HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/2012 Special Council Meeting - Workshop COUNCIL WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
The Workshop of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to order by
the Council Chair at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Room 201, Lihu`e,
Kaua`i, on Monday, September 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m., after which the following
members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Tim Bynum
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Jay Furfaro
Excused: Honorable Dickie Chang
A Council workshop has been scheduled with the Department of Public
Works — Solid Waste Division and their Consultant to discuss the concept of"Pay as
You Throw," and to present a strategy for planning and implementing a "Pay as You
Throw" program on Kaua`i.
The workshop proceeded as follows:
Chair Furfaro: Aloha, good afternoon. I would like to begin. This
is a Council Workshop that is the full-Council level. It is for an update on a Federal
Grant, of which the County of Kaua`i did receive. We have an opportunity, Allison,
if I could ask you to come up. Maybe you could introduce Lisa Skumatz to us, who
has helped us apply for this grant and then we will begin after your introductions.
ALLISON FRALEY, Solid Waste Program Development Coordinator: Aloha,
Council, I am the Solid Waste Program Coordinator, Allison Fraley. We have been
working with E-conservation Institute. They are the presenter here for this
workshop on a plan for a "Pay As You Throw" system for the County of Kaua`i, the
E-conservation institute are the recipient of that E.P.A. Grant. The County was
fortunate to be one of the communities where they are doing this work to do some
planning. Without further ado, I would like to introduce Lisa Skumatz.
Chair Furfaro: Allison, if you would like to stay, we have an extra
mic. Lisa, aloha, and welcome to Kauai and Kauai County Council.
LISA SKUMATZ, Economist: Aloha and thank you very much for the
invitation to be here. I am very pleased to be here on behalf of Region 9, E.P.A.
Region 9 and this grant. Is the microphone working properly?
Chair Furfaro: It should be on. You have to start by introducing
yourself.
Ms. Skumatz: Excellent.
Chair Furfaro: As long as it is as blue as the ocean is, it is fine.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 2 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Skumatz: Not as blue as your ocean, but yes. Thank you. I
assume you have slides in front of you and I meant to introduce myself. I am an
Economist and I have been working in the Solid Waste Field and in particular "Pay
As You Throw" or "Recycle and Save Rates" since 1987. I started out working for
the city of Seattle back in the mid `80s and we have been working in that area ever
since then, working with communities across the U.S., including Hawai`i now, as
well as Canada and to some degree in foreign countries as well. Under this grant
we have done a lot of work both for individual communities, and Counties. We also
held a bunch of webinars and some of those webinars have had several hundred
attendees and trying to explain how "Pay As You Throw" works and how it might
work for particular communities, the strengths, weaknesses and so on. I will walk
through the agenda of this work session, and I should mention that I actually wear
a couple of hats. One is as a nonprofit and consultant like this, but I am also on my
town Council and have been there for eight years. That is why I care about whether
or not you can actually hear me. In many Council meetings where someone is back
here like this, I cannot hear them and it is a problem. It is hard to make decisions
on things you cannot hear well. I am going to go through the bases of"Pay As You
Throw," because not everyone is on the same page and it is something that can be
complex. Then after talking about the pros and cons and that sort of thing about
"Pay As You Throw," I will give an overview of the proposed plan for Kaua`i. That
will talk about the design, the implementation plan that we have, and the phasing.
The rates will be the next thing we will talk about, including what we see for full
costs and the potential phasing of the rates that we are talking about as well.
Finally, we expect lots of questions and answers.
The basics of"Pay As You Throw" are really very straightforward. If you put
out less trash, you pay a lower bill and if you put out more trash, you pay a higher
bill. It is a fee for service approach. It does not say you cannot put out more than
two cans or three cans. It says if you want to put out that much more, you are going
to pay more than the person who only puts out one can of trash. It is usually
measured in cans or bags and there are basically measurements of quantity of
volume. The reasons that people look at "Pay As You Throw" are partly equity,
because why should someone who is very careful about what they put out or
someone on a fixed income or something like that has to pay the same as someone
putting out five or six overstuffed cans and it is overflowing and that sort of thing.
The other is an incentive. As an Economist, I can tell you that there is no stronger
incentive to get people to be more careful about what they do with their trash and
not overuse trash as well, than a pocketbook incentive. That is the core of"Pay As
You Throw." It puts it on a basis similar to electricity and water. If you use more
electricity, you have to pay a higher bill and so on and so forth. One of the things
that we have been learning over the past few years is the concept in the words "Pay
As You Throw" tends to be off-putting. We are starting to switch that to things like
"recycle and save," because the word "pay" in the title seems to be something that
makes people uncomfortable and does not do the concept any favors. The concept
name of"Pay As You Throw" came from the city of Austin, Texas, and EPA kind of
adopted it. Their public relations folks came up with the term. I am going to use
the term "Pay As You Throw" mostly in this presentation partly because I have
been calling it that for decades, and it is a little hard for me to switch. But you will
understand the concept, a bigger bill for more service.
What we find when you have "Pay As You Throw," it leads to dramatic effects
in what changes. "Pay As You Throw" results in a doubling of your recycling
0
amounts. It reduces the amount of trash in the trashcans by about 17%, and it
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
significantly reduces greenhouse gas and has higher job creation. When you look at
the numbers for job creation and instead of land-filling and if, instead, you add
more composting or add more recycling, you are having job creation. You are
having job ratios on the order of 10:1 and 4:1 compared to land-filling, so it is a
significant job creator as well. We also find it is cheaper per metric ton of carbon
equivalent for getting greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere. One of the things
that is always a concern for Council, and I would be concerned is, "What about
people's perceptions of"Pay As You Throw"? How do they react to having "Pay As
You Throw"' in place?" What we find is that when surveys have been done and "Pay
As You Throw" is in place in communities, approximately 90% of the households say
they prefer "Pay As You Throw" and would not like to go back to the old system.
That does not mean that they love the idea of changing because changing itself is
hard, but once the system is in place, that equity is associated with the new "Pay As
You Throw" system is a real winner and people appreciate it and understand it and
get it and prefer it.
This next slide talks about the results that you get from "Pay As You Throw"
implementation and the bar graph shows the three impacts that you get from "Pay
As You Throw." One impact is yard waste diversion. So anything you can do to get
more things out of the trashcan saves you money because you can go to a smaller
sized trashcan and pay a smaller bill. If you do backyard composting or put it in a
yard waste container or bring it to the drop-off or something like that, that will save
you money. You also save money by recycling more and the third effect that we
have been able to estimate from "Pay As You Throw" is that there is source
reduction or waste prevention in the first place. It turns out that people tend to buy
things in bulk, buy things with less packaging, do more donations to Goodwill and
buy things that are fixable and repairable as opposed to disposable. Those sorts of
impacts turn out to be almost a third, a third, a third. Out of that 17% we take out
of the trashcan, about a third goes to recycling, a third goes to yard waste, and
about a third to source reduction or waste prevention in the first place. When we
talk to community -- states that are the leaders among the U.S. States, we found
the three top things that they did in terms of trying to get more recycling and we
asked what got more recycling in their communities? Number one was goals and
measuring towards that, putting together funding and putting in programs, and
number three out of those top three was "Pay As You Throw." That was one of the
most important things that they did to move recycling forward in their state.
Is "Pay As You Throw" cost-effective or not? What we find is that it is
because about one-third of the costs -- one-third of the reduction in landfilling comes
at zero cost at all. We are no longer collecting that 6% that is source reduction, that
one-third of the impact that is source reduction. So that is a savings right there.
The "Pay As You Throw" does not need a separate funding system. It is a funding
system. There is no truck down the street. It is not like there is a new program. We
are merely changing the way we bill for service. So it is quite cost-effective in that
respect. One of the other concerns might be, is the program costly run? A couple of
states that had a lot of "Pay As You Throw" communities in them, particularly the
Midwest of the U.S., asked the communities, "Did your costs go up, go down or stay
the same?" What they found was that there was no cost increase in and two-thirds
of the communities who put in the program right away, and that in the long run, all
were expecting to see reduced costs because it would stop the overuse of trash
service. The problem is that if you have an all you-you-can-eat buffet at a fixed bill
for unlimited collection, you will get unlimited collection. If you stop that kind of
unlimited system you have people being perfectly satisfied and able to manage at a
cost that is much reduced and more controlled. I mention there are no new trucks
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 4 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
other than the proposed programs that we have talked about. This is merely a
change in the billing system. As I mentioned, 90% of the households prefer the
system and consider it more equitable than the past. The communities that we
looked at, between 89% and 95% after a few months said that "Pay As You Throw"
is their preferred system after living with it, even Parade Magazine. I do not know
if you get the Sunday insert. I think you do. In the Sunday paper, we got
interviewed a few years back by them and they wanted to know all about "Pay As
You Throw." We described it in long detail and they included probably five
sentences in Parade Magazine at about a fourth-grade reading level, which is about
their norm, and they asked people to read that and write in and do a web survey.
They asked, "What did you think of"Pay As You Throw"? Are you in favor or not in
favor?" Even with a fairly simple description included in Parade, two-thirds of the
household said, "Yes, that sounds like a good concept, even on the immediate face of
it."
There are certainly strengths and weaknesses to the "Pay As You Throw"
program. Everything is not Pollyanna and whatever. I think it has a few especially
advantages. One, unlike some other programs, it does not only encourage recycling,
it encourages backyard composting and buying more carefully and encourages a lot
of different ways of reducing trash. It is not all about recycling. It is about the
biggest question of waste management and composting. It is a reminder every time
you put out that smaller bin or larger bin so that you can be saving money by
putting out a smaller bin like maybe your neighbor has. It preserves choice. It does
not say you cannot do this or you must do that. It just says you will pay more for
using more service. It runs it like a utility, and that is more equitable service and
does not need separate funding. As I mentioned, it is a funding source. The
disadvantage is that the rates are no longer quite as simple as they used to be. You
no longer say, "What did it cost last year?" It is going to cost 3% more this year and
divide by the number of households and you are done. The rate study is more
complicated, and it matters how much of which service people will use and the rates
depend on what size of service people buy. Are they going to go for a small can or
big can? There are also disadvantages and concerns about things like illegal
dumping. I will talk about that in a second, but there are some disadvantages and
concerns that we will talk about in a moment that are associated with "Pay As You
Throw" or that the fear of them is associated with "Pay As You Throw."
Is "Pay As You Throw" common? It actually is getting quite common. In the
U.S., we find that about 25% of the population has "Pay As You Throw" services
available and we find that in our count in 2006 more than 7,000 communities had
"Pay As You Throw" across the U.S. You can see that they are most common in the
north east, the Midwest, and the west coast where the colors are darkest. It is not
very common in the evergreen south east, not so much green there as in other parts
of the country. Our latest count, which we just completed a couple of months ago
found over 9,000 communities with "Pay As You Throw." So there are lots of
different ways that "Pay As You Throw" can go in place, and one of the things that
is great about the fact there are either 7,000 or 9,000 communities with "Pay As
You Throw" is that it is really flexible and works in all kinds of different situations
and can be adapted to lots of different community types. But what we have
developed here and what we are proposing is the best management practices for a
very successful "Pay As You Throw."
How do you work with a "Pay As You Throw" that is really ideal? First of all,
I should let you know that "Pay As You Throw" works really well with drop-off
recycling. Whether it is drop off or curbside, people are encouraged to take stuff out
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
of the trash can and put it into the recycling bin, whether it is by their curb or drop-
off is what is available, increases drop off recycling significantly as well, so a big
impact on all kinds of recycling. What we recommend also is if you can get recycling
and green waste programs, those costs should be embedded in the base fee of the
trash. You do not want to charge separately for that recycling program or charge
separately for that green waste program. We find that if you charge separately
maybe 5 or 10% of the household sign up for it and nothing like the kind of
participation we would like to see under this kind of program. It underutilizes your
recycling and green waste program and does not capture the full effect of the "Pay
As You Throw" program. So really embedding it is the best. It is not to say that
you are not charging but you are not charging separately. It is embedded in the
trash fee, everybody is getting it, everyone is paying for it, which makes it a more
cost-effective recycling and yard waste program as well.
The next step is what do you do as an incentive? Well, what we recommend
is to get a really good incentive for the maximum number of households, you need to
have an option that it is small container for households. If they do not have a real
small container as an option, why make much effort to reduce what is in there. We
recommended a 32-gallon can as an important part of the program, and then you
can have multiples of 32-gallon cans as your options. You could be a 32- to 64-
gallon, 96-gallon customer or I sometimes call it a one can, two can, and three can
customers, but under a fully automated system we are usually talking about one
container that is two times as big. That is one important thing. They need to have
an option that is small. They also need to have that small option that is
considerably cheaper than the option that is large. You need a price incentive that
is noticeable. A price incentive that is a dollar or two different for a large can
versus a small can does not change people's behavior very much. That is an
accounting for not much impact. What we are looking at here is when we did the
statistical study to try to say how much do you need to charge extra for double that
size from 32 to 64 to get people to recycle a lot of recyclables and to pull a lot out of
the trashcans. We looked at data from hundreds of communities around the U.S.
with "Pay As You Throw" programs in place and analyzed it and found that if you
charged 80% more for twice as much service, that got the same amount of recycling
as if you doubled the price or even made it more than double the price so you do not
have to charge a can. A can -- or two cans is twice as much as one can. You can
back off that a little bit, which is a good thing because we all know that the vast
majority of cost of providing trash service is getting the truck to the door, regardless
of a little or a lot is picked up. The fact that you can back off that sort of doubling or
that sort of thing and you can still have it be a very effective incentive is really
important. So those are the kind of goal numbers we look for on the order of 80% or
something in that range. We also like to analyze the data and make sure
(inaudible) will happen, and when you have haulers that are helping provide the
service, we always make sure that the ordinances, and so on, allow you to inspect
books, but that is not an issue here because you are the books. Several states, just
for your information, that mandates "Pay As You Throw," several counties that
have "Pay As You Throw" or required for communities. "Pay As You Throw" is
doable at a lot of different levels and very doable in this situation.
We talked about some negatives before, and one of the questions that we
often get is the question about "Isn't this `Pay As You Throw' system unfair to large
families or isn't it unfair to poor families?" I think the important thing to switch
the argument around: hasn't this other system been unfair to those small families
or those strong recyclers all these years, or for those strong recyclers all those years
or those households that are in fixed income. My grandmother has been recycling
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 6 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
since World War II on a fixed income. Hasn't it been unfair for her to basically be
subsidizing that large household down the street who puts out five cans? I think
g g p
the argument
needs to be switched around and realized that now we have a case
where your behavior affects the bill. I can recycle more and I can get a lower bill. I
can have control over something that I did not have before. So that is sort of the
question for me.
Now, if there is an issue with poor families and there sometimes is in
communities where there is also, for instance, lifeline rates for maybe electricity
service or for phone service in some cases where you get a little bit of service at a
discounted rate. You can offer cans at a lower rate for qualified households. You
can hand out bags for households that are lower income. That is not done a lot of
places, but it is done in places where that policy direction has been set by a city. We
can talk about that if that is an issue. Cost and workload I talked about a minute
before where I said most of the cities that have put in the program found their
workload did not increase, nor did their costs increase after putting in "Pay As You
Throw." There will be an increase in customer calls for a few weeks as around
implementation. No doubt about it. In some cases they have been able to handle
that with existing staff. In other times, they have put in temporary staff to handle
that influx of calls. The number one thing that will happen is confusion and
resistance to change. It does not matter if you are putting in something for free or
beneficial. Change causes people to get worried, upset, call, et cetera. One is to
keep the faith and realize that after the program is put in place, the majority of
households are going to prefer it. That has been given in every single community
that it has been put in place. The other is keeping things simple and keeping the
rates simple and making sure everyone is talking off the same page. That is the
other way to get it in place successfully.
The number one question I am asked is, "What about illegal dumping? Will
it lead to increases in illegal dumping?" We found that, one, most of the illegally
dumped materials are not typical household residue or trash. In fact, the typical
bags of trash does not happen. That is not the majority. What we do see dumped is
stuff like bulky items. What do you do with sofas? What do you do with
refrigerators? That sort of thing. Under this program we are trying to make sure
we address the bulky item problem. That is that you cannot put in a new trash
system that only serves the average. It has to serve everyone, even on the occasion
when they are remodeling their kitchen or dealing with Christmas presents or
whatever. You need to have an easy way for people to work with the system that is
embedded in the implementation plan. We have also done surveys of over a
thousand communities with "Pay As You Throw" and we asked them how big a
concern with "Pay As You Throw" upfront versus how big it turned out to be a
problem after the fact. We found that for the majority of them, it was a far bigger
fear than it was a reality. We also asked the communities that put in "Pay As You
Throw": "Do you have more illegal dumping now? Is it the same? Or is it less
now?" The vast majority that illegal dumping did not change from what they
experienced before. A few said it was worse and a few more said it was better,
perhaps with attention to the problem.
Now, as Council you are going to hear the negative sides of things and in a
number of parts of the Country, there are some people who are definitely not in
favor of green-type stuff. They will raise these issues with you and you need to be
ready to answer these kinds of questions. One is, "Is it too costly? I do not believe
this kind of program works at all regardless of the fact that 7,100 communities
would argue differently. I think the current system works fine. What will large
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 7 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
families? What about poor families? Or this is a scam and recycling goes to the
landfill or to China, so I do not know why you are even considering this." These are
the kind of things that Council will always hear, and these are the kinds of things
you have to be prepared to answer and we have naysayer materials on our website
that Allison has and can provide you at the point that you need them.
Now we are talking about the plan for Kaua`i and we are talking about the
proposed implementation phasing approach that we are recommending. So
Phase 1, we are talking about introducing 64-gallon cans in addition to the 96-
gallon cans you are phasing in with the automation. Phase 2 changes that a bit
because at that point in years 3 and 4 you end up with a M.R.F., a materials
recycling facility that is implemented to put in curbside recycling and curbside yard
waste. We are talking about every other week collection for those systems and at
that point because we now have new ways for people to divert the materials, people
can reduce their trash even below that 64-gallon option. Phase 2 has the M.R.F.
and the recycling center and the yard waste option and now people can go below
that 64-gallons because they have a perfectly legitimate two sets of program to
move it to their convenient curbside and that sort of thing. So we will add, at that
point, a 32-gallon container for the trash. And we think a lot of people will be able
to sign up for that without difficulty. Phase 3, two to three years later, moves
towards more self-sufficiency and implements the programs with even more
precedence. We believe people will be over time more comfortable with the
programs and reducing their trash levels even more. The implementation plan that
we put together addresses things like staffing and ordinances that may need to be
passed, some outreach, and getting public acceptance. We talked about how we
move in the green waste and the recycling plans and the material recovery facility.
We also address things like container switches, delivery, and billing.
For that last one, it is probably the most complicated of the systems. Most of
the others are pretty straight forward. But what we are talking about, in this
particular case, is when people sign up for a can, we have to figure out what we are
going to deliver them in a 96-gallon can, a 64-gallon can, or ultimately, how many
are going to want this 32-gallon can? How do we get the information in? How do
we deliver and collect those containers and so on? That is something that is very
important and we need to have the option for people to change their size. Their
children -- all their children are now gone to college, they can down-size, or they just
had a baby and they need to upsize. How do we address that? What we are
recommending is because the program will be new, for the first three to six months
people get to do an exchange for free. They get to do one exchange for no cost. We
are not putting a barrier in the system for them. It is new, and it is really hard to
predict how big is that 32-gallon and how much can I compress the waste? Will that
deal with my summer waste and that entire sort of stuff.
So for the first 3 to 6 months while the program is fairly new they get to
change the cart once. After that, though, we are recommending that there will be a
fee associated with the change, because otherwise they will be requesting changes
all the time, "Okay, I am going to be out of town for a couple of the weeks and will
switch it down." That will not work for the City or for the County. We will
recommend, instead, a fee for at least changing your cart size up. If you go a larger
cart size and you have a fee on the order of $15.00 to $20.00, that is what a lot of
communities end up charging. The cost of services is somewhere right around there
in most cases, but that maybe you allow them to down-size for free or a small fee,
but probably free. Make sure there is no barrier to reducing and recycling.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 8 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Here is the phasing plan that we are suggesting for 0 to 6 months' time
period. First, it is working with elected officials and what we have here is "Recycle
and Save Kaua`i" recommended as a possible slogan. Allison will be happy to take
suggestions if one of you have a slogan that would be near and dear to your heart.
But it is something that we put out as a possibility other than "Pay As You Throw."
So in Phase 1 we would work with elected officials and the Administration to gather
additional buy-in, then order the trucks to complete the planned automation. Also,
conduct a send-out survey to do some work to get a better estimate of cart size
distribution, which we have come up with some preliminary numbers, but a visual
inspection will help us get that refined more, so we can figure out what percent of
the carts need to be 64 versus 32-gallons. Next, order those carts for the automated
system and begin and incorporate what those send-outs, that percentage of 64
versus 32 might mean for the analysis. We need to establish the "Pay As You
Throw" ordinance as well authorizing that kind of a paying system.
Within the 6- to 12-month timeframe, what we are proposing there is to
revise the billing system, which we will need some reprogramming. Doing the
public education and outreach, which is a really important part of the program
where you talk not only about what is "Pay As You Throw," but why are you doing
it? What does it mean for me? How can I make that system work for me? How do I
change carts? Where would I go for that? What do most people see? We need to get
people to sign up specifically whether they want a 64- or 96-gallon cart so they are
going to need to return a form or fill out a web survey. We are proposing that
because it does not matter how many times you do outreach, there are some people
who somehow never get the message that they were supposed to select a cart size so
we are proposing that a 64-gallon container be issued as a default for people who do
not reply to the mailer requesting another size. We think that most of the people
will get by with 64, and that will mean the least changes after the fact. Then we go
ahead and insert those requested can sizes into the billing system associated with
q g Y
people's names and properties.
In the 12- to 24-month time period, we receive the carts and trucks and we
continue that education and outreach. Because we are talking about the
implementation period there, we address the staffing needs for customer service
and delivery and so on. Then we switch out those containers and fully automated
refuse and begin the "Pay As You Throw" system. It is very important to monitor
and refine and track these programs and make sure any adjustments are needed
after the fact and make sure that the program goes forward successfully. In Phase
2, that is the point at which we are talking about the materials recycling facility
and the green waste changes and that particular case we further adjust the
ordinance and the rates, order the trucks for recycling and green waste, and re-
request information from households about what size of container they think they
need. Will they be sticking with the size they have got now? Or will, as we expect,
the majority of them go down in cart size because now they have two other options
for them to put waste conveniently. Next, we order the carts and adding the 96 for
the recycling of green waste but 32 for refuse. We start Phase 2 customer education
on the recycling and green waste programs. We make the needed refinements and
adjust staffing needs for that implementation. They are going to need to know what
is legal and what is not legal for the recycling program, how to prepare yard waste,
et cetera. The M.R.F. goes into operation and you switch out the carts and deliver
those new diversion carts and again monitor, refine, and track, which is a really
important part of the program.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 9 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Phase 3 is fairly simple. There we are talking about assessing what we have
learned through Phase 2's performance, make modifications and continuing the
education, outreach, and adjust the rates to improve incentives, if necessary, and
move towards self-sufficiency.
There are a number of things that influence our calculations of what the
rates might be under this new "Pay As You Throw" system. Numbers 1 through 3
are all about figuring out the cost of service we are talking about. What dollar
amount do we need to recover from the households? And that is dependent not only
on the cost of service or what we are currently charging for rates, but also for any
net costs that come from "Pay As You Throw," which are not the largest part of this,
but also what net costs from other supporting programs, whose costs you need to
recover through the rate system. The new rate system, whether it is "Pay As You
Throw" or any new system, but in this particular case, the "Pay As You Throw"
system. What makes it a more complicated rate study is the next step, Number 4,
where you have to figure out what number of people are going to sign up for 32-
versus 64- or 96-gallon cans, or in Phase 1 just the 64- and 96-gallon cans. Because
if you are charging different amounts, you need to figure out what percent are in
which size. As I mentioned before, the rate design options we would like to see the
incentives strongest if they are based on differential on the order of 80%. We have
two options. One is if we charge a base fee or we do not charge a base fee. If we do
charge a base fee, then we are able to recover some of the costs of operating the
system whether that is the drop-off systems and having service available, having
hazardous waste programs available, and having clean Kaua`i available. If we have
a base fee, we know that everyone, including the people who opt out of more
convenient curbside service will be helping contribute towards that larger system.
So do we embed or not embed fees for the programs? We can either have a base fee
or not have a base fee. What we talked about here in Kaua`i is working with the
base fee.
The department analyzed what was annual current cost of service and came
up with this particular matrix. They are refining, but it is close to the final
numbers. We used those numbers to figure out what the current cost of service is
and, again, this was done by the department. What we find is that current cost of
the service is somewhere on the order of$60.00 per household per month. What we
are talking about is not trying to take the community from current rates of$12.00 a
household a month up to $60.00 a month, along with the "Pay As You Throw"
program. There are a number of reasons for not wanting to do that. One is that
that would be a significant rate shock to households. Two, it would blame the "Pay
As You Throw" program and the "Pay As You Throw" program would not be
successful because whether you told them 100 times or not, they would associate
that program with the new increase in prices. What we are talking about, instead,
is phasing the increase and having the rates go up over time but not to that full cost
of service until sometime later. We are talking about the average pay now is
around $11.70 or $12.00 paying for service. Maybe in Phase 1 that goes up to
somewhere around $17.00 or $18.00 and in Phase 2 maybe we jump it up to $22.00
or $23.00 when they will be getting new services including green waste and
recycling. In Phase 3, they settle in and move towards lower cans, we increase that
a little more and recovering more of those costs and they are getting a convenient
service. These are the kind of rates we are talking about with a base fee on the
order of$6.00 for the Phases 1 and 2 and increasing that base fee up to $9.00 when
we hit Phase 3. In order to set the rates that we are proposing in these
differentials, our significant differences that I think will drive people to seriously
consider whether they really need that 96-gallon cart or whether, in fact, they will
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 10 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
be able to reduce and maybe even save money a little and go down to a 32-gallon
can. This is just a picture of that phasing over time. As the average rate goes up
from current fees up to around $22.00, the one that we were talking about possibly
in Phase 3 and that current cost of service and the cost of service under Phase 3 is
a little higher than that yet. You have made it through the presentation and so
now, you get to ask your questions, whether that might be on the rates or financial
issues. Thank you for bearing with me for that walk-through.
Chair Furfaro: First of all, thank you for the presentation. Allison,
may I ask, as we pyramided on these rates in the presentation, the anticipated start
base was?
Ms. Fraley: Do you mean the timeline for the program? Yes, we
said it would start next fiscal year. That is when we would be making the request
for the carts and equipment that are going to get us to the automated—to fully
automate the island. That is when the requests will come in, the budget request.
Chair Furfaro: On the financial portion as we go forward on this
critical schedule, that is what is starting with the $72.00?
Ms. Fraley: What do you mean? I am sorry.
Chair Furfaro: We have a plan that implies a $72.00 charge every
six months?
Ms. Fraley: You mean for the customer to pay? Yes, the
charges would not hit the customer until two years later.
Chair Furfaro: Two years later?
Ms. Fraley: Yes. So Phase 1 price change would happen...Let
us see here...so we start the program and start the planning next fiscal year, but
the customer would not get those charges until June of 2015 or the end of fiscal year
2015.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood
how we were starting in going forward and then piggy-back on those charges. Were
you going to add to the answer? Were you going to add to the answer a little, Lyle?
LYLE TABATA, Deputy County Engineer: Lyle Tabata, Deputy County
Engineer. Just to clarify that the $72.00 is from the total cost of operation. Right?
Ms. Fraley: I think you are starting about the current fee of the
customer at $12.00 per month, right? Is that what you are talking about?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Ms. Fraley: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: Are we on the same page here?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 11 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Chair Furfaro: I see the consultant acknowledges we are on the
same page.
Ms. Fraley: Yes. The "Pay As You Throw" fees would not
change until the end of 2015.
Chair Furfaro: June 2015?
Ms. Fraley: Correct.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo.
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you, and thank you for being here with the
presentation. As I am reading the implementation timeline in Phase 1, 0 to 6
months, you are going to start in July. So six months from then, you anticipate
having the Ordinance. Is that what it is? Which it would take it to the beginning of
2014?
Ms. Fraley: Calendar year 2014.
Mr. Rapozo: Right. That is when you anticipate the new billing
system to be out?
Ms. Fraley: No, that is when the ordinance would be
established. The fees would not hit until a year and a half later.
Mr. Rapozo: A year and a half later from the Ordinance?
Ms. Fraley: Yes. That would give us the time to do the other
tasks that are outlined here like revise the billing system, get that public outreach,
get the equipment in place, and the other tasks.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Then on page 15, this is just a question. I
am not sure if these boxes are in the order or what the plan is, but your ordering of
64 or 96-gallon carts for automation is ahead of rate analysis and cart size
estimates? Would you not want to wait to get the cart size estimates before we
order carts? These carts—it just makes sense.
Ms. Fraley: The step right above that is a send-out survey to
give us an initial estimate on those.
Mr. Rapozo: I am sorry?
Ms. Fraley: The step just above that, conduct survey to
estimate cart size distribution, is where we are getting that. The rate...perhaps
that next one could say "revised rate analysis based on cart size estimates."
Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: On page 23 is "rate phase-in," which looks different
from other phases, right? So if we just focus on 23, you are saying this Phase 1
June 15 would be June of 2015, where actually new-sized carts would be delivered
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 12 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
and bills can stay the same if you use a 64 or go up, if you continue to use a 96. Is
that correct?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: And that happens in June 2015, yes?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: Then in Phase 2, you introduce the smaller carts,
and basically the consumer has a choice to keep their bill the same if they use a
32-gallon, and that happens in what date?
Ms. Fraley: June of 2017.
Mr. Bynum: June of what?
Ms. Fraley: 2017.
Mr. Bynum: Two (2) years later.
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: So in two (2) years, we are going to go with 96 or 64
as the choices? And then Phase 3, which is really just a rate increase?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: And that is anticipated in June 2019?
Ms. Fraley: Yes, or whenever we decide.
Mr. Bynum: So my question is when Phase 1 comes in and there
are two cart choices, will we have curbside recycling implemented? Will we have
green waste implemented?
Ms. Fraley: No. In Phase 1 there are no curbside programs. It
is Phase 2 when the curbside programs are offered.
Mr. Bynum: So both of them?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: So we are going to ask consumers to take into
account the 64 before we provided any diversion for green waste or either? I am
writing these dates down. We anticipate curbside recycling and green waste to
happen at the same time?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: Really? I thought the last time we talked it was
going to be green waste first and then curbside. Was that not presented to us at one
point?
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 13 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Chair Furfaro: You want to come up? John there is another chair
there.
Ms. Fraley: So the timing of the implementation of the green
waste program has been a point of discussion for a long time. There could be a
phase-in of the green waste that may happen at some locations before the Phase 2
of the "Pay As You Throw" program. We may pilot it, test it out beforehand to get
the kinks out, just like we did with the curbside-recycling program. This plan calls
for having the green waste and the recycling offered in Phase 2.
Mr. Bynum: In June 2017?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: And both of them implemented at the same time?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Bynum: I am just asking. When we have discussions here
and plans change, at some point I am sure we all want to get informed of that. I
mean, it just seems a logical question to say can we coincide some of these changes.
At one point I thought someday the County is going to drive up with my green
waste and they are going to change my 96-gallon can to green waste and give me
another for recycling and give me a 32-gallon can for disposal and say your rate
stays the same, but if you need more disposal, you can pay as you throw. That
would be one way to do it. Just trying to get how this coincides because we do still
plan on doing curbside green waste and curbside mixed-use recycling.
Ms. Shumatz: You also asked a question about having a 64-gallon
can available when you do not have yard waste or recycling, and I think you will
find if you look down the streets, the cans are overused now. So if we could
introduce to not buy more 96s than what we need recognizing that people will get to
64s in Phase 1 where there is not a yard waste or recycling programs, I think you
will find a significant number of people will only need a 64. You do not need to have
new programs in some cases for people to be down at a 64.
Mr. Bynum: I think we need people who are okay with the 64s
off and on before we implement those and there are some people like that now.
Ms. Shumatz: Absolutely.
Mr. Bynum: Then there are some people who are having a hard
time getting everything in their 96.
Ms. Shumatz: They are going to be incentivized in the future to do
so.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you for answering those questions.
Chair Furfaro: Vice-Chair Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: I can see if we do not have a plan, things could get
really confusing. It feels good there is this kind of planning that is done. It would
be helpful in the future to have some sort of timeline that says this and this and the
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 14 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
dates, and that would help us. I also wanted to say it was really interesting on page
8 that Hawai`i is one of three States without any "Pay As You Throw." Do you know
whether other Counties in Hawai`i are planning this or are we going to be the first?
Ms. Shumatz: Well, you are neck in neck with Maui. I was in
Maui on Friday.
Ms. Yukimura: You are doing a study with them too?
Ms. Shumatz: Yes I am.
Ms. Yukimura: It is great to hear that maybe sometime we will join
the ranks with States with "Pay As You Throw" soon.
Ms. Shumatz: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: When did Austin, Texas start their "Pay As You
Throw"?
Ms. Shumatz: In the early '90s...the early to mid `90s.
Ms. Yukimura: And they were the first?
Ms. Shumatz: No, the first programs on "Pay As You Throw" were
introduced in the 19-teens. It might have been in Santa Cruz or somewhere around
there in California and Florida, but they really caught on in the '80s and '90s. You
can see that same page where we are looking at on the map how many programs
that they had over time as well. You can see that back in the `80s and early '90s,
there were only like a hundred or so programs. They have now grown to over 7,000
and now 9,000 in 2006 to 2010.
Ms. Yukimura: So there are 9,000 communities that do "Pay As
You Throw" and that is where you are getting some of your data from in terms of
what works?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: So on page 4 you say that "Pay As You Throw"
results in reducing residential trash by 17%. That means 17% wherever you...that
is assuming a base line of no diversion?
Ms. Shumatz: No. That is a very good point. Thank you for
catching that. It means that even for people that already have recycling programs,
it leads to significantly more recycling in those already existing programs. So if you
already had a curbside recycling program and curbside yard waste program, we
would see 17% more come out of the trash bin. In your case, the part due to "Pay As
You Throw" will be 17%, but the fact of introducing a curbside yard waste and
curbside recycling people will lead you to see a significantly greater reduction on
that and this 17% will be contributed to "Pay As You Throw". There will certainly
be significant parts due to having convenient curbside programs available.
Ms. Yukimura: So in the communities where they have both
curbside recycling and "Pay As You Throw," the recycling of residential trash rates
goes up to what kind of percent?
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 15 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Shumatz: It increases 50% to 100% of what they had in the
past. On average let us say that a recycling program, sort of a plain vanilla
program got you maybe 12% diversion. What we would see out of a new curbside
recycling program that added "Pay As You Throw," you would increase that by 50%
to 100%, so the new rate would be somewhere around 18, 19, 20, 21%.
Ms. Yukimura: What does that mean in terms of diversion from our
landfill?
Ms. Shumatz: Total diversion landfill from the combination of a
new curbside recycling program, a new yard waste program, and "Pay As You
Throw," the last step would be 17%. The previous ones, I am hard-pressed to say
how much you get in this community because I suspect you have more yard waste
than most communities. If I could give you orders of magnitudes, let us say that
you get 15...
Ms. Yukimura: It depends. How much residential is as a
percentage of total?
Ms. Shumatz: Usually it is 50% residential and 50% commercial.
Of the residential portion, in very round figures, we might be talking 15% or so
recycling. We might be talking 20% to 25% yard waste and then 17% added on for
"Pay As You Throw."
Ms. Yukimura: So 15 plus what? 17. Plus maybe 15 or 20. So
about 40 to 50%.
Ms. Shumatz: On the residential side.
Ms. Yukimura: Of our residential trash.
Ms. Shumatz: I would not be surprised, yes.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. So that goes to the 50% or 100%.
Ms. Shumatz: I should probably have had a different way to
presenting that. We are talking about two different denominators. Back in algebra,
0 0
you remember talking about increasing recycling by 50% or 100/o. We are only
talking about increasing the 12% that is being diverted by a little bit. When we are
g g g Y
talking about the doubling...when we are talking about 17%, we are talking about
of all that is in the trash, which is the vast majority. So it is a smaller percent of a
larger number.
Ms. Yukimura: We do not need this now, but I think in terms of
knowing what the impact is of this program, you could almost reduce the landfill
costs and say that this is reducing the overall solid waste cost to a certain extent,
and it would be interesting to know that approximate figure and also to have that
as an end in mind or in terms of something that we are aiming for. What is our goal
with respect to residential diversion through all of these diversion measures?
Ms. Shumatz: Well, the nice thing is when you are saving 17% of
landfill, tons, that is extending the life of the landfill essentially.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 16 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Yukimura: That is a savings, yes. You can talk about those
savings in different ways. Per year costs are going to go down. You mentioned a
ratio of job creation from 5:1 or 10:1 compared to landfill and the jobs created by
land filling.
Ms. Shumatz: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: Can you further explain that?
Ms. Shumatz: Happy to do that. The Institute for Local Self-
Reliance, which is a nationwide company, did an estimate a number of years ago
looking at, "How many jobs to landfill 10,000 tons of waste? How many jobs if you
instead recycle 10,000 tons of waste? How many jobs if you compost 10,000 tons of
waste?" What they found was that if you assume it was one job to landfill 10,000
tons of waste, it is...I hope I got this right. It is 4 for composting and 10 for
recycling.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I believe in the late '70s or early `80s we had
someone from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance come and speak.
Ms. Shumatz: Was it Brenda? Was it a woman or a man?
Ms. Yukimura: I cannot remember, but David Morris was the
person we were in communication with.
Ms. Shumatz: They are a smart group.
Chair Furfaro: They made us use our algebra.
Ms. Shumatz: I would be happy to do the same.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you very much.
Ms. Shumatz: My pleasure.
Chair Furfaro: Councilmember Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Aloha and mahalo. I was
writing down when you talked about the jobs. You said jobs to landfill, 10,000 tons
of waste. At the landfill, how many jobs was it?
Ms. Shumatz: One.
Mr. Kuali`i: That was one.
M s. Sh u matz: T he ratio is 1.
Mr. Kuali`i: Then the composting was 4 and recycling was 10.
Okay. Cool.
Ms. Shumatz: If I have got the composting and recycling
backwards, I will let ou know, am pretty but I rett sure that is the order.
Y
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 17 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Mr. Kuali`i: Like Councilmember Yukimura showed that map
with only three States with the white and not really doing anything. That is for
"Pay As You Throw." What about curbside recycling?
Ms. Shumatz: There is curbside recycling in a lot of States.
Mr. Kuali`i: What about in Hawai`i?
Ms. Shumatz: There is at least one curbside program in most
states.
Chair Furfaro: Excuse me, it looks like from your chart that there
are actually four States. They are Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland and Mississippi.
Ms. Shumatz: Delaware is a really small State. It is hard to
highlight.
Mr. Kuali`i: And the other thing is on that timeline, the current
one, is that some homes already have the bins, but not all of them.
Ms. Shumatz: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: The bins that people currently have are the largest
bins, the 96-gallon bins?
Ms. Shumatz: Yes. Currently we are a little more than halfway
automated.
Ms. Fraley: So currently we are about halfway automated, a
little more than half at this point.
Mr. Kuali`i: The plan is to be full way when?
Ms. Fraley: Upon implementation, when the fees kick, so that,
again, is in June of 2014.
Mr. Kuali`i: 2014?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: So in June 2014, all of the households will have the
largest gallon and what fee is kicking in? Because fees are kicking in as they get
them; right?
Ms. Fraley: In June of 2014 is when we implement the
program. So household...everyone would have automated collection, but everyone
would also have a choice if they want a 64 or 96-gallon cart for refuse.
Mr. Kuali`i: So when you talked about Phase 1, and you said
2015, it is actually June of 2014 that they get to choose between a 96-gallon can and
64-gallon can.
Ms. Fraley: Sorry. June 2015. That is what we would.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 18 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Mr. Kuali`i: That brings up another question.
Ms. Fraley: That is when we would deliver the carts.
Mr. Kuali`i: It must have to do with the expert on how to roll it
in, why not faster? Why not one year? Why not start in 2014 and Phase 2 in 2015
and complete with Phase 3 in 2016? It is only 2012 now. I have a big can in my
home and I just moved in a couple of months ago. I only use a third of the can
because I compost. I do not even put the can out some weeks because if it is not full,
why put it out for them to haul and maybe we should be encouraging our citizens to
do it that as well since they have such a big can. If it is not stinky trash, but if it is
a wonderful, good quality can and closes tight, I do not have any issues when I do
not put it out because I forget, but it is okay because it is only a third full. So why
can we not do the timeline faster.
Ms. Fraley: It mainly has to do with the funding for the
equipment for the carts and the trucks. There is a long delivery timeline and also
for this program in general, I mean, if you look at the tasks. There is a lot to
accomplish before that program actually hits the customer. So we do need all of
that time to make it right.
Mr. Kuali`i: So the trucks, funding, and the increase of staff
issues too?
Ms. Fraley: Yes, it could be temporary staff. That is what they
have done in other communities, but just the dealing with the delivery and
customer service and changes to the billing system, that kind of thing.
Mr. Kuali`i: You did say it is all about the trashcan and when
you add the green can and blue can for yard waste and for recycling, those will be
free basically?
Ms. Fraley: Yes, the fees will be embedded in the program.
Mr. Kuali`i: But the truck will come and pick up all three—the
same truck?
Ms. Fraley: There are going to be two trucks. There is going to
be a refuse truck that comes once a week and then there would be the every other
week pick-up like in our curbside pilot program for the curbside recycling and we
would plan every other week pick-up for the green waste as well. In the larger carts
will be a 96-gallon cart for both of those curbside services.
Mr. Kuali`i: So the green waste and the recycling is the same
truck and the refuse is a different truck?
Ms. Fraley: Yes, alternate every other week.
Mr. Kuali`i: The other thing is, because it is going to take so
long, in the meantime, are we doing anything for educating the public of how they
can best utilize it? Is that a good idea not to put the can out if it is not full? I think
it is. I see the truck coming through some days and he has to stop and pick up each
container and stop and pick them up. If he is not going to pick up mine...
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 19 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Shumatz: There is no reason to put it out if it is not full or
stinky.
Ms. Fraley: That could be part of the educational campaign I
guess, thank you.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you. We are going to go around again. I will
start with myself. So Allison, to yourself and the Engineering Department, may I
ask on the funding aspect of this, what does our current C.I.P. five (5) year plan
reflect in the way of equipment, containers, and the progress of the M.R.F? If you
need one of the Engineering people to answer my last question, I am sure it is fine if
you yield the floor to them.
Ms. Shumatz: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: So again, what is reflected in our current five (5)
year C.I.P.? Does it relate to this plan, equipment, containers, and the progress of
the M.R.F.?
Mr. Tabata: Lyle Tabata, Deputy County Engineer. To answer
the equipment and the bins, those are currently not C.I.P. items. So those are
annual expense items.
Chair Furfaro: So this Administration will categorize them as the
cost of operational business and will therefore be reflected in future budgets as an
operational cost?
Mr. Tabata: As it sits in the current budget,
es.Y
Chair Furfaro: Do you have an idea of how much we are talking
about there? Because that will be pretty much a new one-time investment, I
perceive in those years.
Mr. Tabata: We are looking to stagger the costs, and I need to
get back with you on the answer.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. I am going to send that over as a question.
How about the M.R.F.?
Mr. Tabata: The M.R.F. is presently part of the E.I.S. that is
going on for the new proposed landfill and Refuse Recovery Park Study.
Chair Furfaro: So what you are telling me is that when we look at
the new landfill site, there is an estimated cost dealing with the design and
development of the M.R.F. I saw in this calculation that possibly in the year 2015,
or 2016, that the M.R.F. would be operational. Is that a reality?
Mr. Tabata: Yes. In addition to that, we have a concurrent
study presently being worked on to provide for a possible earlier standing of the
M.R.F. section on an interim basis.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 20 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Chair Furfaro: The narrative I see in this presentation for all
intents and purposes right now, you are telling me it is obtainable?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Those were my questions.
Mr. Tabata: Yes. I think we tried to be as conservative as
possible, so that we can meet expectations.
Chair Furfaro: I like conservative when it comes to dollars. I like
reality when it comes to plans. This is the reality reflected in the dates that are in
this plan?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Ms. Fraley: Chair? Just to clarify, the M.R.F. timeline, it kicks
in phased at the end of Phase 2 which would be June 2017, not 2015.
Chair Furfaro: After I read that, I did not put my glasses back on
to get very specific, but what I want to make sure the scope laid out in this
forecasted plan, you folks are willing to walk that talk?
Mr. Tabata: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Councilmember Nakamura.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you very much for the presentation. It is
interesting to learn about what is going on in the rest of the Country, and to learn
from what they are doing. One of the questions that I had was that on page 6 of
your slides, it says that there is no increase in cost or workload for two-thirds of the
communities that you have looked at. I am just wondering, what is the difference
with the two-thirds and then the one-third where there have been increases in
costs? Why the difference?
Ms. Shumatz: Excellent question. The difference in costs is by
the choices in program types that they select. For instance, if a community was not
previously automated, and they said, "We are only going to go automated because of
the "Pay As You Throw" program, we are going to have to purchase new carts." Or
the ones who did not might have stayed with the kind of collection system that they
had before and not changed the billing system. In a new system they might have
gone to a new kind of fancy billing system because the old system would not handle
the basic program that they had in mind. So it has to do with their choices about
the design of the program and the design of the billing system, and how they collect.
Ms. Nakamura: At some point we are going to need to do a
complex rate study to figure out how we are going to roll out a program such as this.
Ms. Shumatz: It will be the same steps as we did here. But we
will just have firmer numbers about what is the cost we need to recover? We might
have a slight improvement in that. And what is a better estimate of the number of
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 21 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
people on which size of cans? The rest of the study is similar to what we perform for
this.
Ms. Nakamura: What is the typical recovery rate around the
Country? This system is going to add additional County staff. A billing system will
have to be put together. We are buying new equipment. There are going to be costs
associated with just getting it going. So what is the goal here? Is it usually...it says
you are going to work towards self-sufficiency, but is it really ever self-sufficient?
Ms. Shumatz: Do you mind if I confer for just one minute?
Ms. Nakamura: No.
Ms. Shumatz: We are showing an increase over the near term
from the order of $12.00 per household to recovering more of the costs associated
with the new green waste program and new yard waste program in the interim
some of the "Pay As You Throw" changes and move towards recovering a little bit
more the cost of the service. We are not talking to going to the $60.00 or what
might reflect the full recovery of costs. We are talking about phasing toward in that
direction, not staying at $12.00 for reflecting more of those costs in what is being
charged to the "Pay As You Throw" program.
Ms. Nakamura: So you want to absorb some of those costs over
time?
Ms. Shumatz: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: But you are never going to...the intent is not to
fully recover the costs? Okay. On your slide 23, as a resident, I want to fully
participate in this program, so I am going to have...I have my 96-gallon and
hopefully I can reduce it to a 64. So under this example, I might pay $28.00 for
that. Then if I want to participate in green waste, I will probably want something
like a 64-gallon.
Ms. Shumatz: You will have 96-gallon a 96 gallon green waste and a 96-
gallon recycling can and you will not have to pay extra. That $28.00 will cover your
64-gallon trashcan, plus 96-gallons worth of recycling and 96-gallons worth of green
waste. You do not have to pay extra for those two services. It is embedded into that
trash rate.
Ms. Nakamura:s. a amura: In the $28.00?
Ms. Shumatz: Yes. So that rate reflects those new services.
Ms. Nakamura: That is what I did not quite get from this. I was
adding it up.
Ms. Shumatz: Definitely not.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay. Really, you have a chance to even go down
to 32-gallons and get your 96-gallon green waste and maybe 64-gallon, you could
have different sizes for each type, depending on what your household needs are?
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 22 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Shumatz: It is very realistic to go down to 32 gallons' worth
of trash and we expect that a third of the households will be able to do that. In
some communities it is even more than that. But you have a lot of yard waste.
Ms. Nakamura: At what point do we get a sense of what the staff
costs, if there will be? I am not sure. Do you foresee the need when you move into a
system like this, that you will need additional personnel?
Ms. Shumatz: Most of the staff costs that we see associated with
the "Pay As You Throw" part of this are temporary staff for a couple of months only
for delivering containers, different sizes, and for answering customer calls for the
couple of months around that rate change. We do not anticipate needing significant
staff beyond that except as associated with the yard waste program or the green
waste program and the recycling program, which are not the "Pay As You Throw"
part of this. They are separate programs that they are expecting to implement.
There will be staff potentially associated with that and trucks and so on. But for
the "Pay As You Throw" part, we do not expect significant added staff for that.
Ms. Nakamura: But they go hand-in-hand?
Ms. Shumatz: They go hand-in-hand and the charges for that, we
expect to be reimbursed through the "Pay As You Throw" rates that we are showing
here.
Ms. Nakamura: What type of billing system will we need to make
this work?
Ms. Skumatz: We actually have a billing system in case, so it
would just be adjustments to the current system, just adding fields to be able to
have the different cart sizes in there.
Ms. Nakamura: So we don't need to purchase new software?
Ms. Skumatz: No, we do not. We have already been in contact
with the current software provider. The nice part of this program is it is a recurring
charge. We have three recurring charges instead of one recurring charge. Instead of
$12.00, they charge the same amount each time, but a different dollar amount. It's
not as complicated as billing for water or electricity, where it changes every month.
This stays the same.
Ms. Nakamura: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum and then Councilwoman Yukimura.
Mr. Bynum: I just have a couple comments about the billing
system and questions. Then I want to make one...anyway, and then I will we done.
But let me open by saying thank you for this presentation. I am fully in support of
this program. To a large extent I will defer to the Administration about the
timelines, although I will say at the end I am a little disappointed in some of the
these timelines as well. The billing system when we first discussed that and made it
part of the property tax billing, I discussed then some confusion that that may cause
among the...I understand the costs to do it that way was the least administratively.
It has caused some confusion, particularly around combining a tax and a fee into
one bill. I don't know if this is possible, but to look at whether this can all be
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 23 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
considered a tax, because the confusion has to do with...because if it is all a tax, the
benefit to consumers is it is deductible in State and Federal income taxes,
potentially. I still have that concern about that confusion and especially as we go to
having different fees for different households. So that is just a comment. Do with it
as you want at this point. The other thing is that I heard today that, and let me
make sure I have this right, that our target date for a functioning M.R.F. is 2017,
June of 2017; is that correct?
Ms. Fraley: We anticipate conservatively that it will be up and
running so that these timelines will coincide. It could be earlier than that. But
these timelines would coincide.
Mr. Bynum: And this is my disappointment part, I have been
here long enough that I voted for the integrated solid waste plan, and we all had
heard strong commitments about moving aggressively on that plan, and this a full
five (5) years to have a M.R.F. online beyond what was suggested in that plan just a
few years ago. That is disappointing. And it also calls into question, in my mind,
where are we at with the other timelines that we anticipated when we passed the
integrated solid waste plan. I would like to request a future update, not today, but
a future update on the whole plan with revised timelines. And if there are elements
of the plan that we don't intend to do, or we have changed, I want the public and the
Council to be informed, not today but in the future.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Bynum, that comes in your committee, so any
time you want to put it on the agenda.
Mr. Bynum: It is actually Mr. Rapozo's committee.
Chair Furfaro: Oh, that is right; the two of you split that
committee, so why don't the two of you work it out. When you want to put it on, I
will sign off on the agenda.
Mr. Bynum: A few months down the road at least.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Councilwoman Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Let me say that I, too, have been waiting for a
long time for "Pay As You Throw," and it is wonderful to have this really well done
study. I also want to acknowledge solid waste and Allison, in particular, and others
of you who have worked on this, for putting into place the automated service first,
and also the flat fee, which established the billing system, because you can see the
logic of setting up these systems for "Pay As You Throw," which makes it then
easier to put in place. So I really appreciate that. I have a question for Lyle about
the M.R.F. You are saying that the M.R.F. is going to be located by the landfill?
Mr. Tabata: Lyle Tabata, Deputy County Engineer. It is part
of the E.I.S. study as part of the materials, the refuse recovery facility, but at the
same time as we noted earlier in earlier communications, we are also working on
siting an interim facility on a fast-track. And that is...
Ms. Yukimura: And so that interim M.R.F. is going to be 2017?
Mr. Tabata: At this point in time, yes.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 24 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Yukimura: Five (5) years from now? That is a new timeline. I
mean, we anticipated it much earlier. And also who makes you think it might not be
a permanent M.R.F.? What if the E.I.S. — because as I understand it, there is
supposed to be a calculation of the trips and the costs of that location and all of the
inland travel that has to happen versus something that is closer to the harbors. So
I cannot imagine that there is a conclusion about where the permanent site is until
you have done the analyses. And if that analysis has been done, I would like to see
that analysis. I think the Council should be able to see it.
Mr. Tabata: So as I noted, it is part of the study. Nothing has
been concluded. We are still in the process. And at the same time, we are also
working on an interim facility to stand as fast as we can. So nothing has been cast.
We are looking at locations. And it ends up being all about the location.
Ms. Yukimura: Well, it was my concern that the M.R.F. would get
tied up in this very lengthy E.I.S. process and this process of calculating where the
best site is, is not really an E.I.S. process. It is really a feasibility study and a
location study. The problem with tying it into an E.I.S. is it takes so long to do. So
then we might be building an interim M.R.F. that may be a permanent M.R.F., but
then we do designs with assumptions that it is an interim M.R.F., which may cost a
lot of money if it has to be a permanent M.R.F. This is planning upside down as far
as I'm concerned.
Mr. Tabata: Your point is well taken. I cannot answer that
right now.
Ms. Yukimura: That has been a big problem of this Administration
on the M.R.F. Thank you. I'm changing...so my other questions are for Allison and
Ms. Skumatz.
Ms. Skumatz: Perfect.
Ms. Yukimura: The Bulky Item Program, this Slide 11, which talks
about most illegally dumped materials are bulky items and not typical residential
trash. What is our existing Bulky Item program and are we planning a new kind of
program in conjunction with the timing of our "Pay As You Throw"?
Ms. Fraley: At this point our bulky item program is we do have
drop-off at the transfer stations.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay.
Ms. Fraley: And we have the Puhi Metals Recycling facility as
well. That has actually been working. We don't have a lot of complaints or need for
service. So at this point we do not have plans to change the program or implement
anything new.
Ms. Yukimura: And actually this point was made because you are
saying that "Pay As You Throw" should not affect illegal dumping that much since
most of it is bulk?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 25 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Yukimura: Is that true, though, of our island, that illegal trash
is bulky items? I know cars.
Ms. Fraley: Yes, cars, and mattresses, and larger items. We
have not seen a lot of roadside trash like residential trash, bags of trash as a result
of that. So we really don't...we know that bulky...the fear of illegal dumping is
always going to be a concern when you implement a new program, but we think we
kind of crossed that barrier with the implementation of a fee program. We will see
what we get, and we can adjust accordingly at that time.
Ms. Yukimura: And then on page 22, where you have the current
cost of service, this is really helpful. I think a long time we have not broken down
the cost of service for the different parts. Presumably the landfill cost should go
down as people move to recycling.
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: And green waste; is that correct?
Ms. Fraley: Landfill has some fixed costs that wouldn't go
down.
Ms. Yukimura: That is true. And if you add the recycling green
waste...
Ms. Fraley: So these are current costs, yes, estimated too, as
well.
Ms. Yukimura: Right. But if now more is going into the recycled
green waste programs, as we institute these diversion programs, then theoretically
the landfill costs should go down? Is that correct?
Ms. Skumatz: The total landfill costs will go down, but not
proportionally with the amount of trash because that's a fixed cost that Allison
mentioned.
Ms. Yukimura: Then if we are creating a new landfill, there is a
whole new accumulated fixed cost that has to be amortized over the life of the
landfill?
Ms. Skumatz: Yes, that cost will change.
Ms. Yukimura: But still the life of that landfill should be longer,
because you are diverting the waste?
Ms. Skumatz: Correct. Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. And then just to go back a little bit to the
trash problem, or what do you call that, the illegal dumping? Actually, the recycling
program, if it is put together with the trash collection program, it should not
increase illegal dumping at all because people will be able to reduce their costs by
just moving it from one container to another; right?
Ms. Skumatz: Yes.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 26 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Yukimura: So that is much easier than putting it in your car
and taking it to someplace.
Ms. Skumatz: Okay. Great. Thank you very much.
Chair Furfaro: Okay. Go ahead Councilmember Kuali`i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So something quick, when
Councilmember Nakamura was asking you about the recycled cans and green waste
cans, you were saying that they are all 96-gallons, and there would not be smaller
options for that?
Ms. Skumatz: Not expected.
Mr. Kuali`i: And the refuse truck comes once a week for
whatever sized can you have. How often would recycled and green waste trucks
come?
Ms. Skumatz: Every other week.
Mr. Kuali`i: Every other week.
Ms. Skumatz: Okay. Good. Because I know my can, maybe I will
put it out once a month because I compost a lot. I just heard this radio ad, right,
from one of the landscaping companies that talks about when you clip your grass,
you can just leave the clippings. So instead of bagging it up and putting it in the
yard waste collection, leave it on the ground.
Ms. Skumatz: It is better for the grass.
Mr. Kuali`i: Better for the grass. The other thing is just a basic
thing about this. We keep saying "Pay As You Throw." But one of your first lines
was to say we are going to call it something else.
Ms. Skumatz: Recycle and save Kaua'i.
Mr. Kuali`i: Yes, or something. We have to come up with
something. Something like compost is part of the reuse, because you are reusing
instead of throwing it away, you are putting it back in the soil or whatever. So the
whole thing about reduce, reuse, and recycle. We should use it all rather than just
"recycle." Thank you.
Ms. Skumatz: Yes.
Mr. Kuali`i: Thank you.
Ms. Nakamura: I guess this is more of a comment that because this
"Pay As You Throw" or save more if you recycle, save more if you recycle more.
Mr. Kuali`i: Reduce, reuse, recycle, and save.
Ms. Skumatz: There you go.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 27 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Nakamura: It is so tied in with the M.R.F., right? They go
hand-in-hand. So I think it is important, like the Chair and Councilmember Bynum
mentioned, that we get a briefing and update as we get this type of briefing on this
program to really understand what is that going to mean to the County? Because it
sounds like, from what you are describing, the costs...this is not going to really cost
the County much, just internally to operate it, but we do not know the cost of the
equipment right now that you are going to be briefing us...that is going to be a
follow-up item.
Chair Furfaro: I will send it over as a question.
Ms. Nakamura: I think it is important that we get a better
understanding of the M.R.F., what is it going to be: County-operated or privately-
operated? What are going to be the costs to this County if we are going to be
operating that facility? I know you are still in that feasibility and looking at
possible sites. So we don't know whether there is going to be land costs associated
with it, development costs. But I think because they go hand in hand, we need to
see that big picture for us to really make sure both sides are moving forward. So it's
good to see this side of the picture, and I think now the next recommendation is to
see the other side. And I look forward to that briefing. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: Thank you. As far as the criminal or illegal
dumping, do you folks track that as well from Kaua`i Police Department?
Ms. Fraley: No.
Mr. Rapozo: So how do you know that the majority of the issues
with the illegal dumping are the big items, is that just nationwide?
Ms. Fraley: It is actually here, what we respond to. So we
respond to things that are on county roads, and that is what we have seen on the
county roads.
Mr. Rapozo: But the police respond to the criminal littering. So I
guess that would be my question. So I would suggest you check with KPD, because
illegal dumping is a problem here. I think if you live anywhere off the main
highways, you see...I see it on the bypass road. And I do not know if it is tied into
any specific issue such as the $12.00 a month, but I know that some people are just
either lazy or they are pigs.
Ms. Fraley: Or they don't tie down their loads properly.
Mr. Rapozo: That is one of the issues, and I see that. But when
I see the bags on the sides bundled up, that is not falling out of the truck; that is
somebody who pulled off to the side and unloaded their trash and drove off. So I
guess my suggestion is that we confirm that number with Kaua`i Police, because
they do respond to illegal dumping complaints. Thank you.
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: Councilmembers? If not, I have a couple more
questions, and I welcome Engineering to come up and chat with us. First, as this
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 28 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
plan develops, what are we doing to involve our Union partners in the discussion
about the way things are going to be said and done?
Mr. Tabata: Lyle Tabata, Deputy County Engineer. So part of
the process is to complete automation. So far we have completed two phases. We
have one more to go. So we are working with them in that effort towards
completing our automation phases. Then the next step after that...
Chair Furfaro: First of all, I want to say that I'm glad to hear
that. Have any hurdles arisen yet?
Mr. Tabata: There are challenges that we work continually with
the union. It's nothing that we can't work out. We have been working with them.
Chair Furfaro: Okay.
Mr. Tabata: Then the next phase would be phasing in, as we
noted, curbside and green waste at the same time. And trying to tie that in,
especially curbside, as you all have stated at the same time that we stand the
M.R.F. So that would include the next phase of equipment purchase, and at the
same time, that would basically double our fleet. So that is an increase in people to
facilitate that increase.
Chair Furfaro: That is a non-C.I.P. item. I am going to be looking
at these equipment leases in next budget in the form of equipment leases?
Mr. Tabata: I'm not sure how it is going to be packaged.
Chair Furfaro: Could you check into any of the mechanical
problems that they are having with the truck? We have an ongoing problem right
now. Will we have those resolved at the same time?
Mr. Tabata: I am familiar with a few problems. However, I
think some of it resulted in the delay of the phasing. Having vehicles sit there,
many of them came forward when we did the curbside pilot. And if we time
equipment purchases properly, I think we should see some of the issues go away. It
should be noted that these are the same vehicles that the City and County and all
the other islands are using.
Chair Furfaro: Understood, but if we have timing issue relating to
expiring warranties, I'm hearing from you that we're going to get closer to that?
Mr. Tabata: Right.
Chair Furfaro: I have another question for you. Before I do,
though, Allison, do you have any problem if I should, in fact, write IT and get a
confirmation that the software as we planned for the billing right now, I will get a
confirmation from them that any modifications and so forth would be done with
existing software that we have?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Chair Furfaro: And I will get a confirmation from them?
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 29 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Fraley: Yes, I spoke, actually, with a consultant who works
with IT, but a consultant for that billing system. Yes. There is not a problem to ask
them.
Chair Furfaro: So Staff, do you have my request? And we will send
that over. The last one as we go forward, whether I am disappointed or not, I am
really here to see if I can buy into a plan. I like what I saw here. But for all of you
in the engineering department, in particular, I want to make sure we now have a
date that I plan to hold your feet to the fire, simple as that. I am hearing about
maybe even having a temporary M.R.F. And Donald, I am glad you are in the back
there, hearing from me directly. You have a temporary M.R.F., and before you move
forward with the real M.R.F., and so forth, but I do not want the gauges on the
dates to change without real expectation to us. Because I do not see the money that
indicates that we are going to have a temporary facility as we move around with a
permanent facility. But, I guess, that is yet to see as we go through future budgets.
So it is important that you know. You gave us a date. It may have some reach in it,
but it also sounds like every comment you gave us you will be there earlier rather
than later. So I guess that means it is realistic in your views. So we will hold your
feet to the fire.
Councilmembers, any other questions? Councilmember Yukimura?
Ms. Yukimura: Lyle, you said that when you phase in curbside and
green waste, it will double what?
Mr. Tabata: The trucking fee.
Ms. Yukimura: So I am very concerned about ag subdivisions and
trying to service ag subdivisions with urban type of services. That is a huge cost for
our trucks to go one mile and service ten households instead of 40. So I would like to
ask the administration to look at this idea of rural level of services, so that maybe
we don't even service the ag subdivisions, and they have to bring their trash to...I
mean, that is what it takes if you want to live out in the country, you know? You
don't get urban services. I mean, because...
Mr. Tabata: Can you restate that?
Ms. Yukimura: I want you to look at instituting a rural level of
services which might mean no curbside service. But instead people bring it to
transfer stations or whatever. Because, I mean, this is the thing about smart
growth. You get spread out growth and you get huge costs. And you are doubling
the number of times that the trucks are going. And you are doing it for very few
households compared to urban densities. I'm sure there are places in the country
where there are those differential services. And I think we need to look at that.
Thank you.
Mr. Tabata: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Before I ask for public testimony, Lyle, I am going
to give you my copy of the 6-year C.I.P., because as I pointed out to you, some of the
funding pieces, even if we move forward on a temporary site to meet the critical
dates, it brings up some funding questions that is in the current plan. And I would
like very much to meet with you and Wally and the chief engineer to go over this 6-
year plan.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 30 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Any other questions before I ask for public testimony? Go right ahead.
Ms. Nakamura: This is just a follow-up. So if you are adding one
additional day of service to pick up the green waste or the recyclables, one day a
week you are going to be picking up your trash, and the following week you are
going to alternate between green or...
Ms. Fraley: One day a week, yes. We have not determined the
day of service, if it is going to be the same day as trash service or a different day.
Ms. Nakamura: So you might not have trash, but have a green
waste.
Ms. Fraley: Everybody would have trash service.
Ms. Nakamura: Every week?
Ms. Fraley: Yes, every week.
Ms. Nakamura: Once a week.
Ms. Fraley: Yes, and every other week you would get your
recycling picked up, and every other week you would get your green waste picked
up.
Ms. Skumatz: So it is trash and recycling one week; trash and
yard waste the other week. Trash and recycling one week; trash and yard waste the
other week.
Ms. Nakamura: Right. So is it the same vehicle? It is separate
vehicles coming the same day?
Ms. Fraley: You mean trash versus the...
Ms. Nakamura: The day that you are picking up trash and the day
that you are picking up one or the other, the green waste or recycling?
Ms. Fraley: So trash trucks would only pick up trash and a
diversion truck would pick up recycling and green waste.
Ms. Nakamura: Right. So on one week you might have both?
Ms. Fraley: You would, yes.
Ms. Skumatz: You would always have trash.
Ms. Nakamura: You always have trash, but one of the weeks you
are going to have both?
Ms. Skumatz: You wouldn't have yard waste and recycling in the
same week.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 31 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Nakamura: You would have trash and one recycling element.
So if you are adding the amount of coverage service, are you not adding collection
vehicles?
Ms. Fraley: Yes.
Ms. Nakamura: And collection bodies? So why would that not
increase your costs?
Ms. Fraley: Because "Pay As You Throw" is a billing system
basically. But we already planned to have curbside recycling and curbside green
waste. So for the purposes of this discussion, those costs are really separate. There
are some minor cost increases to change the billing system to educate more, to
switch out carts, things like that that are attributed to "Pay As You Throw," but the
cost...the County had already planned to have recycling and green waste services,
so they are not directly attributable to the change in the billing system, if that
makes sense.
Ms. Nakamura: Yes. But there will be increases in those costs.
Ms. Fraley: Yes, for the County in general, yes.
Ms. Nakamura: Okay. And do we have a projection of what those
costs would be?
Ms. Fraley: Yes. Yes, we do.
Ms. Nakamura: So maybe we'll just send it over as a question.
Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Is there any more? Vice Chair Yukimura.
Ms. Yukimura: Just to say that what I think you are saying here
that there is a billing policy, and we're making user fees -- we're imposing user fees
for trash on a graduated basis, but we are choosing not to do billing for recycling at
this point.
Ms. Skumatz: Those costs, the recycling and yard waste green
waste costs will be embedded in the trash bill. One bill for all three services.
Ms. Yukimura: Okay. That is the other way. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Mr. Rapozo?
Mr. Rapozo: So if not for "Pay As You Throw," how would you
expect to recover those costs?
Ms. Fraley: You could just increase the cost of garbage service.
You know what I mean? "Pay As You Throw" is just an incentive program for
reducing waste.
Mr. Rapozo: I understand. But I think I agree with
Councilwoman Nakamura because I think in the presentation it appears like there
will be no additional cost and the challenge will be explaining to the person who
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 32 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
now pays $12 a month for a big can. Even if that person takes full advantage of the
recycling and green waste and gets a 32-gallon can, he is still going to be paying
more money per month.
Ms. Fraley: Correct.
Mr. Rapozo: So how do you explain that to a person and saying,
"Well, this is no additional cost to the County, but we are going to raise your bill."
And the person who keeps the 96-gallon will be paying almost $50 a month. So
there will be an increase in the costs. There is. There is going to be one. And until
today, I do not think we ever heard the plan of when the green waste collection was
going to be done or the curbside recycling was going to be done. I think today is the
first time we actually heard it. We have heard the pilot program and so forth.
Maybe you folks have been planning it, but I don't' think the public understands
that. So for them the jump is going to be a big one. And that is the challenge, I
think, that...and it comes down to education. I agree. I think you get the added
benefit of the recycling bucket and the green waste bucket. But it is not free. It is
part of the increase in the trash pick-up fee. It is embedded in there, so it is not a
free service. I am assuming that this amount is going to pay for the green waste,
recycling, and the trash?
Ms. Skumatz: That is right, a combined bill.
Mr. Rapozo: And that is going to cover the entire County, and it
will be self-sustaining. That is the numbers that I want to see. Because I do not...
Ms. Fraley: No. It would not be. So, actually, I do not know if
you can see Slide 24, it covers this issue. Right now, the second-to-the-last bar is
what we are estimating as the current cost of service, which is a little under $60.
And what we are seeing in Phase 3, which is when we have the recycling programs,
is not that much more. It is about $70 per household per month to add those extra
services. But the bars above show where we are at, the very first bar is only $12
captured per month and then phasing in where we are actually recovering more and
more. But at this point, unless we add a Phase 4, where we are adding...you know,
increasing the fees again, we do not expect that we would be able to do a full
recovery.
Mr. Rapozo: And we anticipate only a 5% opt out?
Ms. Fraley: That is the current opt out, so that is what we are
using.
Mr. Rapozo: But that is $12.
Ms. Fraley: Yes, you are right.
Mr. Rapozo: So I mean, that is what I am interested in: what if
we have a 10% opt out, or a 15 or 20%? Because a lot of people, I believe, are going
to opt out. And until they see the benefit, they are going to opt out. So, I guess, for
me I want to make sure we understand those numbers because if we have a 20%
opt out, God forbid, what does that do to the County's money? How much now...I
mean, are we going to adjust the rates?
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 33 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Fraley: Yes, that is part of the rate analysis that we did,
yes.
Mr. Rapozo: What typically would we do? I guess this is for the
consultant. Would we adjust the rate or would we subsidize with County money,
because the rates are going to be significantly higher.
Ms. Skumatz: I would say we would adjust the rates, because we
would be asking people what size of containers they want, and some...if you think
20% would opt out, 20% would say, "Take away my container; I don't want
anything," and we would incorporate that into the rates then.
Mr. Rapozo: And that is...I guess my question is, I believe it will
be $9 for the base, versus...let us say, that is a $40 reduction if the guy has a 96-
gallon container. Where will that $40 be made up is what I am trying to say? And
that is just one household. Kaua`i is unique. It is a different place, and we have
some different people here. And I am saying based on a 5% opt out, these numbers
would balance the books, but what if we had a 10% or 15%?
Ms. Skumatz: All numbers would float up some, divided by 5
people to cover one person not charging. So they would all float up a bit.
Mr. Rapozo: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Before I recognize Mr. Bynum, I just want to say
this: Our landfill costs us money, okay? So let us make sure we are comparing
arithmetic with arithmetic. The 59.90, that's a cost center cost is a cost per
household. We're not going to be covering the entire bill. So do not get a cost center
mixed up with a profit center, first of all. It is very, very important that you
consider that in this piece. The margin that we are going to make up is the index
that, I think, Councilwoman Yukimura is looking for. And we will send that over as
a question on the index. But one is purely a cost center, and the other one is a
revenue flow, a revenue stream. Okay. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum: From this last discussion, my takeaways are, and I
would want anybody in the public watching this, currently you pay if you get
collection at home at $12 per month. But the cost to all of us is closer to $60, and
people need to understand
p th i p that. $12 is not covering it. And the other takeaway I
got from this is depending on the choices that the consumer makes, their bill will
stay $12, until at least...can stay $12 until June of'19, in which case the bill might
only go up $4 a month. Now, it will go up more if you want bigger cans and you
don't participate as much in the recycling. Those are my takeaways in terms of
dollars today. And then I guess I do have one last question, which is this cost of
service that you are estimating goes up during Phrase 2, that is after we are doing
the curbside recycling, that probably does not include the cost of the new landfill;
right?
Ms. Skumatz: No.
Mr. Bynum: So this is just about the collection, current costs
will not go up that much based on collections, but overall, by the time this comes
around, consumers or county taxpayers are probably going to be paying a bigger
amount per household than what this reflect, right? Because there are other costs
that are not reflected in this, correct?
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 34 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Fraley: Yes, the landfill costs could go up. That is correct.
Mr. Bynum: Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: One is an asset and one is an operating cost. It is
simply that. So Mr. Bynum reaffirmed what I am saying: do not get one being
mixed up as a cost center and the other one as a potential revenue stream. So any
more questions? If not, Lisa, it has been a pleasure.
Ms. Skumatz: Likewise from my point of view. Thank you very
much for the good discussion, very interesting.
Chair Furfaro: We are going to see if there is anyone in the
audience that wants to testify? Lyle, I will get together with you and Larry a little
later. Thank you.
Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to testify in this workshop?
Come right up. I'm going ask to you introduce yourself before you start your
testimony.
LORI FINCH, REALTOR, TURTLE COVE REALTY: My name is Lori Finch.
I am a Realtor for Turtle Cove Realty. I was at a Realtor meeting, and they asked
someone to come here today. I don't public speak very often; this is really
disconcerting. And most of my questions that I had thought about during this
meeting were answered mostly by JoAnn and Mel. But my main concern is we rent
a house that the landlords pay for their $12 a month and their fees. We don't use
that service at all. We compost. We have a nice little garden. We recycle everything
and have for, I do not know, 30 years or whenever we started recycling, way back
then. And we take out our trash to the landfill every other week or so. So we don't
use the service at all. They are still paying for it, but we do not use it. I am very
concerned about the trash at the side of the road. I think you are absolutely right.
There is a lot of household trash thrown out on the side of the road, and you see it a
lot every day. And it is very disconcerting to me to think that if a fee is raised all
the way up to $60 a month, we are going to be coined as the Garbage Island again.
That is very, very concerning to me. So I am very worried about this fee. And I
know there are a lot of reasons to have recycling and curbside and all of that, which
I am totally in favor of. I do not think there is not nearly enough people who recycle
here, and the easier you make it for them, the better. But I am very concerned
about the trash on the side of the road.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you very much. If you would like to invite
one of the members who are part of the committee to come and speak to the Board
of Realtors meeting about the project, I am sure that they would be glad to take you
up on that invitation.
Ms. Finch: Okay.
Chair Furfaro: So please feel free to send that communication to
me, and I will get it to the right committee members.
Ms. Finch: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Furfaro: Wait a minute. We have a question for you.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 35 SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you very much for coming to testify. I just
wanted you to know in some communities there are programs to address illegal
dumping. I think John Harder, if you want to talk to him offline, knows about
them. And that may be something that we want to put into place at least in the
beginning until people get used to the system. Thank you very much.
Chair Furfaro: Your testimony and visit is very much appreciated.
Thank you very much. Anyone else who wishes to speak before I end the workshop?
PAT GEGAN: Sure, I will come up. Thank you, Chair. For the record, Pat
Gegan. Just to put things in perspective a little bit. When I lived on the mainland,
we had private companies who were providing the same services and were paying
tipping fees. And we paid $32 a month, and we had curbside recycling and we had a
32-gallon can. I could have gone up to a 64 or 96. So that was all-inclusive and
those were for-profit companies. As far as the concern brought up, too, if you have a
house, you are going to create some sort of trash. There has to be a fee. In the
municipalities that I lived in, it was automatic; you got charged. And if you did not
have service, they still charged you, because trash was going to go somewhere. So
that fee is there. I like the "Pay As You Throw" system; I like it how they got it
phasing in. And I, too, would like to see it quicker. And I would like to see the
M.R.F. within a couple of years. I would like to see things go much quicker. But I
do understand there are a lot of steps that are required to get us to that point. I
think that the people of Kaua'i will be good about doing it, using it, and I think most
people will like it. I do agree, I think, if we are that concerned about roadside trash,
we need to increase our enforcement, increase the fees, and make sure that if people
are found doing that, it costs much more than it does to use the landfill services
that the County is providing and make sure that is not an alternative. There is my
two cents. Thank you, Chair.
Chair Furfaro: Thank you, Pat. I think on that note, we have
nobody else wanting to testify. I'm going to adjourn this workshop.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Brummett
Council Services Assistant