSW to the landfills. The County provides a $40 per ton diversion grant to eligible recyclers that send types of paper, plastic or tin cans to market. There are also business support programs for glass and greenwaste recycling. MSW Landfilling: Landfilling has been a primary method of MSW disposal in the US for many years because it was low tech, and inexpensive to construct and operate. In recent years increasing concern for the environment has changed that picture dramatically. New landfills are required to be carefully engineered and lined to prevent the slowly digesting contents from leaching into and contaminating the surrounding groundwater. The buildup of big gas must also be collected and removed to prevent fires and explosions from occurring within the landfill itself. These precautions must be continued for thirty years after the landfill is filled, thus increasing the real costs dramatically. These environmentally sound requirements, plus the increasing value of the materials making up MSW have made landfilling much less attractive. C&D Landfill: (Construction & Demolition) C&D landfills are a quick way to dispose of the leftovers from construction and demolition projects, but they are wasteful of valuable materials. They are also subject to similar kinds of environmental regulations as are MSW landfills. For example, a liner is required and the leachate does need to be monitored. Organic Waste Processing: Organics can be handled through a dry (aerobic) or wet (anaerobic) process. End products can be given away (typical for municipalities) or sold as fertilizer, compost or mulch. In a basic program, green (plant and yard debris) and wood waste are ground or chipped and composted into soil amendments and mulch. Very large equipment is needed to handle large stumps and Created By Recycle Hawaii Page 1 3/7/99 logs from land clearing operations. More sophisticated programs incorporate anaerobic digesters to handle a larger range of organic materials such as food waste, farm waste, sewage sludge and others. The most efficient of these operations also include by-products of methane gas or electricity. The organic material may be burned to produce electricity or processed into compost or organic fertilizer. Materials Recovery Facilitv fMRFI: These facilities are typically designed either to handle MSW or mixed waste (dirty MRF) or recyclable materials (clean MRF). Mixed Waste MRF: Mixed waste facilities were designed to accept the entire MSW stream, dumping the rubbish on a tipping floor, separating its component materials, processing selected parts and directing the remaining non-recyclable portion to the' landfill. Although the process recovers some materials, the MSW has already contaminated them, complicating the handling and marketing of those materials. Organic waste processing is often one of the major processing components. Recyclable Materials MRF: Facilities designed to collect and process recyclables can accept source-separated or co-mingled recyclable materials. Frequently, a materials sorting line is part of the process to ensure that quality materials are sent to market. Materials are separated according to market requirements, processed (baled or chipped), then typically shipped to a broker. Integrated Facilitv: An integrated facility is, in effect, a materials recovery facility Resource Recovery coupled with other resource management facilities. It could be (Organics, Oil, Glass, public or private or a partnership of both. Tires, etc.) C&D Reuse/Recovery locally, a group of businesses, is proposing this idea through a Remanufacturing Recycling And Reuse Enterprise Park to cooperate in the recovery of valuable resources, which are the components of MSW. To be effective the facility must have access to the materials before they are mixed with, and contaminated by, the other components of the waste stream. They can be co-located with MRF facilities or landfills so that the diversion process is efficient and inexpensive. These facilities have the potential to provide new business and manufacturing opportunities to strengthen the local economy. Incinerators: Incinerators can be designed to receive MSW or specific components, like paper. Incinerators offer the advantage of electricity production as a by-product of "getting rid of the garbage." Non- recyclable components must still go to the landfill, just as with the MRF, as must the ash left over from the combustion process. Incinerators require sophisticated anti-pollution devices to protect the environment. Refuse Collection/Recycling: Since recycling is so important in the effort to control costs in any MSW program, its efficient collection is of primary concern. Recycling not only makes valuable products available for sale and reuse; it removes a significant portion of material from the waste stream, thereby decreasing the downstream costs. Many communities have found that curbside pickup of recyclables, in conjunction with a volume or weight based fee for co-collection of refuse, has contributed to a dramatic decrease in MSW volume. That generally equates with lower municipal expenditures on MSW. Even where curbside pickup has not been instituted an aggressive recycling campaign and volume based fees have frequently proven successful in lowering MSW costs. Created By Recycle Hawaii Page 2 3/7/99 Guide to Understanding Municipal Solid Waste Comparisons Many communities in the US are faced with ever increasing solid waste costs. An increasingly afFluent society is producing more solid waste, while at the same time space available to landfill MSW is becoming scarce. The cost of disposal is also increasing in response to the more stringent requlations imposed by government, which seeks to protect the environment. The Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) has become active, not only in the enforcement of the new regulations, but in efforts to help communities find economical, Earth friendly alternatives to landfilling all MSW. To that end, EPA has done a comparison study of thirty US communities that have instituted composting and recycling programs. That study looks at a wide range of communities, from small rural towns to very large cities. We have picked the data from twelve suburban and rural/suburban communities in that study to compare with the data on materials recovery, tipping fees, and total MSW costs experienced by the County of Hawaii. Generally speaking, those communities who decrease the quantity of MSW going to landfills or incinerators also decrease their costs. At the very least most see a stabilization of costs. By referring to the comparison page, we can see how we compare with other communities studied in regard to our composting and recycling efforts, and how those efforts effect our county's bottom line. For instance, the County of Hawaii is composting less than one percent of its organic refuse -much less than many of the other communities in the study. Since food waste, garden and wood waste make up over thirty percent of our MSW flow we can readily see how a more aggressive composting program would pay us big dividends in avoided MSW costs. We can also see that it is possible to make a very large difference in our MSW flow, which will save us money and be kinder to the environment. C ~ y C O L" N p N CO O F ~ ~ ~ r N ` 10 ~ (1 * N IOONNION ~ N O V ~ O N N F md~zzz v>~FAiA~sAinenF» ~ ~ a~._ N ~t o ~ o c no` E ;n m y O to=~ ~ _T E O V C ~ L l0 (n H f0 N N Y N N .Q S C E ~ N U O _ ~ N tU Y LL W a"O U U O~; O V N L (000 oD ~ 00 to ONON C C w 9 ~ C(O~~ln ~ 10N~Nn10O W N O-'O C L fU C f9 EA EA to to EA to 4f to to f9 f9 f9 N N y O N t C C F' ~ E'~ taY ~ v E~ N m Z'oNQQQ o ~nNO° u0`.0-o v E Qj ~ E~ a`> E m$ 3 V 10 (OM.-~Q).--In T ~ L 7- U (n N ~ S f» Z z Z v~ vi vs (n ~ ~ vs f» f» c ~ o ~ Y E ; c `o N .a! ~ ~ 0 0 m to d to ~ m to c ~ my w~u~ ~~NO ~N~~ ~ U E N~ ~ v ny ~ a~ rn Z` O n 2` n N a 0 0 n O ~ N Q Q Q O M C~ O n > C ~T' COE1 ~ ~ y 10NZN ~ M.-(OZ ZZ~r ~.N f0 ~ ~ N T j~ U N ftl C V' ~ v~ ~ ~ a.°i o ~ ~ m m` v ~ v mrn 41 'N Km .nU to 0 o aTN y N~ Z`~ U f0 d tO C m N' o w U t6 `1 to ~ c> L C~ y d N~ZN ~ NaoMZZZOMN 2= O O C 'O d~ U.j C ~'O O N o ~~mmL~a tavNN ~fn~ ~m ON t0t~ga~i ~1ya-o rR+ N 'd m ~ ~ ~ m ~ v 'w m v W m p ar~ Nam cc°-~~ Lm.c~ ~~tA 3 O Q QQQ o_ wa:~'~o~ U'vi3w N G T M V Z n V n M~ Z Z Z N~ v U. N N O W y C O V O Q d N a ° m v 0w `~-O.Y E c;_ f0 E•p N W V d •V T (0 ~ O .L. l0 N U~ N> E O1 N d ~ C ~ aE~ oc`ta cmmw" u,~yg 3 m wco E -s m> o ~ to to °nx C = ~ m o, nrnQco N colnMaQQcoco ao rn C> to m` ay to A n M Z~ (p I~ ~ (O Z Z Z (V O L O ~ O L ,C U (n C` N O U N O U m y ~ O N O C IYl N N O U 10/1 ~ C J m ~ N w 3 O O` N to C O C O~R rnrnQcoo~covQQQvn ~°LL ~c°~.Srnowv a'o.oc> N 3 m y ODD aODZ0~1 O Oc~ONZZZrnn f0 ~N 'OC .N. O O O to n U U O W t0 ~ ~ 1~ ri of of o M t~ o d L =o oro o ~ ~ to rn _ to d ~ R= A N O N~ M n ~ X 0 7 C U U N C ~ O p~ N CQ ~ ~ r ~ N U~ E N V .U C C U w N G 'O ~ Q U o O O N fU T ~ N to O fU ~ Z W ~ O N to 01 y O N C fU p_ C N~ W fU - C N 7 T H ~ E O L N N O ~ w 00(0 O 0000 oDOnO 7 y N ""fU O y"O Y w Y 0 0 0 ~ NOO O On Inn OIOM N C N T"O ~ t0 C ~.N y '1q ~ coo~o o~ornMOOrnlnln rn 3:. c? Z.3!~ c E ~ owe ~ 3 Oa MoD Oi V' O OOU'ir0(ON N O C O U O N Q~ L ~ U NOZ ~ t0 Q. M O n M O~ ~ a0 ~ ~ (0 ~ 7 y,C > t E U L~ U = N C O 'C C E O E N E .C ~ C> ~ N N N d J E t O N C N O N U 3 r N (n t1 L T O Z LL E m U N'- O- f0 C C N D C~ UI o. ~ 2 Q ~ U u U C~ N~ ~ j 0 0 ~ B U R C0i N ~ z U Z af°i mN~ m~ ~ ° c c~~i o cF~L' m ~ y CQ~ ~ j ~'~'~Ja IOUm (0 p0) E N (0= N N U C > ~ 3 U o o c m ui ~ n'- m e - m 1n o cuUU ~aia°_'~a~~ Y~.Q `~--'~L _ m rn ~ m~cL o a U F- a~ ~ m v ~ c 'Z 'N E a_ y ° ~ L ~ rn ~ ~ L o ° o L A C>? Y 3 01 N U D. Y O N y t 3 C ~ L L d O U O C C U U ~ E `mooto to c~ctoa`~1Yp~o I-Otom tom ~ v stn rn~ c tom mmUO x YJ~za~~~ to E ¢ E tov --~'avs ~ t'~ Municipal Solid Waste, County Of Hawaii, DPW Revenues/Expenditures/Assets Fiscal Year 1997/1998 Souree Of Revenues For Municipal Solid Waste: Tax Source Fee Source Transfer Fzom Gen. Fund: $ 6,750,000 Indirect E~ndinq: Less Current Year Equipment $ 1,638,356 State Grants: Used Oil Collection & $ 12,500 Glass Recycling Program $ 216,000 Landfill Tipping Feea: $ 2,374,766 Landfill Permit Feea: $ 10,175 Miscellaneous: $ 346 Vehicle Disposal Fund: Licensee 6 Permits $ 467,692 Towing Charges $ 266 Vehicle Storage Feea $ 619 Revenues $ 8,588,356 $ 3,082,364 Total Revenues $11,670,720 Total Hawaii County MSW Costa 1997/1998: Solid Waste Division Expenditures: $ 9,041,042 (Casa Equipment) All County Department Allocations To MSW: $ 610,171 Capital Coate: $ 1,289,240 Annual Depreciation Of Aeaet: $ 555,267 Back-End Coats: ~z~ (Landfill) $ 175,000 Total Costa $11,670,720 Created By Recycle Hawaii Page 1 3!7/99 Solid Waste Division Expenditures: Landfill/Transfer Station Labor 13~ $ 1,545,258 Landfill/Transfer Station Operations $ 5,562,033 Landfill/Transfer Station Equipment * ($592,069) $ 0 Recycling Programs $ 320,985 Glass Recycling Program $ 213,374 Vehicle Disposal Fund $ 675,394 Interdepartmental Charges $ 554,036 Miscellaneous Expenses $ 179,962 Total SWD Expenditures $ 9,041,042 * Current year equipment expenditures are eliminated because equipment is included in the depreciation schedule. Allocation Of Budg®ta To Solid Waste t4~ Budget Allocation Finance• Admin 6 Budget $1,290,268 $ 80,771 Purchasing $ 654,886 $ 40,996 Accounts $ 577,582 $ 36,157 Treasury $ 772,085 $ 48,332 Data Processing $ 653,843 $ 40,930 Corporate Counsel: $2,186,470 $ 136,673 (less Family Support Services) Chief Engineer Office: $ 666,094 $ 200,361 Civil Service: $ 882,705 $ 25,751 # Of County Emp. 2,269 # Of Solid Waste Emp. 71 3.138 * Allocation Percentages Chief Engineer 30.08& Civil Service 3.139 All Others 6.269 Amounts Rounded to nearest whole dollar Total Allocation $ 610,171 Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 2 of 6 3/7/99 Capital Projecta Expenditures For County MSW, 1988-1998 cs> Year Other Landfills Puuanahulu Only All Projecta 1988 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 350,449 1989 $ 60,000 $ 48,700 $ 198,911 1990 $ 59,808 $ 8,550 $ 103,986 1991 $ 0 $ 0 $ 26,978 1992 $ 0 $ 266,240 $ 616,240 1993 $ 830,088 $ 831,809 $ 1,661,697 1994 $2,478,917 $2,660,497 $ 5,659,496 1995 $1,404,663 $ 257,234 $ 1,661,897 1996 $1,456,345 $ 4,000 $ 1,511,441 1997 $ 128,245 $ 0 $ 161,537 1998 $ 92,873 $ 0 $ 125 652 Ten Year Costa $6,610,939 $4,177,030 $12,278,484 Ave. Cost/Yr. $ 661,094 $ 417,703 $ 1,227,848 Annual Bond Interest Debt Service: csax5i,zz~,eae~ $ 61,392 Annual Capital Projecta Total Expenditures $ 1,289,240 Solid Waste Division Assets: Vehicles Depreciated Value Heavy Trucks (11) $ 787,669 Medium Trucks (5) $ 157,025 Pickup Trucks (18) $ 415,388 Tractors (4) $ 905,931 Trailers (40) $2,739,956 Loaders/Backhoea (3) $ 179,747 Forklifts (1) $ 21,791 Other Heavy Equipment $ 347,248 Light Equipment $ 31,767 Office/Communications $ 306,149 Miscellaneous $ 3 488 Solid Waste Division Total $5,696,159 Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 3 of 6 3!7/99 Annual Depreciation Of Assets tct Heavy Trucks: (20 Years) $ 55,000 Medium Trucks: (20 Years) $ 6,250 Light Trucks: (15 Years) $ 29,000 Tractors: (20 Years) $ 60,000 Trailers: (10 Years) $ 300,000 Passenger Vehicles: (7 Years) $ 11,000 Loaders/Backhoes: (20 Years) $ 12,000 Forklift: (20 Years) $ 1,250 Heavy Equipment: (20 Years) $ 20,000 Light Equipment: (7 Years) $ 4,538 Office/Communications: (5 Years) $ 61,229 Total Annual Depreciation $ 555,267 Landfill Annual Post Closure Costs: ~2~ Kealakehe Post Closure Costs: $ 175,000 Total Annual Landfill Post Closure Costs $ 175,000 Total Municipal Solid Waste Costs: Total MSW Operating Costs: $11,670,720 Total MSW Operating Revenue: $ 2,853,864 Tax Source Annual MSW costs to Hawaii County $ 8,816,856 Tax Source Costs Per Ton: tse,eie,eseiaoetonsiaay~= $59.49/ton Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 4 of 6 3/7/99 Endnotes 1) This document, designed and compiled by Recycle Hawaii, represents the first attempt at full cost accounting for the County of Hawaii, municipal solid waste. Data came from County Of Hawaii, DPW records of actual dollars expended or received. DPW accountants have reviewed this data for accuracy. The summary does not include external, or true costs that incur due to the MSW management system in place.{e.g., social, environmental, economic impact on small businesses etc.) 2) Costs are listed only for Kealakehe landfill, as estimated, based on current activities. Costs do not include any anticipated closing or yearly poet-closure costs for the Hilo landfill, which are estimated to be $12 million and $75,000 respectively. 3) The use of the term landfill in county records reflects the combined costs of labor, operations and equipment for all landfills and transfer stations. 4) Allocation percentages for each department within the county administration are based on their best estimates of the time and resources devoted to solid waste issues and personnel. The DPW accountant determined the final allocation amount based on the department or division's budget or number of employees. Solid waste employees represent 3.13 of all civil service employees. The figures are based on the 98/99 fiscal year budget. 5) Capital Projects are those expenditures which are not part of the regular operating budget, but which are intended for development or improvement of the county's solid waste infrastructure. (e.g.), The construction of a new transfer station, the closure of a landfill, or major repairs to an existing facility. Annual capital projects expenditures were averaged over a ten-year period, as no single year's expenditures reflect a norm. Since capital expenditures are funded by general bonding, expenses for interest on the average yearly capital expenditures are estimated at 5~. The cost/value of land has not been included in these calculations. 6) The County of Hawaii replaces equipment only on an as needed basis. There is no formal replacement schedule or equipment replacement reserve funding. Equipment is purchased out of current operational funds, therefore, we have conservatively estimated annual depreciation costs for equipment and other assets based on information obtained from the county solid wa~t® division and comparisons with other municipalities. 7) Total daily tonnage Of MSW For East 6 West Hawaii is 406. Currently the county tips 181 tons/day without fee at Hilo. There is a Disposal fee of $48.72/ton for the 215 tons a day of MSW which the county trucks to Puuanahulu. This analysis shows that the present cost per ton to the county for MSW disposal is $78.76 Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 5 of 6 3/7/99 *Additional Cost Information If all the county MSW were hauled to Puuanahulu there would be a corresponding increase in the daily disposal fee, which would increase the per/ton coat. However, that cost does not reflect the increased cost of transporting the 181 tons/day from Hilo to Puuanahulu, the increased number of trucks and trailers needed, nor the additional employees required to drive and service the vehicles. It should be noted that the anticipated 1999 year Capital Projects Fund appropriation of $12,000,000 to finance the closing of the Hilo Landfill would increase county MSW coats by an average of $710,000/yr.for 30 Years, assuming a 58 rate of interest. Post closure costs of $75,000/yr have been estimated by the county, however, the annual post closure costs at the Kailua landfill are $175,000. According to the Hilo Waste Composition Analysis, 1996 the waste stream entering the Hilo landfill includes the following materials by percentage. Metal (s.s~), glass (z.3s), plastic (~.4a), cardboard (i5.aa), newsprint (2.68), white paper (4.64), greenwaste (8.88), wood (12.4), (Tot.6o8). Even if only half of these materials were diverted from the waste stream at their source through recycling, MSW tonnage and the associated coats to the county would be significantly reduced. According to the latest EPA figures a Pay As You Throw (PAYT) program, wedded to an aggressive recycling campaign, is reducing the volume of MSW by as much as 508 in a growing number of US communities. With an integrated approach to waste management, involving a complete recycling and marketing program, reuse, remanufacturing industry, C6D reclamation, and organics recovery plant, the County of Hawaii could reduce its waste stream by 508 or more. In addition to saving the county a great deal of money such an approach would create jobs, while cleaning up the environment. Created by Recycle Hawaii Page 6 of 6 3/7/99 a ~ ~ S z 6 a 3 as i Y N ~ g~~ B~ ~ ¢3~ ag 6 ~ W ~ ~ ~ w i ~ ~ ~ a ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 70 6 q ~ Q Y Ae°e n A~ r a ~ sa ~ a ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ t S e P O O ~ 3~E ~ ~~R3 ~ a~~~ i ~~~d~