HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Summary of Integrated Resources & Solid Waste Management Plan Update - Dec 2009ero Waste
!t
The 2009 County of Hawai'i Integrated Resources and Solid
Waste Management Plan (IRSWMP or Plan) Update has been
prepared in compliance with the Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)
Chapter 342G, which requires counties in Hawai'i to update and
revise their solid waste management plans every five (5) years.
The last update to the Plan was completed during 2002. Work on
this revision of the Plan began in early 2008, and involved the
participation of a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG), the
County of Hawai'i (County) Environmental Management
Commission, the public, the business community, the County of
Hawai'i Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the Office of the Mayor, the
Solid Waste Division (SWD), the County Council, and numerous other stakeholders.
This IRSWMP update includes an evaluation of waste management practices in the County,
including waste reduction practices and programs, opportunities for implementation of zero
waste policies and practices, the status of both active and closed landfills, and potential
options for expanding and extending the capacity of the South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
(SHSL). The results are organized by section in accordance with HRS 342G. Each section
contains a description of the existing conditions, a summary of the 2002 Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) update recommendations and status of implementation
of those recommendations, a description of options available to the County for
improvement of the solid waste management program, and recommendations for
implementation of selected options.
Concurrent with the development of this IRSWMP
update, the County contracted with a consultant to
develop a zero waste implementation plant. The
recommendations of that study were considered by
SWAC and other stakeholders during the
1 Recycle Hawaii and Richard Anthony Associates. 2009. Zero Waste Implementation Plan for the County of Hawaii.
December 2009 ES -1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
development of this Plan. This IRSWMP update includes a number of specific
recommendations from that study intended to keep the County moving forward on its path
to zero waste.
The recommendations in this Plan are projected to increase the County's current recycling
rate of 29 percent to a rate of 44 percent by the end of the planning period (FY 14 -15).
a !
Development of this IRSWMP update was guided by a 12- member SWAG, appointed by the
Mayor. SWAC members participated in 13 meetings at which they reviewed draft plan
sections, debated key issues, developed plan goals (provided in Section 1), and shaped
recommendations. Presentations to the County Council's Environmental Management
Committee were made on a monthly basis to solicit feedback from County Council members
and the public on issues and options. In addition, input was requested from the public in a
variety of forums including a series of public meetings, periodic meetings with community
organizations, and routine posting of all draft documents and meeting minutes on the
IRSWMP page of the Counts Website (rtt�_J_cc,,x 11� ai i,81 i UsZf.I� rr,m�iS"A71111.hITII).
The key recommendations included in this IRSWMP update have consensus support from
the SWAC and are intended to balance the many interests of the various stakeholders within
the County. The recommendations developed during this process have been organized into
a 5 -year implementation plan. This IRSWMP update includes each of the plan sections
covering various waste management topics, and the draft implementation plan. It includes
responses to comments received from the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH),
and is being submitted by the Mayor to the County Council for adoption, and then will be
presented to HDOH for final approval. Final approval by HDOH is anticipated by the first
quarter of 2010.
A summary of the IRSWMP recommendations and the draft implementation plan are
presented below.
AIMEN • • ' f
The County's initial ISWMP, as required by state law (HRS 342G) was adopted on
October 5, 1994. An update to that original plan was completed by the County and
approved by the State of Hawaii in December 31, 2002. A key issue addressed in the 2002
plan update was the pending closure of the SHSL, which was expected to reach capacity in
the summer of 2004. The 2002 update included the following key recommendations:
• Construct no new landfills in East Hawaii
• Emphasize the recovery of recyclable materials at the planned East Hawaii Regional
Sort Station, possibly by incorporating features of a material recovery facility (MRF)
• Procure a waste reduction facility for the East Hawaii waste stream using either waste -
to- energy, thermal gasification, or anaerobic digestion technology. (See Appendix A for
a chronology of waste reduction study and procurement activities in Hawaii County.)
ES -2 December 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Establish a County recycling program with a long list of elements that have the potential
to increase waste diversion significantly
After adopting the 2002 ISWMP update, the County took steps toward implementing these
recommendations, as follows:
• Expanding the number and scope of its recycling programs, which increased its
recycling rate from 15 percent in FY 01 -02 to 29 percent in FY 07 -08
• Initiating development of elements of the East Hawai'i Regional Sort Station (now
nearing completion) that could potentially serve a number of strategic waste
management functions
• Issuing two (2) requests for proposals (RFPs) for construction of a waste reduction
facility. The first RFP was cancelled by the County. The second procurement process
resulted in a proposal for a 230 - ton - per -day mass -burn waste -to- energy facility to be
located at the SHSL. In 2008, the County Council rejected the recommended proposal, in
part because the construction and operation costs were higher than anticipated.
Since 2006, the County has taken three (3) other important actions related to its solid waste
management system:
1. It completed a
comprehensive engineering
evaluation of its twenty -one
(21) recycling and transfer
stations; this evaluation
concluded that thirteen (13)
have serious failures
requiring reconstruction to
correct, and another six (6)
have serious problems that
could be corrected without
complete reconstruction.
2. It extended the capacity of
the SHSL through innovative
engineering solutions, such
as creating a sliver fill and
utilizing additional airspace
resulting from creation of the
sliver fill.
3. It prepared an expansion
feasibility study and capital
cost estimate to assess
whether undertaking a
seven (7) acre landfill
expansion immediately
adjacent to the SHSL would
December 2009
Ka'auhuhu (Hawi) RTS
4,145 (51%)
Honoka'a RTS
3,469 (4.2 %)
Puako RTS Pa'auil4 R1
2,681 (3.3 %)
Waimea RTS 1,922(2
6,376 (7.8 %)
Honomu RTS
West Hawall
Sahlfary Landfill
(2.1 %)
Kailua R
7,860(9.7-
"R
Keauhou RTS
5,017(6.2%)
Ke'ei RTS
2,025 (2.5 %)
Waiea RTS
2,969 (3.6%)
Milol� P RTS
207 (0.3 %)
Ocean View
(Proposed)
Pahala RTS
1,304 (1.6 %)
Walohlnu RTS
3,447 (4.2 %)
Note: Numbers under transfer station = tons of trash
IN hauled in FY 07 -08 and percent of total for County.
Laupahoehoe RTS
b1,547 (1.9 %)
Honomu RTS
1,727
(2.1 %)
South Hilo
Papaikou RTS
SanPtary:LandRR:
2,902 (3.6 %)
39 575 (48.7- )
Hilo RTS
14,707 (18.1 %)
Kea'au RTS
7,44`3(9.1 %)
Glenwood RTS
2,940(3.6 %).
�� W
Volcano RTS
1,929(24/)
Pahoe RTS
5,759(7 .1%)
Ka RTS
1,069 9 (1,3 (1.3%)
Disposal at Hawaii County
Recycling and Transfer Stations
FY 07.08
ES -3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
be less expensive than long - hauling waste to the County's West Hawaii Sanitary
Landfill (WHSL) in Pu'uanahulu. The feasibility study did not support the seven (7) acre
expansion and this option has been removed from further consideration.
In response to these developments, a key focus of this Plan update was evaluating a series of
potential options for managing residuals that remain after source reduction, reuse, and
recycling. After SWAC and stakeholder consideration of potential options, this Plan
recommends the following residuals management strategy:
• Conduct a series of activities necessary to confirm the feasibility and cost - effectiveness of
undertaking development of a new landfill within the quarry adjacent to the SHSL site.
• Update the feasibility of trucking waste to the WHSL site including further analysis of
the Reload Facility and associated hauling operations, haul routes, traffic issues, and
equipment acquisition plans.
• If construction of a new landfill within the quarry adjacent to the SHSL proves to be
feasible and cost effective, then consider development of the new landfill. If not, truck
waste to the WHSL site through the East Hawaii Regional Sort Station Reload Facility
while the SHSL is still active. If trucking waste to the WHSL is the more feasible option,
the County may begin that activity while the SHSL is still active.
• Do not issue an RFP for waste reduction technology during this Plan's 5 -year life cycle.
During each subsequent solid waste management plan review period, evaluate whether
new technology advances or other circumstances have occurred to warrant issuing an
RFP for a conversion technology for part, or all, of the County residuals management
stream.
In addition to activities associated with handling residual wastes, this Plan presents a series
of recommendations geared towards taking the next steps on the path to zero waste
including expanded programs targeted toward reducing the volume of landfill -bound waste
and improving existing infrastructure. It also recommends reconstructing and upgrading
one or more County recycling and transfer stations each year.
This IRSWMP update outlines a series of recommendations for action during the County's
next 5 -year implementation period. Some of these programs will be controversial because
they require changes to ingrained behaviors and increase costs in the short term. However,
the status quo is not sustainable for the long term because of a series of challenges related to
the County's existing system, demands from the public for increased services, and aging
infrastructure. Should the County elect to maintain the status quo and not proceed with the
Plan recommendations, some consequences of inaction could include the following:
As evidenced by the recent failure of a retaining wall at the Pahoa Recycling and
Transfer Station, the County's recycling and transfer stations would continue to
deteriorate resulting in reduced service and potential public safety concerns.
• No further progress would be made in providing additional waste reduction, recycling,
or reuse services that are desired by many County residents.
ES -4 December 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• No significant progress would be made in further reducing waste sent to landfills, thus
resulting in a missed opportunity to maximize available landfill airspace, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the toxicity of waste materials sent to County
landfills.
The County's landfills would fill up faster, including the existing SHSL that, based on
current waste generation and airspace consumption calculations, has an estimated
five (5) to eight (8) years of remaining capacity.
Further, this Plans proposed strategy of aggressively pursuing zero waste with continued
local landfilling of the residuals is likely to be less expensive than investing in new
conversion technologies.
r, • • ` I q . •
Expanding the availability and increasing the convenience of reuse and recycling
opportunities available to both residents and businesses
Implementing a Pay -As- You -Throw (PAYT) system for delivery of
waste materials at County recycling and transfer stations as
currently practiced in more than 7,000 communities in the United
States, and /or other revenue sources such as user fees, increased
property taxes for solid waste management, or landfill tipping fee
increases
• Implementing programs that firmly establish the path to zero waste within the County
• Implementing a variety of on -site composting programs, supplemented by a certified
master composter program
• Improving and expanding the scope of educational programs within the County to
increase public awareness of waste reduction and sustainable waste management
practices
• Implementing programs within County departments to improve waste reduction
practices
Making improvements to existing infrastructure to accommodate new waste reduction
programs including.
• Reconstructing one or more recycling and transfer stations each year
December 2009 ES -5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Restructuring operations of existing recycling and transfer stations and landfills
including adding full -time transfer station attendants, reducing transfer station
operating days and hours, and potentially closing selected transfer stations
• Completing improvements to all recycling and transfer stations to accommodate
mandatory recycling/ source separation and a PAYT system
• Completing upgrades to selected recycling and transfer stations to create additional
reuse centers
• Siting, designing and constructing a MRF at the WHSL, and re- configuring the East
Hawai'i Regional Sort Station Reload Facility to convert it to a MRF while the SHSL is
active
• Acquisition of green waste composting operations at the WHSL or other sites
• Processing green waste at select recycling and transfer stations with a mobile tub
grinder; material would be ground on -site and made available to residents as mulch
Conducting More In -Depth Evaluations of Two Options to Address the Need for Long -Term
Capacity for Residuals Needing Disposal:
The SHSL is estimated to have between five (5) and eight (8) years of remaining capacity,
and the County should act quickly to identify replacement treatment or disposal capacity.
After analysis of many treatment and disposal options, this IRSWMP update recommends
further evaluation of the following two options for providing long -term residuals
management for East Hawaii:
1. Re- configuring the Reload Facility at the SHSL, and trucking waste to West Hawai'i
2. Developing a new lined landfill in the existing quarry site adjacent to the current SHSL
that would provide an estimated fifty (50) or more years of additional disposal capacity
The result of preliminary cost estimates prepared for this IRSWMP update are as follows,
and a more detailed discussion of each option is provided in Section 9:
Per -ton Cost (2009$)
Landfill Options Low High
Transfer waste from East Hawai'i to the WHSL $82
Expand SHSL into quarries $69 $73
While the preliminary analysis conducted to date indicates that the landfill expansion
appears to be the less costly option, there are many risks associated with a new landfill that
would not be present with the trucking option. Thus, further studies should be conducted to
determine the feasibility, costs, risks, timelines, and social and environmental impacts
associated with these options. For example, assessing the feasibility of the expanded landfill
option will require consultation with HDOH, and preliminary engineering, environmental
review, land use, and permitting activities. Updating the feasibility of the trucking option
should including further analysis of the Reload Facility and associated hauling operations,
haul routes, traffic issues, and equipment acquisition plans.
ES -6 December 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After these studies are complete, the County will be able to decide whether trucking waste
from the Reload Facility to the WHSL or construction and operation of a new landfill within
the quarry site adjacent to the SHSL is the preferred solution for managing the County's
waste stream.
In addition to these two primary options, during each subsequent solid waste management
plan review period, the County should continue to evaluate whether or not to issue an RFP
for a conversion technology for part, or all, of the County's residuals management stream.
This Plan outlines the future direction for County programs during a 5 -year implementation
period. It is expected that other opportunities will no doubt arise that the County may find
advantageous to pursue. One such opportunity currently in the preliminary planning stages
is partnering with other counties to implement collaborative programs that may result in
improved efficiency and benefits not available through each county's current waste
management systems. Other Big Island projects may develop that would provide
opportunities to process organic materials and convert them into soil products that could be
used to support land development (including commercial projects and County projects such
as regional parks), especially in West Hawaii. It is important that the County continue to
consider future long -term options that may have synergy with other County needs and
opportunities.
This section provides a draft implementation plan for the County of Hawaii IRSWMP
update. During preparation of this Plan, the County has become immersed in a fiscal crisis
resulting from the current worldwide economic recession. The County general fund has
shrunk considerably affecting all County services, including solid waste management. In
this environment, the funding and implementation of both existing services and the new
initiatives outlined in this Plan are in question. Thus, the implementation plan that follows
will be modified as the County works its way through this fiscal crisis. The DEM will make
every effort to implement programs as shown below, but fiscal realities are likely to slow
and alter the implementation plan outlined in this document. Further, the County may elect
to use any and all funding methods that become available, rather than relying on a PAYT
system.
The implementation plan includes a series of recommendations by Plan topic, and includes
estimated expenditures for each recommendation during each year of the 5 -year planning
cycle. Implementation plan recommendations are grouped by funding mechanism into
two categories: 1) those that would be implemented and funded through the County's solid
waste fund (operations), and 2) those that would be implemented and funded through the
County's capital improvement program (CIP). The draft implementation plan for operations
is shown in Exhibit ES -1; the draft CIP is shown in Exhibit ES -2. The expenses are organized
by Plan section, with a page number reference to indicate where the recommendation is
discussed in the Plan. Programs that SWAC felt were of a high priority for implementing
December 2009 ES -7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
early in the 5 -year planning cycle are denoted with an "H" in the High Priority column of
the exhibits.
A summary of solid waste fund revenues and expenses is shown in Exhibit ES -3. This
information relies on cost projections for ongoing programs made by the County Solid
Waste Division through FY 09 -10, with the addition of the new programs recommended in
this Plan. The net revenues shown are estimated revenues minus estimated expenses. Based
on these estimates, the County will require additional funding beyond revenues projected
from the PAYT system. The Plan recommends making up the shortfall using a combination
of property tax and /or tipping fee increases. For reference purposes, if no property tax
funds were used, a tipping fee increase of approximately $25 per ton (to about $110 per ton)
would result in projected revenues equaling expenses throughout the 5 -year
implementation period. The exact mix of property taxes and tipping fee increases would be
determined during the course of Plan implementation.
Since the last ISWMP update in 2002, the County of Hawai'i has made significant progress
towards updating and improving its waste management practices. With the adoption of the
zero waste philosophy and the cooperation of the various stakeholders within the County to
implement the recommendations of this IRSWMP, the County is positioned to become a
leading example of innovative waste management practices in the State. It should be noted
that the County has adopted a resolution that encourages all Hawai'i counties to form a
partnership and pursue collaborative solid waste solutions. Thus, this Plan also
recommends maintaining flexibility to examine opportunities for cooperating with other
counties to increase economies of scale and improve overall waste management practices for
all State residents.
ES -8 December 2009
EXHIBIT ES -1
Implementation Plan for
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page High Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Program No. Priority FY 09 -10 FY 10 -11 FY 11 -12 FY 12 -13 FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15
Source Reduction
Ordinance: waste reduction plans for building permits
3 -17
H $0
$0
$11,000
$0
$0
$0
Develop Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy
3 -17
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,000
$0
EPR for difficult -to- recycle campaign
3 -17
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,000
County government source reduction program
3 -17
H $0
$0
$32,000
$0
$0
$0
Business waste audit and education program
3 -18
$0
$0
$0
$33,000
$34,000
$35,000
Visitor industry education and promotion
3 -18
$0
$0
$0
$33,000
$0
$0
Pay -As- You -Throw at Recycling /Transfer Stations
3 -17
H
$54,000
$55,000
$57,000
$58,000
Implement communitywide social marketing plan
Program design
H
$51,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Education and outreach campaign
$103,000
$105,000
$108,000
$110,000
$55,000
$55,000
Outreach to retail businesses
Establish differential tip fee ordinance
$53,000
$53,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Purchase and deliver bags /tags
$0
$0
$784,000
$1,567,000
$1,607,000
$1,647,000
$1,688,000
Pilot program (free bags /tags, implement and evaluate)
$0
$0
$53,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Staff training
$0
$53,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Implementation, monitoring and evaluation
$0
$0
$220,000
$100,000
$50,000
$50,000
Reuse
Expand reuse facilities - more services; more facilities
3 -18
H
$0
$0
$94,000
$193,000
$198,000
$203,000
Reuse education, outreach, and public awareness
3 -18
H
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$0
$0
Public- private partnership with organizations (e.g., Goodwill)
3 -18
$0
$0
$0
$28,000
$0
$0
Education, Outreach, and Public Awareness
3 -year education and social marketing plan
5 -11
H
$0
$79,000
$0
$0
$85,000
$0
Zero waste education and public awareness coordinator
5 -11
$0
$0
$54,000
$55,000
$57,000
$58,000
Implement communitywide social marketing plan
5 -11
H
$0
$0
$0
$83,000
$85,000
$87,000
Recycling
Establish differential tip fee ordinance
4 -32
H
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$0
$0
Establish mandatory source separation and recycling ordinance
4 -32
H
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$0
$0
December 2009
ES -9
CO
LU
H
U
LU
w
U) O
W C
F-
LU
ua
O r
m
} }
LL
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N —
L �
R �
} }
LL
r r
O
} }
LL
O �
L �
LL
_a
�L
C
�L
CL
d .
R O
aZ
E
L
0
CL
O
O
o
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O o
ER
EFT
EFT
p
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
EFT
EFT
�
N
N
N
N
'IT
V
0
N
E
m
ER
O
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
(
O
O�
N
(O
-
N
-
V
�
N
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
(`")
V-)
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
OO
1
OO
O
OO
O
LO
N�
LO
N
N
�
N
Ef)
EFT
EFT
EFT
N
ER
EFT
�
N
�
ER
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
N
ER
ER
ER
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
O
m
I-
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
N
N
N
N
(h
(h
N
(h
(h
(h
(h
V
V
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
�
a)
T
m
U
U
T
m
O
O
i
N
—
Q
Ul
O)
O)
(U
O
O
O)
N
Q
Ul
-p
m
2
N
Q
'6
X
>
C
U
O
O
O)
O)
m
E
O
C
>
O
O
S
'U)
U)
O
>
O
U
c
C
N
OQ )
0
c
O
U
—
7
Q
O
N
U)
m
O
O
0
Q
U
mOU
Q
m
U
O
O)
O
Ul
O)
w
O)
C
=
W
7
N
W
O)
Q
N
O
—
w
0
n
O
H
p
>U +
6
'N
m 2m
(U
LL
a
Om )
-0
�
LO
O
-0
_0
o
a)
m
m
a)
a)
c
O
o-
N
rn
o
o
N
O)
C
O
C
C
O
C
+
0
fUA
>+
m
N
Q
C
m
U
O
O
T
U
(U
T
7
(U
C
7
m
m
m
m
m
Q
O
Q
E
OU )
O
O
U
i
E
O
t
l
>
c
c
O+ )
O_
O
U
U
O
C
O
O
U
C
O
(U
(U
C
C
m
O
>
(
C
C
t
t
U
7
m
i
N
0
N
N
Ul
(u
E
U
O
N
U
Mn
_
C
N
N
o
U
m
m
O
U
E
U
W
W
O) ^
O)
U
O)
U
3
d
m
O
U
m
(6
U
N
(6
O
2)
W
W
W
Q
0
U
U
>
W
m
2
O °
O
LU
}
Q
CO
LU
0
U
w
X
w
W f
F-
m
� f
W
'a r
R
} }
LL
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N
L �
LL
LL
r r
O
} }
LL
O �
L �
LL
_a
�L
O
�L
CL
d
R O .
CL
E
L
0
CL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
�
O
O
O
(6 (
O
co
N
N
v
0)
O
m
v
v
O
v
r-
v
i
O
O
V3
UO
m
m
V3
V3
V3
(6
N
w
V3
V3
t f
O
0
V3
0
o
N
E C
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CL
O
sZ S
O
O
O
O
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
O C
n
N
(6
O C
OA
In
C
f
U)
m
m
a)
N
(0
N
N
W
V
613
m
m
V3
V3
V3
C
V3
N
m
w
Ll
E
C
_
Fu
SZ
O i
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r-
r-
O
r-
O
O
N
N
N
0
V3
N
N
V3
V3
V3
N
V3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
C!-)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
m
o
(o
O
0)
f
Q�l
0
f
6c"
f
6c"
f�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6c3
O
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
6c3
N
6c
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
C!-)
x
x
x
i —
x
x
n
y C
C
�
(U
(6 (
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
O f
(6 f
C
.-6 G
C
O f
O
U
U
�C +_
0 C
O f
C 0
C Z
C G
i Ll 0
i C
O C
i -
i (6 f
O
C
D c f
(t6 C
I � C
j C C
I O
E r
i (U
6 f
� C
to w
I O
CL
{ E f
O
U �
I N
t
I S] 4
i (6
I � �
S2 f
(U (
i O S
{ � S
IL
' U y
{ (U G
I � f
I S2
0) C
{ � G
O
D S2 C
E i
U C
I � µ
I �
(6
O r
! 0 S
D O
CL
' U 0
I 7 Z
i
C
O f
I f
U _
V) C!-)
� �
5
O U 61)
O 'O
(M) 6 to
U
(6
O
C (U
O n O O
C!-) U O C!-)
Z
0
SZ
�
O
O
(h
V3
� �
x x
O O N O
ao ao ao ao
w
N �
C i
L
H Z
C
� f
C
O f
O
U
E
0
I �
I 3
0
i O
I �
.O
Q
O
In
N N
U !'
i � m
'6 C
� U
i
(6 ()
O U
C w
w (U
i N N
L a) O
D E N
C
SZ
LL 0
O O 61) V3
O O
00 0)
V3 V3
O O � �
O O
U) N
V3 V3
O O O O
O O O O
6c3 6c3 6c3 6c3
� � � �
� � � �
� � � �
I N -
f
I � C
(U
i N Z
f
� O C
I U
C
7 U
I O' S
I '6 -
I �
t
U C
(6 (
N i
to
• � S
I O O
U - �
i Q p S
U) -
I
i n 0
1 (6 (U (
(U C
I L1J � C
G�
� 2 S
! x x u
f �
I �
{ SZ
I (6
U)
C
{ t
D T
I �
t C
i O
N
! SCZ
C
m
U
S2
I �
i N
I �
Q
O
>
t �
i o
Cn
w
rn
0
0
N
a
0
f
i —
n
y C
C
�
(U
(6 (
N
0
i
O
O
UO
wE
C
(6
w
0
t f
O
0
0
o
N
E C
N
(U
6
(6
—
3
0 r
O
O
O
CL
O
sZ S
O
U
C
O
(6
E
O C
n
N
(6
O C
OA
In
C
U)
N
O
a)
O
O
O -
C
.c
SZ
C
=
c
6
C
m
w
Ll
E
C
Fu
SZ
O i
i C
O C
i -
i (6 f
O
C
D c f
(t6 C
I � C
j C C
I O
E r
i (U
6 f
� C
to w
I O
CL
{ E f
O
U �
I N
t
I S] 4
i (6
I � �
S2 f
(U (
i O S
{ � S
IL
' U y
{ (U G
I � f
I S2
0) C
{ � G
O
D S2 C
E i
U C
I � µ
I �
(6
O r
! 0 S
D O
CL
' U 0
I 7 Z
i
C
O f
I f
U _
V) C!-)
� �
5
O U 61)
O 'O
(M) 6 to
U
(6
O
C (U
O n O O
C!-) U O C!-)
Z
0
SZ
�
O
O
(h
V3
� �
x x
O O N O
ao ao ao ao
w
N �
C i
L
H Z
C
� f
C
O f
O
U
E
0
I �
I 3
0
i O
I �
.O
Q
O
In
N N
U !'
i � m
'6 C
� U
i
(6 ()
O U
C w
w (U
i N N
L a) O
D E N
C
SZ
LL 0
O O 61) V3
O O
00 0)
V3 V3
O O � �
O O
U) N
V3 V3
O O O O
O O O O
6c3 6c3 6c3 6c3
� � � �
� � � �
� � � �
I N -
f
I � C
(U
i N Z
f
� O C
I U
C
7 U
I O' S
I '6 -
I �
t
U C
(6 (
N i
to
• � S
I O O
U - �
i Q p S
U) -
I
i n 0
1 (6 (U (
(U C
I L1J � C
G�
� 2 S
! x x u
f �
I �
{ SZ
I (6
U)
C
{ t
D T
I �
t C
i O
N
! SCZ
C
m
U
S2
I �
i N
I �
Q
O
>
t �
i o
Cn
w
rn
0
0
N
a
0
CO
w
0
U
LU
w
c
W C
H
m U
� f
W
La
La r
m
} }
LL
a
� M
} }
LL
M �
� N
} }
LL
N
L �
} }
LL
r r
O
LL
O
O �
L �
} }
LL
_a
�L
C
�L
CL
d
R
O
aZ
E
L
Z�
O
CL
O O
61) O
O
fc"
O O
V3 O
O
(h
N
V
6c"
O O
O O
O O
() N
V-T �
V3 O_
Uf)
N
V3
O O
V3 V3
O O
61) 6c"
O O O O
61) fc" fc" fc"
O O O O
V) 6c" 6c" 6c"
O O O O
61) O V3 V3
O
N
m
V-)
V3 V3 O O
O O
V3 V3
O O O O
O V3 V3 V3
N
(h
V3
O O O O
s=
m
U)
U
7
O
Q S
N
7 f
O
(U Z
N Z
(U
t �
O
Y
U �
(6
Y (
(6 f
O
to f
C
O
U
(6 -
N �
to 7
0) 7
a) °� i
� f
N .O
`o m
CL U Z
W Q <
to
E
(6
O
O
0)
O
N
N
N
N
O
O
ch
ch
ch
ch
N
(O
(O
to
�
U
(1
C
s=
m
U)
U
7
O
Q S
N
7 f
O
(U Z
N Z
(U
t �
O
Y
U �
(6
Y (
(6 f
O
to f
C
O
U
(6 -
N �
to 7
0) 7
a) °� i
� f
N .O
`o m
CL U Z
W Q <
O O
O 61)
O
LO
Uf)
fc"
O O <
O 61) <
O <
fNU) i
Ff) �
c
E
O O U) <
U
O O <
V O -O
N (U C
6c" 6 <
6c" 6
O E
O
C
O O N <
V3 O E <
(: = <
00 1
O (U 1
V3 U)
E
61) V3 I<
O
V-)
to
E
(6
0)
O
O
S2
O
O
U
N
to
�
U
C
_
E
N
C
N
E
7
O
n
3
O
C
0
O
M
Un
_
J
C
a
C
O
C
O
c
R
C
O'
t
i
E
o
Un
O
_
d
R
p)
U
O
>
O
(n
O
C
-O
N
C
C
C
N
E
O
W
n
LL
N
N
N
O O
O 61)
O
LO
Uf)
fc"
O O <
O 61) <
O <
fNU) i
Ff) �
c
E
O O U) <
U
O O <
V O -O
N (U C
6c" 6 <
6c" 6
O E
O
C
O O N <
V3 O E <
(: = <
00 1
O (U 1
V3 U)
E
61) V3 I<
O
V-)
(6
C
(6
N
i
N
S2
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
Q
N
O
Z
r
V
N
N
0
(n
w
E
(6
0)
O
S2
O
U
N
7
�
N
�
U
3
C
E
N
C
N
E
LL
O
O
CL
O
C
U
a
C
O
N
O
c
R
C
O'
t
i
N
O N
o
E
m
o)
(6
2
in
W-
U U
C
N
E
Q
(6
C
(6
N
i
N
S2
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
Q
N
O
Z
r
V
N
N
0
(n
w
}
Q
LU
H
U
w
X
w
N =
W C
H a
m 4
2 c
w
O
m
m
0
a)
C:
N
N
N
a)
E
N
Q
0
Z
M
W
rn
0
0
N
E
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
l!7
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
La
O
O
O
La
m r
O
C
O
}
0
co
LL
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
va
e»
o
6c"
e»
e»
e»
e»
o
6c"
e»
e»
e»
e»
CD
L iy
O
O
O
N
n
} }
LL
�
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
O
EFT
O
EFT
EFT
EFT
O
m N
O
O
O)
LO
a
(D
}
LOj
00
6c"
La
LL
EFT
EFT
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
EFT
O
O
O
EFT
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
EFT
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
La
N
00
0
0
0
00
N
L O
O
O
co
L
V
O
O
O
O
EFT
00
O
1l,
69
O
r
} }
69
69
69
E FT
LL
69
61�)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
63
63
63
63
63
63
O
O
V3
63
O
O
O
O
V3
O
O
O
V)
m
00
O
LO
I-
O
N
n
L O'
N
N
69
n
EFT
EFT
ER
ER
E9
}LL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
O
O
O
EF
EF
EF
G
CD
O
N
M
O
EFT
EFT
N
LL
_a
L
O
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
L
a
O
N
N
O
O
Z
v
v
6
w
cN,)
w
cN,)
w
a
ao
ao
ao
rn
.N
.X
O
a)
�
D i
C
U
'N
W
O
U)
_
a)
m
0
O
C:
7
N
m
U)
O
U)
C
a)
N
L
Ul
U
C:
—
�
a)
Ul
-
m
U
>N
m
>+
m
LU
>
a)
-
o
a)
a)
U
tl)
�O
U
a)
U)
R
o
o
g
>
U)
a)
C:
of
>
a)
m
>
m
m
-Fu
a)
J
C
Q
t5
a)
' V
a)
C:
m
CL
2
m
w
U
O
w
.m
O_
ul
m
CL
m
m
7
.m
_
N
o >,
o -=
a)
o
o
o
°
E
'U
CL
E
Y
m
m
c0
m
s
N
3
U
(�
(.i
w
2-
C
i
Cp
a)
R
W
a)
C
p)
0
m
a
m o
s
m
R
n
Y
E
o
>
Ul
o
=
(.i
C
N m
W
N
O
o
s
O-
N
(7
(7
0
W
J
Y
Ci
O
7
R
m
-O
-O
>
2 2
2
d
co/)
H
O
m
m
0
a)
C:
N
N
N
a)
E
N
Q
0
Z
M
W
rn
0
0
N
E
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXHIBIT ES -3
Implementation Plan - County Operating Revenues and Expenses
Actual
FY 07 -08 FY 08 -09 FY 09 -10 FY 10 -11 FY 11 -12 FY 12 -13 FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15
Solid Waste (Operating) Fund
Revenues
Federal Grants
$27,260
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
State Grants
Glass Recycling Program
$0
$155,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
$55,000
Used Oil Collection /Disposal
$0
$67,500
$59,390
$59,390
$59,390
$59,390
$59,390
$59,390
Beverage Container Deposit Program
$423,934
$940,809
$996,108
$996,108
$996,108
$996,108
$996,108
$996,108
Landfill Tipping Fees and Permit Fees
$9,213,574
$7,564,000
$7,456,000
$8,281,000
$8,444,000
$8,314,000
$8,247,000
$8,170,000
Pay -as- You -Throw at Transfer Stations
$0
$0
$0
$3,757,000
$10,720,000
$10,555,000
$10,470,000
$10,372,000
General Fund
General Fund Balance From Previous Year
$0
$3,046,293
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Transfer from General Fund
$17,352,726
$19,147,721
$16,083,604
$16,154,401
$16,938,697
$19,938,697
$21,938,697
$21,938,697
Miscellaneous Revenue
$3,482
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Additional Tip Fee or Property Taxes
($1,234,654)
$1,356,677
$2,709,898
$62,101
$174,805
$1,726,805
$1,379,805
$4,713,805
Total Solid Waste Fund
$25,786,323
$32,278,000
$27,360,000
$29,365,000
$37,388,000
$41,645,000
$43,146,000
$46,305,000
Expenses
Administration
$1,226,555
$956,000
$968,000
$1,024,000
$1,179,000
$1,207,000
$1,125,000
$1,153,000
Reduction, Reuse, Recycling
$4,297,674
$7,488,000
$5,382,000
$6,624,000
$11,773,000
$15,489,000
$16,619,000
$19,115,000
Recycling and Transfer Stations
$8,797,808
$10,249,000
$7,126,000
$7,485,000
$9,588,000
$9,861,000
$10,074,000
$10,326,000
South Hilo Sanitary Landfill
$3,556,342
$4,738,000
$4,667,000
$4,784,000
$5,034,000
$5,027,000
$5,153,000
$5,282,000
West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill
$7,657,945
$8,377,000
$8,712,000
$8,930,000
$9,283,000
$9,382,000
$9,617,000
$9,857,000
Closed Landfills
$250,000
$470,000
$505,000
$518,000
$531,000
$679,000
$558,000
$572,000
Total Operating Expenses
$25,786,323
$32,278,000
$27,360,000
$29,365,000
$37,388,000
$41,645,000
$43,146,000
$46,305,000
Net Operating Revenues
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Based on Solid Waste Division forecasts for ongoing programs through FY 09 -10, and Plan implementation. Assumes 2.5 percent annual inflation.
ES -14 December 2009