Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works-Solid Waste Division, DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET CALL-BACKS FY 2014-15 4/21/2014 DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET CALL-BACKS FY 2014-15 PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE DIVISION April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (Public Works— Solid Waste Division)(ss) Page 1 There being no objections, the Committee was called back to order at 3:16 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Mason K. Chock, Sr. Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Chair Excused: Honorable Mel Rapozo Chair Furfaro: . Just to start this meeting, I do want to say that I am looking for an apology for the conversation that was going on in the corner there while Theresa was interacting with the Council. Please in the future, remove your discussion to outside the Chambers. Could I get an acknowledgment on that? There being no objections, the rules were suspended. LARRY DILL, P.E., County Engineer: I apologize for the distraction, Chair. Chair Furfaro: I will say that I may have to turn this meeting over to Vice Chair Chock as we go forward here, but I have a couple of pieces that I just want to say. It is something that we do not say enough sometimes, but I want to make sure everybody understands with the Solid Waste budget, which has grown...which has grown...listen to this...from $12.1 million in 2010 it has grown to almost $16 million. Okay? That is $4 million in four years. Now is there any good news in that message? There is some, because as we have raised fees, and done things from diversion and other collections and so forth, the good news for this is we went from $7.9 million of the money coming from the General Fund to Solid Waste has actually remained the same or a little less. We are only going to look at this budget for $7.7 million coming from the General Fund to subsidize this new $15,795,000 Solid Waste. So my message here, the money coming from General Funds for four years has pretty much remained flat. All of the efforts we have had in collecting other money, raising fees and so forth has really offset the $4 million increase that we have had in managing Solid Waste. It is pretty clear to me when I just look at numbers, not all of the activities going on. So we have some success there. Your part is very well-accepted for all of you have done Allison, but I want to make sure, we all understand all we have done is we have frozen the amount that has come from General Funds to subsidize Solid Waste over the last four years. There were some very specific questions for the call-back here dealing with revenues and more appreciative of some of the cost control measures that you folks can share with us is what I am looking for. Are we going to have an opening statement? If I slip out, I will give the meeting to Vice Chair Chock. Mr. Dill: Yes, Chair, for the record, Larry Dill, County Engineer. We do have a presentation to address some of the questions that came back to us, a PowerPoint presentation. Allison since it deals with waste diversion and recycling, will provide that to us. April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 2 Chair Furfaro: Allison, you are making the presentation? ALLISON FRALEY, Solid Waste Program Development Coordinator: Yes, I am, Chair, thank you. Chair Furfaro: Mr. Chock, would you run the meeting? Ms. Fraley: For the record, Allison Fraley. Program Coordinator Solid Waste. I wanted to address a couple of questions that came up when we presented at budget originally. There were some questions how we calculate the recycling rate and also about our promotional budget? So how we calculate the recycling rate is actually a formula that is followed throughout the country. There is a methodology that is developed by the EPA, for tracking the items that are recycled. Here is the calculation in green. So what you do, you add the...you divide the recycling figure by the total generation, which is what is recycled and what is landfilled. You multiply it by 100 and you come up with the percentage of what is recycled. So the recycling rate includes private sector activities, and also what is back hauled and what "back-hauled" means is that the large retailers on Kauai and the other islands send back shipping containers filled with cardboard pallets and film plastic and that is part of the overall diversion on Kaua`i. So we count that. Maui and Oahu use similar tracking methods and have actually pretty much the same recycling rate that we do. We are proud as a small island to have high rates like they do on Oahu. Here is the actual figures for our overall diversion rate, and this is including residential and commercial, which I will go into as well. So last Fiscal Year 2013 there was 77,566 tons of refuse that went to the landfill. Before the refuse went there, 56,364 tons of material was recycled. So here you have your total generation rate when you add those two figures. If you apply that calculation, we have a recycling rate of 42% overall. So what is interesting when you look at...we also calculate what is residential and what is commercial. When you look at the residential recycling rates, which are residents produce 45% of the garbage that goes to the landfill. This is what we found when we did the integrated solid waste management plan, waste composition study and this is what we see when we pick up from our routes and transfer through the transfer stations. So for the...and also, when we track the residential recycling rate we are looking at County- funded programs and namely our County-funded programs are for residents. So we had about almost 35,000 tons of garbage going to the landfill from residents and our programs captured almost 26,000 tons. We have our total generation there. The residential recycling rate is about the same as the overall recycling rates. I did want to show you what these programs are, and how much tonnage they capture. Here on the screen, you can see that green waste captures the majority of the recyclables. We are tracking backyard composting through surveys to people who have accepted bins that is another big chunk as is scrap metal. Unfortunately we are not able to differentiate between residential and commercial scrap metal. However, it is a County-funded program and that is why all of the tonnage is included here in the residential recycling. So here are the figures. I did this as an aside, because I knew it was an issue that Council people and everyone is concerned about is what is the cost per ton for recycling? So here we are looking at all the programs that the County funds and mainly residential, like I said. What our budget request is for next fiscal year, for these programs? So the projected costs of the programs, as well as the anticipated tonnage that we expect to capture through the programs and here we have a calculation of the cost per ton for each individual program. As you can see, the cost of green waste is the lowest. Good thing, because that is where we capture most of the waste anyway. So that is nice to see. But every program varies and it has to do with regulations, competition. There is a lot...these are all competitively-bid programs, but there is a lot.that goes into these programs. So that is why they differ in costs. But back to the calculation of the recycling April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 3 rates. Here we have the commercial recycling rates, which businesses produce about 55% of the waste stream that goes to landfill. Again, that is determined by our integrated solid waste plan study. Most of these commercial programs are funded from the private sector. Last fiscal year there was 30,488 tons of material that was recycled by businesses. 42,661 went to landfill. So you have your total generation with the commercial recycling rate that is about the same as the residential...about the same as the overall. I wanted to show you how this is happening, where these numbers are coming from? As you can see, green waste again...and so the green waste here is what is taken directly to our permitted composting facilities on-island, what they report to the State. A big figure for concrete and asphalt that is construction debris and 11I-5 redemption We are not able to separate, but since it is mainly privately-funded we are counting the HI-5 under commercial. This is how it works as far as the last six years what we are seeing is landfill...so the black line is the transfer...what actually goes to the landfill. It was high six years ago. It went down but it is starting to trend back upwards. The green line is what has been recycled over the last six years and you can see that is a definite trend upwards. Then the needs we have, the actual recycling rates during these years. So as these lines merge together you will get a higher recycling rate. That is the presentation about the recycling rate and how we calculate it. If you have questions about the recycling rate, I would be happy to answer those now. Mr. Chock: Do we have questions on this part of the presentation? In speaking for, I think Councilmember Rapozo, I think what his thought process was to look at the cost for the private vendors that we are employing and what it might cost us to do if there was a cost-savings? That is why he was trying to take the figures and determine what was really the refund and so forth, taken into consideration what you would get back from the recyclables? So can you verify that? I think that is what his question was the other day what he was trying to get clear on? Maybe that is something that we can look at in the future for him or verify can him. Anyone else? Councilmember Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Can we ask questions on her presentation? Mr. Chock: Yes, on the presentation. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you for your presentation and I guess remarks to some of the questions that were brought up. You said residents use about 45% of the waste stream? Ms. Fraley: Yes, they produce that much. Mr. Kagawa: So the residents are very important in the recycling efforts. Ms. Fraley: Yes. Mr. Kagawa: It is a big question for everyone on the island, but as we were coming up on these problems, I take a good look at when I go to my friends' house and look in their rubbish cans and see a lot of$0.05 things in their rubbish and I am kind of embarrassed to go and pull them out, but in some cases I actually do, not because I need the $0.05, but because I feel like every resident knowing the predicament we are in, knowing that this is the island that we love, that we need to go 100% at home and I mean all of the ones not being lazy and taking it down to Kmart or wherever we have the bins. How do we change that? Even when I look at our County parks, the trash bins, I see even April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 4 $0.05 recyclables in there. We want to not have the homeless keep looking through our rubbish cans, but they do us a service, but sometimes they take them out, but leave the rest of the rubbish on the ground, which our caretakers are not happy about. How do we go...I want to get better than 42%? If we are doing 42%, great, but what I see in people's trash that they are throwing that is going into the landfill, I think we can do...if 42% is the mark, I think we could go 60% already by changing every single residents' mentality and for everyone to do 100%. How do we change that? JoAnn had the proposal that pay as you throw would force it. I think some people have change without being forced, but how do we spread that aloha so everybody does it? Even though it is a little inconvenient. Ms. Fraley: There are many ways, but our short-term plans are pay as you throw because you provide an economic incentive for people to reduce their waste streams. So the more you throw away, the more you pay in the garbage...the less you throw away, the less you pay and that would be our first step to incentivize people to recycle and convenience is really important, too. So you mentioned taking the trouble to go to Kmart, where the bins are. Being able to have curbside recycling would really make it easy for people to do the right thing and participate in recycling programs. Mr. Kagawa: I guess the curbside is going to be an additional cost to our County. We want to do it in ways where the people do it, so we do not need more workers and gas and equipment to do the job, right? If we go with curbside that is additional costs that we need...huge costs probably of manpower and equipment, right? Ms. Fraley: Well you also increase the amounts of tonnage that you get through the programs. So the per ton costs does not increase. Mr. Kagawa: Again, just by looking at a lot of residents' rubbish cans and not to be snoopy, but it is clear to me there is a lot more to go as far as the public buying into to recycling and putting the bins there to me is not enough and we have to somehow educate and force it upon them in what may be more education in the schools. Ms. Fraley: Exactly. That actually segways into the next part of my presentation, which is increasing awareness. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Hooser: I think it is a very good presentation and I appreciate it. The cost per ton of the various recycled items, what is the cost per ton to landfill them if we were just going to bury them, what is the real cost? TROY TANIGAWA, Environmental Services Management Engineer: If you are just looking at the landfill operation, it is difficult. You cannot just look at the landfill operation, I should say. The cost per ton is closely related to our tipping fee. In fact, our recent analysis of that cost indicates that it is above at or above $119 a ton. Mr. Hooser: $119. Mr. Tanigawa: That is correct. Mr. Hooser: That is about what the tipping fee is? April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 5 Mr. Tanigawa: No, right now it is $90 a ton. We have proposed an increase to the tipping fee to $119 per ton. Mr. Hooser: So if you calculate the space, the value of the real estate in the landfill and the cost it takes to maintain it and everything, so it is about $119 a ton, you would say? Is that close enough? Mr. Tanigawa: There are different components to that cost. Just the capital improvement cost is one component. Other components that come into play include these programs that we have to conserve that capacity, our recycling programs, all of our administrative costs and those things. So there are all of these different parts that fit into this $119 figure that we have been talking about now. Mr. Hooser: The budget request for the various recycling programs is that...I probably should know that, but is that consistent with last year? Is this new money? There is $1,350,000 for green waste...is that something year-to-year that you always ask for and get pretty much? Mr. Tanigawa: Pretty much. There is a difference for what we have asked for this year compared to last year, because of some of the costs...how can I put it? It was cost measures that we put in to meet budget figure goals. Mr. Hooser: Happy Earth Day. It is being celebrated around and this is a topical topic here and Pat Gegen had sent us information and suggested some Counties have surcharges that are dedicated to recycling and diversion programs. Does the County of Kaua`i have anything like that? Ms. Fraley: Not at this time. Mr. Hooser: If you could just briefly...what is the difference between a surcharge and just raising the tipping fee? A surcharge would be dedicated to something, perhaps, that is the biggest difference? Mr. Tanigawa: The way that we have seen it in the other islands, it is a percentage of the total tipping fee. So I believe City and County's surcharge is 12%. Maui County also has a surcharge, but I do not recall what that is, but they apply it by percentage. Mr. Hooser: Okay. I think I saw somewhere that $5 million, is that number used for recycling or no? Ms. Fraley: Right now just the budget request for next fiscal year is about $3 million for the recycling programs. However, there are administrative costs and other things that really do add. Mr. Hooser: So $3 million plus for the recycling program, plus these items? Ms. Fraley: No. Mr. Hooser: This is the $3 million. April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 6 Ms. Fraley: Plus the staff cost to run the programs, administrative. Mr. Hooser: Okay. Ms. Fraley: I wanted to mention too, that the cost that per ton cost for the recycling programs that I showed include hauling and processing. So it is all inclusive. Mr. Hooser: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. It is a very excellent, easy to understand report, thus far. Thank you very much. On your slide 3, so by the way you explained to us how you get the formula, the recycling tonnage includes back fill? Ms. Fraley: Yes, it does. Ms. Yukimura: You call it back-fill or back-haul? Ms. Fraley: Back-haul. Ms. Yukimura: Yes...that would be too landfill-ish. I guess what was most troubling and I guess as a naive assumption that as the percentage recycling went up then the amount that goes into the landfill would go down. That was my naive assumption. If you look at slide 9, which is up there right now, our percentage is going up, but the amounts in the landfill is going up as well. Ms. Fraley: That can happen. It depends on the economy and you know. Ms. Yukimura: I want to see zero waste when our economy is hot. To me that is our goal. I was hoping to buy more time on our landfill, but to do that the volume or the tonnage, whatever you measure is has to start going down. So it seems to me if zero waste is our goal and that is my goal, we have to have some other strategy or we have to accelerate our efforts. Ms. Fraley: We have our strategies. I mean it is going to take an investment in infrastructure. It is going to take ordinances passing. We are showing you the strategy. Ms. Yukimura: You have shown me the strategy for increasing the recycling rate, but I have not seen the strategy for decreasing the volume that goes into the landfill. Ms. Fraley: Well, the strategy is for 70% and it assumes an increase in generation. It does assume an increase in the generation and the landfill will go up a little and continue to go up, but the recycling will go higher. We are accounting for landfill when we are looking at that 70% goal. We are not assuming it will just be flat at the landfill. April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 7 Ms. Yukimura: Well, I am looking for it to go down and so I am realizing that a percentage goal is not the way to get it to go down. I am not sure what it is, but that is my assumption all along that if we are increasing the percentage of recycling we are going to be able to start to decrease the amount that goes...and that would be true if we are not generating...we do not continue to increase the amount we generate, right? Of waste? If we did not increase the amount of waste that we generate and we increased our recycling rate, or our diversion rate with, you should decrease the amount in the landfill. Mr. Dill: I agree with you Councilmember. That is a good point. Certainly, a significant component to decreasing that rate is the recycling rate. You can see we are working on increasing that rate and we have other programs and components of that that we are proposing to Council, as we mentioned the C&D and commercial recycling ordinance and all of that will continue to eat away at that. The challenge is, and my understanding, from our discussions with experts in the field, is that it is often an unfortunately a general reflection of the economy that people generate more waste as the economies improve. A lot of that is a nice segway into the next portion of the presentation that I think a lot of that speaks to outreach and awareness to prevent those habits from growing in people. Ms. Yukimura: When we had the conference in Solid Waste at KPAC about four years ago at the Kaua`i Performing Arts Center, maybe five, six years ago and we had the education person from Seattle come down and speak, it was very clear that you cannot do it with just these different...without the public education component. So I am glad that we are going into that next, but I am also thinking that when we call it "recycling" we actually are...there is a difference between "recycling" and "diversion." diversion" includes source-reduction, not just generating it, but it stops the upstream thing. Those ordinances that you are bringing forth may or may not help with that. There may be...that may be the guidance to us about where we need to look to get more leverage in reducing the amount that goes into the landfill. That may take much more than what a County can do, but I am thinking that we need to be looking at that, because I feel like there have been certain assumptions that are not really correct, that I have been making and I take responsibility for that. I think that is all the questions I have on this part. No, one more question. On the landfill cost, Troy, that you gave us $119 per ton. We think that is the actual cost of landfilling? Mr. Tanigawa: Based on our analysis of costs, currently that is the number. Ms. Yukimura: But that covers payoff...our mortgage, or bond...our interest on the bond, the capital costs? Does that include that? Mr. Tanigawa: It includes the capital costs. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Does it include the closure costs, the 30- years afterwards? Mr. Tanigawa: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: It does. Okay. So it is a pretty all-in cost? Mr. Tanigawa: Closure, post-closure cost. April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 8 Ms. Yukimura: Operating costs, all of that? Mr. Tanigawa: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Chock: So you can continue on your presentation. Ms. Fraley: So when we came to budget there was a question about our promotional budget request. So I just wanted to cover that briefly. Last year we had a very minimal request of only $10,000 and we are increasing the request to $60,000 for the whole year. I wanted to show you how we plan to spend it. So we are going to be proposing the pay as you throw ordinance and we are hoping that that will pass and if it does, there will need to be a fair amount of outreach and education about the different rates and different cart sizes and what is coming up for customers. So we will need to directly outreach to our customers and let them know about it. Also, ongoing promotion of our recycling programs is very important. We do a lot already which I will go over, but all we are asking for is some radio ads and newspaper ads and graphic design and printing that can really help people participate in the programs and make them aware of the programs that exist and help them participate. So the programs that we are hoping to promote ongoing in our public awareness are listed here as you can see, we have many programs to tell the public about. It is going to be difficult to only spend $40,000 telling people about all of this stuff, but we are hopeful that we can do it. I wanted to point out that we do program outreach that does not cost the County money except for the staff time that it takes us to do it. So here is what we do in our Office without a budget really or with a very small budget we maintain a recycling hotline and get dozens of calls and we have our website that details information on all of our programs and keep it updated on a daily basis. We do in-house printing and distribution of our Kaua`i Recycles guide, which is about 30 pages. It is a small booklet and we give it out at special events and through the transfer stations, neighborhood centers, and other locations like that. We issue news releases through our Public Information Office. We participate in live radio interviews and on all the media outlets. We present to schools and associations and groups upon request. We appear on the Mayor's Show and the Mayor has outreach that is continually updating the public on recycling programs and we have our recycling booth at the County Fair. Today we were at Earth Day and other events where we really feel like we get a bang-for-the-buck as far as how many people would be there and how we can outreach to the public. So measuring the effectiveness of our promotional efforts is really challenging because the short-term is how many people listened to the radio that day? How many people saw the ads? What we are trying to do is impact behavior. We need to continually invest, both in these radio ads and getting the word out, keeping that awareness up. We also do what we can with our staff at no cost to be able to get that information to the public. So we are hopeful that you would approve the request. That is it. Mr. Chock: Could we please have the lights back. I am kind of stuck back on the last part of the presentation. I know it is impossible to sift through everything as it comes in, especially because we do not have our MRF yet. Do you think legislation that moves towards fines for those who are not recycling would be beneficial or not? Ms. Fraley: You mean residents? Mr. Chock: Yes. April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 9 Ms. Fraley: What we have seen is that municipalities do not pass those laws until there is convenience in place. So once we had curbside recycling, then you know, down the line we may consider mandatory recycling for residents. That is what we have seen and that is what I think is fair. Of course we have to make an administrative and you guys would make the call on that. Mr. Chock: So we would have to set up the system for them to succeed. Ms. Fraley: They do that in other municipalities that have had curbside recycling in place for many years. Mr. Chock: Thank you. Further questions on this? Go ahead. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. So pay as you throw, if you can briefly kind of explain that? Right now residents with the automated pick-up we pay $12 for the bin, pay $12 a month for the service of getting picked up. If you do not have the automated service, you just pay $12? Ms. Fraley: Right it is based on volume as well. Mr. Kagawa: You put your bags out there, any amount and they will pick it up. Ms. Fraley: Not any amount. It is a 96-gallon limit for both automated and the manual and our workers actually look at that and they will not pick up more than 96-gallons at this time. Mr. Kagawa: So now the pay as you throw is that another bin? Ms. Fraley: Yes. So what we are planning to present to you soon is the first phase of the pay as you throw, which is we would offer a smaller cart to customers, 64-gallons instead of 96. And if they got the smaller cart they could keep the same $12 fee. That is what we are proposing. Mr. Kagawa: If you want to keep the big cart? Ms. Fraley: It goes up to $21. So that would provide an economic incentive. Mr. Kagawa: $9 a month more, from $12 it goes to $21 for the size that we have now? Ms. Fraley: Yes. Mr. Kagawa: But if you want to go with half the size...half the size is $12. Ms. Fraley: 64 and 96. April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 10 Mr. Kagawa: Oh, it is not half. It would be 64, like two-thirds the size. Ms. Fraley: Yes, two-thirds of the size. Yes. Mr. Kagawa: Okay that is still not going where I wanted in terms of the recycling. So pay as you throw has nothing do with blue recycling bins. Ms. Fraley: So that is the first phase. Once we have the MRF and have recycling, there will be a second phase where we offer an even smaller cart sized option. The 32, 64, and 96-gallon cart options and you pay accordingly. So going to the smaller cart, you would still pay $12 and medium would be more and the larger would be even more, but at least you have options to recycle at the curb at that point. Mr. Kagawa: When the pay as you throw jumps in, will something be happening to the residents' ability to throw rubbish at the transfer stations? Ms. Fraley: That is all included in the base fee. We do charge a $6 base. So anyone can use the transfer station and there is an additional $6 that makes up your $12 for the collection service. So in the future, I think what we are planning is that yes, residents can still use the transfer stations for free because they are paying the base. They are all paying the base fee and that covers the transfer station costs. Mr. Kagawa: So the thing is I do not know if you are meeting the end goal of recycling because if their bin fills up, they can still throw all the rest of the rubbish in their truck and take it down to the transfer station? Ms. Fraley: We do not have to transfer it and that transfer is a considerable part of the costs. I mean we can talk about this when it comes up, but our pay as you throw plan did recommend that we keep it free at the transfer stations. So that is definitely something to consider. Mr. Kagawa: I do not want to be Debbie Downer here, but the thing is to me, all you are doing by reducing the bin size and charging the same amount of money, $12 for a can two-thirds the size, all you are doing is finding a way to charge the residents with no money. We are not improving the recycling efforts. That is what concerns me, but that is just my concerns right now. Mr. Dill: If I may address that a little bit now, Councilmember. First of all we are still working on the number and the numbers we are talking about are tentative. Until you see us come forward with the bills and the numbers in the proposed bill, the numbers dollar wise are tentative. So we need to confirm that. Secondly you made a very good point and I agree, you go to your friend's house and see a lot of potentially recyclables in their trash and we want to make sure they are put there instead of the trash and the pay as you throw is to help people do that now. When the curbside recycling comes up, it will add a much greater convenience factor and hopefully we will see a lot higher recycling rate when that comes on board. Mr. Kagawa: I understand. Thank you. Ms. Yukimura: I first want to say that I know how hard...well, I probably do not know how hard, but looking from the outside, I can see that your Division is April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 11 working really hard and I want to thank you all of you who are doing that. I use your recycling hotline, too. So I know and I have heard you on the radio. I just wondered whether we have looked at what a model program is? Whether we are moving...trying to move in that direction? A model public education outreach program? Ms. Fraley: We attend conferences. We get to network with people throughout the country who run programs, and I think that our program is really up to par with some of the better programs. Ms. Yukimura: Well you do not have anything about social media and using that? I wondered if there was a way, the Planning Department is now using hash tags. Ms. Fraley: You are right, I went to a conference last summer where they talked about social media and having apps is the big deal and people do not go on the computer, as much as they use their iPhones and cell phones and apps is a big way to go. That does require an investment. It is something to consider. But now we have such a bare-bones budget for promotion, it is not something that is affordable at this time. But it is definitely something that we are keeping our eye on, because it is the future. Ms. Yukimura: Think it through and cost it out and maybe fund it with a surcharge, but from all I learned it is an essential piece. The public education and outreach is an essential piece and without it will not change behavior. Putting the system and structure and the pay as you throw with the convenience of curbside recycle and a really good educational program that will do it. So I know that is a lot, but I am thinking if that is what it takes, I invite you to propose it. Then the other thing is the outreach to children, I am remembering former Councilmember Joe Munechika telling us that he quit smoking because his sons asked him to quit smoking, and you know, I know in Seattle, they usually use some character, some Smokey the Bear type of character, that becomes associated with the education. I do not know if we have to go that far or how do it, but that was a big part of some of the programs I saw. Then lastly, I just want to say, if I go to Times Supermarket in Kukui Grove and there is a bring-your-bag poster, but I do not know how many people see it, because I do not think the design is designed to catch the eye and to be catchy and everything. I mean, that is the kind of edge, again, that you are going to have to think about in terms of an effective program. I really like your thinking that the real goal is impacting and changing behavior. So good for you that that is your indicator; that the ultimate measure is whether we change behavior, and not how many exposures, although I am sure there is a scientific connection between exposure and education anyway. I do have one more question about the previous part, if I can remember it. You know the commercial recycling rate is about the same as residential, but we do not spend as much money to achieve that rate. We do not spend as much public money to achieve that rate as we do to achieve? Ms. Fraley: We have ordinances in place that impact that behavior. So at the landfill, we restrict green waste, metals, and cardboard and we have seen the recycling rate go up significantly because of that. So I think we do not necessarily have to spend money to get these to go up. You need to have ordinances and you need to enforce them. Ms. Yukimura: I am sorry, I am waiting for something from the Legislature. Still regulation is not costing, as much as having to put out all of these sites or • April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 12 provide curbside recycling. I mean, you are actually achieving your goal with the business community through regulation, which I think is less cost than residential? Ms. Fraley: It is. It is normal for municipalities to put their money into residential programs and still have high recycling rates for commercial because of ordinances. You know those residential programs, I have them up here on the board, a lot of them are toxic waste that need to be managed by the County. Those are their high- cost programs. Per ton that is, the overall cost is pretty low like propane tanks for instance. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you for pointing that out. I was noticing it was a $6,000 per tonnage cost. Ms. Fraley: It has to do with managing and hauling that waste. Ms. Yukimura: You will not have that problem with liquid natural gas because it is a different kind of service infrastructure? I am just wondering. Ms. Fraley: I do not know. Ms. Yukimura: Because that is the direction. Mr. Dill: Liquid natural gas to fuel our fleet? Ms. Yukimura: No, there is say a proposal from The Gas Company to have it by pipes in a subdivision. That is what I have heard. I am at the beginning of the learning curve on that. The thing is that we have to pay more...it costs the County more, the government more to get the recycling results and part of it is because it is individual actions. I mean, the business community is much less per ton. Ms. Fraley: Yes. Well they are required to manage their hazardous wastes, those are your high-cost programs and we restrict the material. We do not restrict material from residents at this point because they do not have the convenience. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. I am just trying to figure it out. Mr. Chock: I had a follow-up question and Council Chair Furfaro talked about how the budget has increased significantly over the few years. I know it is because we need to get some of these programs moving along. So could you provide more of a time frame, in terms that I am assuming that we will get the programs together and get things moving strongly? That some of that budget would then either plateau off or decline. Could you speak to that briefly? Mr. Dill: That is a difficult question to answer here without a fair amount of preparation. I can tell you though that ever since this body passed the Zero Waste Resolution and established a goal of 70% waste diversion by 2023 we have been considering that exact question and looking at programs. When we project them to being implemented? How long it takes them to go to a point of maturity as Allison mentioned earlier and also keeping in mind that waste generation tends to increase and with all that in account, trying to meet that 70%, which is a very aggressive and ambitious goal, but nevertheless, we believe it is possible. But a lot of things have to fall in place, April 21, 2014 Budget Call-Backs (ss) Page 13 including funding, but there is a lot of detail and assumptions that go into that and I do not have that information ready right here. Mr. Chock: Our goal is for 2020 to reach? Mr. Dill: 2023. Mr. Chock: 2023...sorry, I forgot the 3. Any further questions Councilmembers? If not, thank you so much for the presentation. I think that is it for our agenda today. Some brief announcements, tomorrow we will be addressing Revenue Forecasting, Parks and Recreation, which include the Convention Hall, Golf Course, and Waimea District CIP and also Economic Development, Energy and WIA and the Mayor's closing comments. So stay tuned for the grand finale tomorrow. We will be recessed until tomorrow morning 9:00 a.m. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 4:07 p.m.