HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2021 Council minutes COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
The Council Meeting of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to order
by Council Chair Arryl Kaneshiro at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street,
Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:47 a.m., after which
the following Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr.
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Felicia Cowden
Honorable Bill DeCosta
Honorable Luke A. Evslin
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Excused: Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Good morning. Today's meeting will be
conducted pursuant to Governor Ige's COVID-19 Delta Response Emergency
Proclamation with the most recent relating to the Sunshine Law dated
October 1, 2021. Please note that we do have a registered speaker for one of our
Council Meeting items this morning. Staff will incorporate the testimony into the
record.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Councilmember Chock moved for approval of the agenda, as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Carvalho.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members?
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion for approval of the agenda, as circulated, was then put, and carried
by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
COUNCIL MEETING 2 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
MINUTES of the following meetings of the Council:
November 3, 2021 Council Meeting
November 3, 2021 Public Hearing re: Bill No. 2838
Councilmember Carvalho moved to approve the Minutes, as circulated,
seconded by Councilmember Cowden.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion on this
item from the Members?
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding these agenda items.)
The motion for approval of the minutes, as circulated, was then put, and
carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C 2021-248 Communication (10/08/2021) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration and confirmation, the following Mayoral appointments to the
various Boards and Commissions for the County of Kaua`i:
a. Charter Review Commission
• Bronson I. Bautista — Term ending 12/31/2022
b. Civil Service Commission
• Jeffrey S. Iida— Term ending 12/31/2023
C 2021-249 Communication (10/21/2021) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration and confirmation, Mayoral appointee Francis K. Kaawa
(Labor) to the Civic Service Commission —Term ending 12/31/2023.
C 2021-250 Communication (11/08/2021) from the Mayor, transmitting for
Council consideration and confirmation, the following Mayoral reappointments to the
Planning Commission:
• Donna A. Apisa (Labor)— Term ending 12/31/2024
• Helen A. Cox (Environmentalist)— Term ending 12/31/2023
Councilmember Carvalho moved to receive C 2021-248, C 2021-249, and
C 2021-250 for the record, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
COUNCIL MEETING 3 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or is there any
discussion from the Members?
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding these agenda items.)
The motion to receive C 2021-248, C 2021-249, and C 2021-250 for the record
was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali`i was
excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
COMMUNICATIONS:
C 2021-251 Communication (11/04/2021) from the Director of Finance,
transmitting for Council consideration, A Bill For An Ordinance Amending Ordinance
No. B-2021-877, As Amended, Relating To The Operating Budget Of The County Of
Kaua`i, State Of Hawai`i, For The Fiscal Year July 1, 2021 Through June 30, 2022, By
Revising The Amounts Estimated In The General Fund, to cover the County's insurance
premiums which have exceeded prior estimates.
Councilmember Carvalho moved to receive C 2021-251 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember DeCosta.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members? This item will be coming up later under Bills for First Reading.
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion to receive C 2021-251 for the record was then put, and carried by a
vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
C 2021-252 Communication (11/04/2021) from the Acting County Engineer,
transmitting for Council consideration, a Resolution Adopting The 2021 Integrated
Solid Waste Management Plan Update For The County of Kaua`i, and requesting
agenda time for the County's consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., to present the
final Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update, to include an overview of the
planning process, its content and focus, and the implementation plan, timelines, and
estimated costs for program improvements.
Councilmember Carvalho moved to receive C 2021-252 for the record, seconded
by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members? We will be taking the presentation on this item under Resolutions.
COUNCIL MEETING 4 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion to receive C 2021-252 for the record was then put, and carried by a
vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
LEGAL DOCUMENT:
C 2021-253 Communication (11/04/2021) from the Acting County Engineer,
recommending Council approval, of a Right-of-Entry and Soil Removal License and the
indemnification clause in provision#18(e), between the County of Kaua`i, the State of
Hawaii Agribusiness Development Corporation, Kekaha Agriculture Association
granting access to a parcel situated at Tax Map Key(TMK)No. (4) 1-2-002:001, Kekaha,
Kaua`i, Hawaii, to remove soil from the mud press mounds left by Kekaha Sugar
Company in Paua Valley for use as cover soil for the Kekaha Landfill.
• Right-of-Entry and Soil Removal License
Councilmember Carvalho moved to approve C 2021-253, seconded by
Councilmember DeCosta.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members? Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: I find this particularly important as we look
at our Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP). I just want this noted in
the record. Is Troy here or is Allison the right person? I wanted to know...I believe
it is two (2) years' worth of cover soil. Could you tell us how much soil we are getting
out of this? Is this just leftover surface soil from the sugar plantation days? Is that
correct? Please tell us about this.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
TROY K. TANIGAWA, Acting County Engineer (via remote technology): Yes,
Councilmember Cowden. This soil source is part of an area that the sugar plantation
disposed of post-sugar cane processing waste, such as mud, dirt, and other sediment
that came from that process. The anticipated volume of soil available for mining is
roughly two (2) years.
Councilmember Cowden: Do we put this on top of the trash each day?
Every day we put a layer of soil on top of the fresh rubbish that goes into our landfill.
Mr. Tanigawa: Yes. We have alternate daily cover.
Wherever we are closing off areas from filling, those areas are covered with soil.
Councilmember Cowden: Since this is old sugar excess, is there toxicity
in the soil? Did we look at that? How does that work? What is the toxicity of the
COUNCIL MEETING 5 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
soil? You do not have to give me an exact count, but is it problematic soil or is it
reasonably good soil?
Mr. Tanigawa: This is soil from the sugar cane fields. These
are fields that are laying fallow now that are in farming. This soil here is not toxic.
It is basically the soil that came in with the sugar cane. It has gone through the
washing process before the sugar cane was crushed. The waste from that washing
process, maybe I should not call it "waste," but the "byproduct" from that washing
process is dewatered and what is left is the sediment and soil that the plantation
takes up to these areas and deposits it into places like where we are mining from now.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any other questions from the
Members on this item?
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any final discussion on this item?
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion to approve C 2021-253 was then put, and carried by a vote of 6:0:1
(Councilmember Kuali i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
CLAIM:
C 2021-254 Communication (11/03/2021) from the County Clerk, transmitting
a claim filed against the County of Kaua`i by Warunee Feinberg, for damage to her
vehicle, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kaua`i.
Councilmember Carvalho moved to refer C 2021-254 to the Office of the County
Attorney for disposition and/or report back to the Council, seconded by
Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members?
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion to refer C 2021-254 to the Office of the County Attorney for
disposition and/or report back to the Council was then put, and carried by a
vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
COUNCIL MEETING 6 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
PLANNING COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-PL 2021-03) submitted by the Planning Committee,
recommending that the following be Approved on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2836 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 10, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING
TO THE LIHU`E TOWN CORE URBAN DESIGN DISTRICT (County of
Kauai Planning Department, Applicant) (ZA-2021-4),"
Councilmember Carvalho moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember DeCosta.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members?
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali`i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
HOUSING & INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE:
A report (No. CR-HIR 2021-04) submitted by the Housing &
Intergovernmental Relations Committee, recommending that the following be
Approved as Amended on second and final reading:
"Bill No. 2837 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 1, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE KAUAI COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY,"
Councilmember Carvalho moved for approval of the report, seconded by
Councilmember Cowden.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members?
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
COUNCIL MEETING 7 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
The motion for approval of the report was then put, and carried by a vote of
6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali`i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. Next item.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2021-42 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION(Bronson I. Bautista)
Councilmember Chock moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-42, seconded
by Councilmember Cowden.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members? If not, roll call vote.
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-42 was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden, DeCosta
Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: Six (6) ayes, one (1)
excused.
Resolution No. 2021-43 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Jeffrey S. Lida)
Councilmember Chock moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-43, seconded
by Councilmember Carvalho.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members? If not, roll call vote.
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
COUNCIL MEETING 8 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-43 was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden, DeCosta
Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes, one (1) excused.
Resolution No. 2021-44 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
APPOINTMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Francis K Kaawa —
Labor)
Councilmember Carvalho moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-44,
seconded by Councilmember Cowden.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members? If not, roll call vote.
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-44 was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden, DeCosta
Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes, one (1) excused.
Resolution No. 2021-45 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
REAPPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION (Donna A. Apisa—Labor)
Councilmember Carvalho moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-45,
seconded by Councilmember Cowden.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members? Councilmember Cowden.
COUNCIL MEETING 9 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Councilmember Cowden: I had been advised that it was best for me to
do a phone conversation rather than to ask the two (2) Planning Commissioners to
come for another interview at a Council Meeting. Something that came up with both
reappointments that I am very much in support of is the need to allow them or
encourage the Planning Commissioners to go and have a site visit, particularly with
difficult ones. Even if only a few goes, that would help to make clearer discussions
and decisions. I just wanted it to be there on the record that that is something that
both felt would be advantageous in the performance of their job. As a Councilmember
who routinely goes, I see where that would strengthen their capacity. I want to be
able to work with the Administration in whatever way possible to see that we can do
that. Many of the issues that come before them are in an inch stack of information
and a lot of times you can just take a look at that, and it becomes very clear. I would
like to work with the Administration somehow to make sure that we can have those
site visits for better discussion and decision-making. I want that on the record. I
have no problem with either reappointment. I just wanted it to be clear that that
conversation happened. I would have done that on the floor, but it was recommended
against that.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any further discussion from the
Members? Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I think these are reappointments, so I think
there was circulation of a request if anyone wanted to re-interview them or not.
Thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any further discussion? If not, we will
take a roll call vote.
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-45 was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden, DeCosta
Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes, one (1) excused.
Resolution No. 2021-46 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL
REAPPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION (Helen A. Cox —
Environmentalist)
COUNCIL MEETING 10 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Councilmember Carvalho moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-46,
seconded by Councilmember Cowden.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from
the Members? If not, roll call vote.
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-46 was then put, and carried by
the following vote:
FOR ADOPTION: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden, DeCosta
Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST ADOPTION: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes, one (1) excused.
Resolution No. 2021-47 — RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2021
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE
COUNTY OF KAUAI
Pursuant to Governor David Y. Ige's COVID-19 Delta Response Emergency
Proclamation dated October 1, 2021, public testimony was taken at the beginning of the
day and as follows:
Council Chair Kaneshiro: We have former Councilmember and Mayor
JoAnn Yukimura. You will have a total of six (6) minutes if you need it. If you can see
the light in front of you, it will turn green when you start, yellow when you have
thirty (30) seconds, and red when your six (6) minutes are up.
JOANN A. YUKIMURA (via remote technology): Good morning,
Councilmembers. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the proposed Integrated
Solid Waste Management Plan. Mahalo to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., the
consultant and the County's Solid Waste Division Recycling Office, and in particular
Allison Fraley and Keola Aki, for the hard work and the tremendous effort that went in
to develop the Plan before you today. The information and discussion of the issues in
the Plan are very important. What the Plan lacks, however, is a clear goal. This is
important for prioritizing actions and for measuring whether the Plan is working or not.
Since the Mayor and the County Council are the primary policymakers for the County,
it would be appropriate for the Council to express its goals in the adopting Resolution.
At minimum, I would suggest a goal of seventy percent (70%) diversion by 2025. It is
important to divert materials from the landfill for the following reasons: first, it will
save taxpayers money. The projected cost of the new Kalepa Landfill is eighty million
dollars to one hundred million dollars ($80,000,000-$100,000,000). This will be a huge
COUNCIL MEETING 11 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
burden for taxpayers present and future. A seventy percent (70%) diversion will
increase the life of the existing landfill significantly, reducing the urgency and the
ultimate size of the landfill and landfill operations. Second, diversion will help Kaua`i
move from the linear flow model of extract, make, use, dispose, and destroy, which is
not sustainable to a circular flow of materials which is make, use, reduce, repair, reuse,
compost, recycle, make, use, et cetera. This circular flow of materials will increase jobs,
businesses, economic activity, and tax revenues. It will help to build a circular economy
that the Council recently supported in a resolution. Waste will not be treated as waste,
but as a resource. Third, diversion or the circular flow of materials will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Consumption emissions, including emissions from the
manufacture and transportation of products, including food, makes up forty percent
(40%) of all greenhouse gases generated by the United States, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Four (4) priority actions will help us reach
the seventy percent (70%) diversion goal. Based on the County's most recent Waste
Characterization Study of what goes into the landfill, there are three (3) main types of
materials that can be diverted — recyclables, organics, and construction & demolition
waste. Not everything in each category is divertible, for example, some materials will
be contaminated. Conservatively and after conferring with an expert, we think that
forty-four percent (44%) of materials presently going into the landfill can be diverted
each year. We recommend that priority in the Plan be given to: 1) establishing curbside
recycling, 2) establishing regional composting capacity that will be able to address food
waste, 3) start a construction and demolition program, and 4) providing staffing and
resources needed to support these programs. These four (4) strategies will get us to a
sixty-eight percent (68%) diversion rate. This would be very close to our goal. These
four (4) priorities will be the most cost-effective way to move Kaua`i toward a
sustainable solid waste management system and to Kaua`i's General Plan goal of
becoming a sustainable island. This testimony is being made on behalf of myself and
Zero Waste Kaua`i since the President was not able to testify this morning. I want to
refer you to her written testimony which was submitted. Thank you very much. I am
available for any questions.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any clarifying questions from the
Members? Councilmember DeCosta.
Councilmember DeCosta: Hi, JoAnn. The information that you provided
on the greenhouse reduction by forty percent (40%), can you clarify for me how Kaua`i's
control over greenhouse gas emissions affects the rest of the world with the amount of
emissions that is going on worldwide?
Ms. Yukimura: It is small because our population is small. It
is still a dysfunctional way of living when we create or have this materials flow that is
unsustainable. We just cannot keep doing this. At some point, we are going to come to
a lack of resources. For example, China has cut down all of its forests. It does not have
any way to make paper. In the United States, this is according to Weyerhaeuser, we
burned or buried two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) worth of paper in 2011, I think it
was. China needed our paper when they printed the Rolling Stones paper in China.
They needed huge amounts of paper and they do not have it. They had to import it.
They imported it from places like the Amazon or elsewhere, and that all impacts global
COUNCIL MEETING 12 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
warming. It is a process that we cannot keep following. As an island, we need to do our
part to stop this dysfunctional way of treating materials and natural resources.
Councilmember De Costa: Thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any further clarifying questions?
Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: Thank you, JoAnn, for being here. I just
wanted to clarify...are you speaking...when we talk about the priorities that are being
listed, are you speaking on behalf of Zero Waste Kaua`i or any other organization?
Ms. Yukimura: I am speaking on behalf of Zero Waste Kaua`i.
In fact, Zero Waste Kaua`i circulated a petition that asks for these four (4) actions to be
priorities in the Plan. That is what Ruta Jordans was going to speak about. I believe
those petitions have been submitted or will be submitted. They have one hundred
eighty (180) signatures to-date, but it is continuing to be circulated. Those four (4)
priorities are specifically mentioned in the petition and were mentioned in our
testimony at the administrative hearing.
Councilmember Chock: We did receive the petition. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you for your questions,
Councilmembers Chock and DeCosta.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: I have a clarifying question. When you all
reviewed the ISWMP, including priority number one, which is curbside recycling, was
that with the awareness that this ISWMP says, "If we did that, we are going to increase
our curbside collection fee to forty dollars ($40) a month and that it will extend the
nine (9) years to nine (9) years and nine (9) months"? That is what we heard. Do you
have that information? Nine (9) months for triple the cost monthly.
Ms. Yukimura: That contradicts the information we have. I
suppose it would be a good thing to discuss with the consultants and the Administration.
Our spreadsheet, which we discussed with the consultants and the
Administration,shows ten dollars to twelve dollars($10-$12)per month cost for curbside
recycling and a far higher cost for curbside trash collection and disposal. It would be
important to know the breakdown of those costs and also, we are still working on
incorporating the current prices of recycled commodities, which have increased
dramatically since China refused our recycling, because the domestic recycling industry
in the United States is retooling to be able to use those materials within the United
States...
Councilmember Cowden: Thank you for that.
COUNCIL MEETING 13 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Ms. Yukimura: The price of recycled plastic is tripled or
quintupled since...
Councilmember Cowden: How about the nine (9) months? It is nine (9)
months of added time to the...is that consistent with what you came up with? We were
told nine (9) months. Did you come up with the same number?
Ms. Yukimura: To extend the life of the landfill?
Councilmember Cowden: Yes.
Ms. Yukimura: If you do those four (4) priorities, we estimate
that you will be able to...
Councilmember Cowden: Not the four (4), the one (1). 1
Ms. Yukimura: Yes, I do not know what the curbside recycling
alone is. I think it is ten thousand (10,000) tons per year. Even if nine (9) months is
three quarters (3/4) of a year, right, and every year you go you will gain three
quarters (3/4) of a year.
Councilmember Cowden: No, that is for the entire nine (9) years is what
they said. It sounds like you are looking at a different piece of information. They said
"nine (9) months over nine (9) years is what would be saved." It sounds like your
estimate is different. That is all I needed to clarify.
Ms. Yukimura: Yes. If it is different, we would like to
understand the basis of the Administration's calculation.
Councilmember Cowden: Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: I would like to know any other strategy that
reduces input into the landfill in a cost-effective and sustainable way. I do not think
there is anything else that can do that.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, thank you so much.
Ms. Yukimura: That is why you need not just curbside
recycling, but the other three (3) strategies plus resources and staff.
Councilmember Cowden: Thank you.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The information Councilmember Cowden
brought up is in the ISWMP and it will be in the presentation today.
Councilmember Cowden: I know we have it. I was wondering if they
were seeing it.
COUNCIL MEETING 14 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Exactly. Are there any further clarifying
questions? If not, thank you, JoAnn. The presentation will come up a little later in the
meeting. You can watch it on the webcast.
Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. I will be submitting my oral
testimony in writing as well.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you.
Councilmember Carvalho moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2021-47,
seconded by Councilmember Cowden.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: We had a testifier earlier this morning and we
did receive a lot of written testimony. We will let the Administration go through the
presentation and then we can ask questions on it later.
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Mr. Tanigawa: Good morning, Council Chair Kaneshiro.
Before the presentation, I would like to give a brief introduction. Councilmembers,
thank you for placing this measure on the Council agenda today. The ISWMP was
worked on for many months by the Solid Waste Division staff working with the
County's consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., and a community-based
advisory committee. The last time Council approved an ISWMP was in 2010. The
pandemic caused some delay in the completion of the updated plan. However, our
dedicated taskforce members, County staff, and consultant faithfully completed the
process and produced the plan that is before this body today. Lyndsey Lopez who will
speaking shortly, is from Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., consultant for this project
who helped facilitate us through this process. Lyndsey is online to go through the
presentation prepared for you today. Lyndsey.
LYNDSEY LOPEZ, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (via remote technology):
Aloha, Council Chair Kaneshiro, Councilmembers, and other attendees. My name is
Lyndsey Lopez, and I am with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. I am accompanied
with my colleague Dan Pitzler, Senior Lead of the project. We had the pleasure of
working with the County and the Advisory Committee over the last several months.
I am very excited to share the plan with you here today and hopefully take it to the
next step. Thank you again for having me, and it has been a pleasure working on
this project.
Today, I am here to walk through an overview of the ISWMP. I want to talk a
little bit about the background of the plan and the process we went through to get
through this current plan. One of the important parts of the ISWMP is information
about waste and diversion tonnages and projections. That is another piece of this
presentation I would like to cover. I going to spend most of the presentation talking
COUNCIL MEETING 15 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
about the recommendations by chapter. These recommendations are really the
prioritized recommendations that we have gone through and selected through this
long process of figuring out the baseline conditions, areas that we need to focus on,
and what our prioritized recommendations are for each chapter. One of the other
important topics that we will discuss as well is the life of the landfill and our disposal
strategy. Once that is completed, there will be an opportunity for questions.
Let us talk a little bit about the background and the process for this plan. When
you hear me say, "ISWMP," hopefully it is clear that it it means the Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan. We like to throw around a lot of jargon. I apologize. I will
try not to bore you with a lot of acronyms, but the ISWMP is the Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan.
It is a comprehensive planning document that talks about all the waste
prevention, recycling, and composting. You will also hear the word "bioconversion"
talking about composting, and disposal that the County is currently doing and should
consider. It includes an evaluation of all the local needs and conditions to determine
what the most effective strategies moving forward that are going to be protective of
human health and the environment. It outlines the components of an effective solid
waste management strategy, and it talks about short and long-term, goals, and a
framework for implementation. We are going to talk a lot about an implementation
plan. This is an important part of the plan. This is Chapter 10 of the plan, and it
rolls up all our prioritized recommendations. You will hear us talk about
enhancement opportunities into one plan that the County can use as a resource as
they are looking at setting budgets, how they allocate staff, and how all these
different pieces of the overall plan fit and work together.
The ISWMP is required by State law. The County is required to prepare one
every ten (10)years. There are interim status reports every five (5)years and Hawai`i
Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342G dictates what is actually included in the
ISWMP, and the State is part of the review of the overall plan and process.
How did we get here? A little bit of history on your ISWMP. The last plan was
adopted in 2010. In that plan, there were several items that were implemented. The
automated refuse collection, flat fee for refuse service, pay-as-you-throw system,
commercial landfill restrictions, and plastic bag law. Unfortunately, due to some
funding, there was an issue with implementing all the recommendations in the 2010
plan, including the compost facility, Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), and curbside
recycling programs, et cetera.
Bringing us to our plan. As you can see here, we have been at this for a while.
We started in July 2019. As Troy indicated, the pandemic slowed things down a little
bit, but we did have a really dedicated team of folks that were all working hard on
pulling this plan together. We had several different Solid Waste Advisory
COUNCIL MEETING 16 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Committee (SWAC) meetings, in which we talked about the elements of the plan and
the existing conditions. That SWAC was appointed by the Mayor. Their goal is to
guide the plan's direction and assure that it provides holistic reflection of the
priorities of the County. It is comprised of a mixture of private/public industry and
nonprofit representatives. We had a total of five (5) SWAC meetings. There was a
public review period. Throughout the process, we had various check-ins with the
Mayor. It has been a great process with a lot of engagement and a lot of public
comment. You will hear a little bit more as we talk about that later. We will talk
about it now. We received ninety (90) written testimonies during the public review
period of our draft ISWMP. We also received seven (7) oral testimonies and a letter
package that included eighty-six (86) adult residents and one hundred
seventeen (117) kids all requesting that the County add curbside recycling and a new
MRF. There was also a variety of different campaigns that were on the internet.
There was the Let's Get Kaua`i Recycling Instagram post that received multiple
shares and likes. There is a lot of excitement about having a sustainable island and
having implementation actions that are going to push the County forward to a
sustainable island. We took a look at all of those comments, and we grouped them
into the most common categories of comments. Right here, you are seeing the
eight (8) most common comments: 1) wanting goals and prioritized actions that align
with a sustainable island; 2) prioritizing curbside recycling; 3) prioritizing the MRF;
4) prioritizing curbside green waste and food waste; 5) prioritize diversion of
Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D); 6) adding staff to support the increase in
the recycling and diversion of the County; 7) there were a lot of comments against
waste energy; and 8) supporting the funding of the proposed ISWMP, the
enhancement opportunities, and the appropriate programs and staff required, and
not focusing on waste to energy. We reviewed these comments. In these themes, we
developed responses and made appropriate changes to the final plan in line with
those responses.
As I mentioned, the ISWMP's topic areas that are included in it are dictated
by HRS. These are the topic areas that are included. We have everything from source
reduction and reuse, recycling, and bioconversion, all the way down to disposal,
long-term disposal, and alternative technologies. The plan itself has a large emphasis
in the very beginning of the plan on the existing conditions for each topic area. It also
goes in-depth about waste generation and projection information, because this is
really important in helping to identify which recommendation should be looked at for
each topic area. The topic areas themselves do not have as much background
information since that is in the upfront parts of the plan, but they really focus on the
enhancement opportunities that made it to the final cut. As you heard me talk about,
we had the five (5) SWAC meetings and the public hearing. We took all the feedback
that we got, and looked at which of those enhancement opportunities should make it
into the final recommendations.
COUNCIL MEETING 17 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
As I talk about those enhancement opportunities, the original purpose
statement of the SWAC was to develop an ISWMP that builds on the basic structure
of the County's 2010 ISWMP, addresses the current and future needs and
opportunities, provides implementable solutions, and meets the requirements of
HRS 342G. This is where we started with the project. This was the purpose
statement that was given to us and to our SWAC. We used that to set down the road
where we came up with our enhancement opportunities. We prioritized
enhancements that are economically feasible for the County based on current or
slightly increased staffing levels. We focused on problematic materials and/or
materials that are found in excess in the waste characterization study. I will show
you a little bit more about that in the next section of this presentation. We built off
of the success from the existing programs and expanded or modified upon them to
gain that additional success that is really needed to take this island to the more
sustainable strategies. We recommended the evaluation of the implementing major
program enhancements in future years to assess the feasibility including cost
effectiveness and siting. You will hear me talking more about this when we get to
the enhancement opportunities of curbside recycling and the MRF.
You heard me mention a little about the waste diversion tonnages and
projections, these are really important elements of any ISWMP. It is important to
understand what the baseline conditions are, what your projections are over the next
ten (10) years for the ten-year planning horizon and having areas that you can focus
on. When we started the plan in 2019, this was based on actual data. We took that
information and looked at the population growth and the diversion rate, and we were
able to project that out to 2035. As this plan is taking a little longer, here we are in
2021, where we can peek at where the actuals are. Fortunately, they are a little lower
than we were projecting for disposals. That is a good thing for a lot of reasons. We
do not want to be filling up the landfill. Generating less and disposing less is a very
positive trend that will hopefully continue. For this plan, we stuck with the
information starting with the actuals from 2019 and projecting it out for the ten-year
horizon.
One important thing to understand is a little bit about the County's actual
waste stream. Fortunately, in 2016, the County hired another firm, Cascadia, to
conduct a waste characterization study. The study involved a total of one hundred
sixty-two (162) samples. As you can see here, eighty-one (81) of those were for the
privately hauled commercial waste delivered to the landfill and the other
eighty-one (81) were from the residential stream. There were seventy-one (71) total
material categories grouped into eleven (11) material classes that they looked at
during the study. Each sample weighed about two hundred thirty-two (232) pounds.
This is what they found. This shows overall Kaua`i countywide disposed waste
composition. This is the waste that is getting put into the landfill. What is it made
up of? As you can see from this graph, we have large categories of paper at eighteen
percent (18%); inerts and other C&D at twenty-four percent (24%); other organics and
COUNCIL MEETING 18 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
food at eighteen percent (18%) amd ten percent (10%) respectively, and plastics at
eleven percent (11%). There are other categories here too, but we really wanted to
focus on those kind of problem materials, or the ones that were in the highest portion.
I am going to go to a couple more slides that show you a little bit more about what is
in each of those categories, because they are wide. For instance, if you are looking at
other organics and food, if you combine those together you are at twenty-eight
percent (28%). This includes leaves, grass, pruning, trimmings, branches, stomps,
manure, textile, carpet, sewage sludge, non-recycled organics, and various
unpackaged or packaged meat or non-meat foods. If you are looking at the category
of inerts and other C&D, this includes concrete, asphalt paving and roofing, clean
lumber, treated lumber, other wood waste, gypsum board, rock, soil, and fines, non-
recycled inerts, and others.
The categories of paper and plastic are shown here. As you can see for paper,
there is a wide variety of things ranging from corrugated cardboard, craft bags—like
you sometimes might see at a grocery store...newspaper, white ledger paper, mixed
paper, aseptic and gable top containers, compostable paper, and non-recyclable paper.
The plastic has lots of different kinds of plastic. They are all listed here. I do not
need to go through all of them since you all are great readers. I just wanted to show
you there were a lot of things included in each of those categories. What does that
really mean? The disposed waste composition data is really indicating there are
opportunities for further diversion in C&D. As you can imagine, that is a category
that is heavy and takes up a lot of space. If you can find a solution to take it to the
landfill, that is a wonderful place to start. There are other opportunities for organics.
When I say organics, what I am talking about is yard debris, branches, stumps,
leaves, food waste, et cetera. Opportunities in paper and plastic as well. Of these
category material classes, plastics has the lowest diversion rate at thirteen
percent (13%). C&D waste may offer the greatest potential for increasing diversion
locally for the County.
That gives you a little about the background of what we did and baseline
conditions. We talked about problem areas. Now what we did was look at that
information, and then we went topic by topic to figure out what the prioritized
recommendations are, or the enhancement opportunities that the County should be
focusing on in the next planning horizon. What I am going to be doing is going
through each of the topic areas, if you remember, there were several of them. We are
going to talk about each...the bulleted list of enhancement opportunities that made
it into the plan. Those were the prioritized actions that needed to be covered for that
topic area. Then the next slide for each of those topic areas, you are going to be seeing
a table, which is in our implementation plan. That has each of those same
enhancement opportunities, but then there are timeframes for when we think that
should be implemented and there is some rough order magnitude costs information
for budget planning purposes, and sometimes there may be a piece about staffing as
well. As I mentioned, this is a really important tool for the County as they are
COUNCIL MEETING 19 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
planning on what they focus on and when they focus on it. You can kind of see the
entire piece of this integrated ISWMP. It is really important that these pieces work
together. You cannot really do one recommendation and ignore the others, because
they are interrelated, and you need many of the pieces working together to have a
successful plan.
Our first topic is the source reduction and reuse. It is the first topic in HRS
because it is really important. As you have heard today, we want to reduce the
amount of waste that is getting into the system, period. If you can make strides in
just reducing the amount of waste that is getting into the system or that we are
generating, you are already making great strides, because then you do not have to
manage it as much. The County has done a lot of work in this area already. They do
a lot of great programs, it is building off those existing programs and expanding those
programs. We want to build off and expand policies for plastic and polystyrene
reduction and compostable use. We talked about plastic being a problem. Here is
one way to reduce the amount getting into the system. Another way is to advocate
for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), you may have heard of this as "EPR,"
for potential candidate materials. What this is, is putting the responsibility back on
the producers. If a producer is responsible for where they are packaging or other
content and the things that they are providing, if they have to figure out how it is
going to get managed after its use, they might be more interested in making that
packaging or material better in the long run, so that it is not creating trash. Another
one is to offer grant-in-aid funding to support food waste to animal feed projects.
When we talk about "organics and food waste," this is an area that can be used for
that. Recognize and promote the lodging industry source reduction efforts. At the
time the plan started, they were doing a lot of great things. Hopefully as things start
to return to normal, they can pick that back up. Support the State plastics source
reduction working group findings related to the use of reusable containers at
restaurants. The State has been doing a lot of work with plastics. Your County was
represented by Allison on that working group. They did a lot of great research and
things they could do as a State. We really support the County to see how they can
utilize some of those findings.
Consider a fee increase for the pay-as-you-throw program. As you heard me
mention, one of the great accomplishments of the 2010 plan was to implement the
pay-as-you-throw program. This is really to incentivize not creating a lot of garbage
or trash. We will talk about this later, but this is an opportunity to increase that fee
and to encourage generating less trash. As I mentioned, if you look at the table here,
we have all of those different enhancement opportunities listed. Each of the tables
talks about the planning horizon, whether it is a short-term, medium-term, or a
long-term. We assigned an implementation difficulty to it. It may be low, easy to
advocate, or difficult to implement. Some are medium and some are high. As you see
the blue hopefully it looks blue on your screen, it looks blue on mine—these are
indicating the years that this particular enhancement opportunity should be
COUNCIL MEETING 20 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
implemented. Some of these do not have any dollar signs assigned as you can see,
but there is a footnote. The footnote says, "Assume no cost for program, but requires
some staff time factor into the additional resources." For the ones that were specific,
there are costs associated in the fiscal year that we are recommending. For source
reduction, it is important to be thinking about the pay-as-you-throw fee increase. As
seen under the existing column, the current base fee is six dollars ($6) and is assessed
regardless of whether a customer gets curbside refuse collection. Customers with
curbside refuse collection also pay an additional fee based on the size of their cart. If
you have a smaller cart, you pay a smaller fee. If you have the biggest cart, you pay
the biggest fee. The total fee charged to the residential customer is the base fee plus
the fee for the cart. For instance, a customer with a 64-gallon cart would pay six
dollars ($6), plus four dollars ($4), for a total of ten dollars ($10). Operating costs
continue to increase for the County's Solid Waste Management System, and the
County must evaluate revenue sources. The Ecoconservation institute that did this
implementation plan for pay-as-you-throw is based on a study done back in 2013, but
they had recommended that Kaua`i move forward on the cost of service, but do so on
a phased schedule. This is an opportunity to consider if now is the time to increase
those fees, and that could be coupled with expansion of a variety of service offerings
as you can see from the table. You could have a two (2) to three (3) stream trash and
recycling and potential future addition of green waste if you go to this fee increase
here.
The next topic area is recycling and bioconversion. To be sure that we are all
on the same page, what we are talking about is really converting organic material
like yard waste, food waste, et cetera. It is processes like composting or anaerobic
digestion, et cetera. This chapter talks about recycling and bioconversion. In this
chapter, we really want to focus on one of the big comments we received from the
public, which was the need for adding curbside recycling and a MRF. As you can
imagine, both of those things are complementary. They need each other, you cannot
have a curbside recycling program if you do not have anywhere to process it. It does
not do a whole lot of good to have a MRF, if you do not have a curbside recycling
program that is feeding that material to the facility. You have to look at it
collectively. I know that both of those topics have been studied by the County in the
past, but there has been enough time that has passed since those studies were done,
that we feel that it is very important that the County update those. We are not saying
start from scratch or design a new wheel, but building off those studies. What we are
recommending is that you build upon those previous studies and to be sure that it is
going to be feasible based on the existing economic conditions and you have the right
site for this particular material recovery. Do the right budget planning that is needed
to get these large size programs into the County's plans and budget. Those are the
top two (2) enhancement opportunities in this category. We also talk about things
like supporting the deposit beverage container deposit increase, evaluating and
expanding additional commercial disposal restrictions, for instance, C&D debris and
identifying recycling opportunities for businesses, and also supporting the expansion
COUNCIL MEETING 21 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
of a tiered composting regulation to encourage smaller composting operations. This
is in line with the feedback that we really do need to figure out better ways of
processing our organics. One of the things you can do is looking at ways to make it
easier to have smaller composting operations in the County. Other elements in this
topic area include design and implement a compost demonstration project and
evaluate if you can add food waste to support permit modifications for food waste
composting at private facilities under Issue Request for Proposals "to see who can
support those programs, offer grant-in-aid funding for recycling and organics
projects; issue RFP for a pallet processing facility; and allocate appropriate resources
to hire new staff for recycling programs and co-locate new recycling drop-off sites and
HI-5 certified redemption centers with existing solid waste facilities when possible.
As you can see here, we are looking at the low-hanging fruit, the problematic
materials, and areas you need to focus on to take the County to the next level and
make it a more sustainable island in general. As you have heard from public
testimony and seen in our plan, it is important that the curbside recycling, materials
recovery facility, and all these other programs that support other pieces of recycling
and bioconversion element are very important in increasing your diversion and
improving your sustainability overall. So, looking at all those enhancement
opportunities, you will see them listed here just as I mentioned them on the previous
slides. If you go from items 7 through 17, you will see specific cost associated with
them. Since you have already done some of these studies for the curbside collection
and the material recovery and siting study, you do not need to start from scratch, but
you need to update it. Therefore, there is a cost of two hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($250,000). This is so that you do a good update to make sure you are on the
right track and put in the proper budget, which would then go here, and into
implementing that curbside recycling and MRF. You will also see there are specific
costs listed here for the demonstration project, some of the permit modifications,
grant-in-aid funding those years, and RFP to process the pallets. Pallets were one of
those items that were found in the waste characterization study, so finding a good
solution for that is really important. As you can see, this includes allocating
appropriate resources to hire new staff, one (1) full-time equivalent employee for
recycling programs. There are a lot of recycling programs the County already does,
and if we are asking them to do more, they need more assistance to make sure those
programs are successful. Since we had so much topic and interest in the curbside
recycling and the new MRF, we tried to look a little into what would happen if we
were able to implement this by the year 2024. This is a planning study project. We
did not do an in-depth analysis, we were not scoped to do a detailed economic
evaluation. Using information that we have readily available and some of the historic
information that you looked at and bringing it forward to current dollars, we did find
that this program, if implemented, could extend the life of the landfill by nine (9)
months to a year. The popularity of the pilot program that was done in Lihu`e and
numerous recent news articles and"Letters To the Editor" do suggest that this would
be very popular with residents and it is a great way to increase your diversion and
try to set the County up properly, so that you can continue to increase that diversion
COUNCIL MEETING 22 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
and implement new ways as materials change, generation amounts change, you have
better tools in your toolbox to take it you to the next level.
In 2016, CalRecovery, Inc. developed a conceptual design for a signal stream
materials recovery facility at the existing Kaua`i Resource Center, and subsequently
a final environmental assessment (EA) of materials recycling facility for the site. A
reevaluation is recommended due to changes in the economic conditions and other
local conditions. The MRF would primarily be supported by a new County ran
curbside collection program and the sale of materials from the MRF would help offset
some of the cost. We also talked about increasing the pay-as-you-throw fee.
That brings us to our next topic area, Chapter 5, Special Waste. There is a
long list of special waste items. One of the more surprising ones I think you might
find and is one of the reasons I think we may have gotten so many comments on C&D,
is that C&D debris is included in that special waste list. It is discussed in a couple
areas in the plan, but in Chapter 5, we talk more about it. The enhancement
opportunities that we have included in the special waste section are increasing public
education regarding proper disposal of acetylene tanks. This is a problem that the
County has seen and one of the focus areas we felt was necessary—expand disposal
bins to include select construction and demolition debris materials, prepare County
videos to address public education needs for special waste, evaluate opportunities for
sewage sludge diversion, and act on opportunities if cost-effective and overall
beneficial, and implement the collection of used cooking oil at the Kaua`i Resource
Center. Again, here we are with our table, items 18 through 22. Some of these items
the County had a good start on. You might see some items happening in 2023. We
have various programs listed along with the cost. I put this as public education,
because it is in Chapter 7. Even though these videos are mentioned here, it is also
mentioned in Chapter 7 because they go hand-in-hand. Being C&D is left in the
disposal stream and there are a lot of interests and comments that we heard, we took
more steps in identifying the steps of what you would actually do if you had a disposal
bin for it: 1) Identify the C&D materials to target like concrete and asphalt, untreated
wood pallets, drywall, and wood waste, 2) Engage with C&D stakeholders. This is
key to garnering the needed support. In the past, some other efforts for bans or
required recovery failed, because you did not have the right stakeholders onboard.
This would be an attempt to try and learn from those times and make it more
successful overall. 3) Secure the diversion options—this is like doing market
development and issuance of RFPs for reuse and alternate processing of the C&D
materials, 4) Draft and pass legislation, 5) Perform public outreach and education,
and 6) Implement new commercial disposal restrictions.
That brings us to Item 6, household hazardous wastes and electronic waste
section. The enhancement opportunities on this include evaluate a drop-and-swap
program at the Kaua`i Resource Center, network with automotive stores and repair
shops regarding automotive fluids and materials, advocate for extended producer
COUNCIL MEETING 23 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
responsibility for select materials, assess feasibility of accepting e-waste or electronic
waste at refuse transfer stations after completion of the refuse transfer station
upgrades, and evaluate residential disposal bans on electronic waste if it is feasible
to accept them at the transfer stations. Here we are again with all those
implementation actions. These are the difficulties shown and the timeline for each
of those items are proposed.
That brings us to Chapter 7 or public education. Public education is a really
important one, because as we have talked about all of these other implementation
actions, it is super important to get public understanding of what you are doing so
that your program is working properly and that you do not want to have to work quite
as hard to make those programs work. Some of the topics that we recommended
focusing on are promoting the true cost of the solid waste programs, enhancing the
school reduce, reuse, and recycle program, evaluating a food waste comprehensive
program, and use compost and food waste survey to help guide needs. That is another
one of those actions that are specific to addressing that organic waste stream that is
still left in the disposal stream. Updating the County website with increased number
of image-based posters and videos. Those can really be targeted on the different
materials that you might be finding that are not being handled properly or that might
need a little bit more information for folks to make sure they are making the proper
choices. Promote the State Green Recognition Program, develop and support a
recycling block leader program, allocate appropriate resources to hire new staff for
public outreach and education, and use the business survey to advertise education
needs and focus areas, and then target businesses that may require specific technical
assistance. Then again, we see each of these items listed in the implementation plan
and the additional staff listed here starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 going through
the end of the planning horizon and beyond.
That brings us to Chapter 8. The materials marketing and procurement
section. The enhancement opportunities that are included in this chapter are explore
potential plastic processing innovation. Again, we are keying into one of those
categories that was left in the disposal stream and that waste characterization study
plastic. Advance County recycled product purchasing policy. Evaluate on island
recycling opportunities and issue RFPs for select materials. This way you are not so
reliant on sending those recycling materials off-island, and as you get to a more
circular economy, you can do that with things on-island. Promote the State compost
standards. Improve County use of recycled glass, organics, and other recycled
products. Again, that is another one of those things that is promoting circular
economy, promoting self-reliance, and sustainability. Promote enhance State and
Federal market development efforts and funding. Each of those implementation
items are listed here, Items 36 through 41, and timeline and costs shown in the table.
Chapter 9, Refuse Transfer Stations and Landfills. The implementation items
that were included in the plan are to: assess the closing of landfill and refuse transfer
COUNCIL MEETING 24 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
stations on Sundays to improve efficiency; continue and enhance refuse transfer
station staff training program to improve compliance with drop-off restrictions—for
example, commercial use, pressurized tanks, and used oil collection, propose an
increase to the commercial refuse transfer station tipping coupon fees, improve
emergency operating procedures at the Kekaha Landfill; and allocate appropriate
resources to hire new staff for landfill operations and proceed with permitting and
design for vertical expansion of Kekaha Landfill. Each of these items are shown here.
Items 42 through 47. Proceed with permitting and design for the vertical expansion
here. Each of the resources shown here and the other items above.
Item 10, evaluation of the long-term disposal strategies. The enhancement
opportunities in this chapter. You want to look at conducting a siting study for a new
landfill. A waste-to-energy/alternative technologies feasibility study and continue
assessing disposal capacity. This is sort of a multi-pronged approach. Kekaha
Landfill has very limited life left. Looking at your various options, it is important to
hit that multi-pronged approach, which is why there are elements of looking for the
new site for a landfill, looking at alternatives to landfilling, and looking at assessing
disposal options and capacity at the existing landfill. I want to talk a little bit more
about the landfill life and disposal strategy for the County. The existing landfill is
expected to reach capacity within the ten-year planning window. If you are looking
at the longer-term, thirty (30) years, it is important to have kind of that 30-year look,
because it takes a long time to build landfills and to shift or change in what you are
doing. We looked at both short-term and long-term. The proposed disposal strategy
is to continue using the existing landfill, anticipated to reach capacity in
January 2027. Vertical expansion to extend the existing landfill life by three (3)years
and five (5) months. Identify, select, and initiate disposal options to replace the
existing landfill. I really recommend starting now because this takes a lot of time.
Start evaluating other future options that you might look at long-term. Those can
include everything from obtaining approval to develop the Ma`alo Road site, develop
other locations for a new landfill on Kaua`i, do landfill mining, possibly waste-to-
energy off-island disposal to Honolulu Program of Waste Energy Recovery (H-Power),
or initiate a statewide discussion. As I mentioned, this is a multi-pronged approach
starting with what you currently have, expanding as much as you can, and identifying
long-term future options for things that cannot be diverted. That brings me to the
end of my presentation. I will turn it back over to you.
(Councilmember Carvalho was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Thank you for that presentation. While the
rules are still suspended, are there any questions from the Members on the
presentation? Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: I was hoping that someone else was going first
because I have so many. I will ask just a few. First of all, I want to thank our Solid
COUNCIL MEETING 25 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Waste team and acknowledge the person who has been in leadership for a while,
Allison Fraley, who is passionate about recycling. That is great. I know that we had
a lot of people messaging wanting this item to be deferred because they do not feel
they had enough time to look at this. What is the timeline for when this has to be
approved?
Ms. Lopez: The timeline for the Plan itself, is that what
you are asking?
Councilmember Cowden: Yes.
Ms. Lopez: Your last plan was adopted in 2010. You
should already have a new plan. As soon as possible is the answer.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay. When we are looking at this EPR, I
think that it is a really important piece, and we are talking about partnering. Do we
have a plan or have we started to work with any of the big box stores? When I think
about the Styrofoam, retail, electronics, and packaging for shipping...you go to a big
box store, you walk out with half your cart being rubbish. Sometimes, I feel like
cutting my stuff apart and leaving it in the cart, just to make a point. Do we have
EPR plans where we are looking with partnering with these companies that do the
sales of highly packaged products?
(Councilmember Carvalho was noted as present.)
ALLISON FRALEY, Solid Waste Program Development Coordinator
(via remote technology): Last year at the State Legislature, there was
a bill about EPR for packaging. All the County recycling coordinators were involved
in listening and meeting with the legislator or who wanted to pass that. It did not go
anywhere, but we are looking at partnering to see what we can do about that. That
would be at the State level. You would not go straight to a box store, that would not
be the approach, although we could look into that. Being that it is the manufacturers
of the products that the box stores carry, that is where you would want to hit and
have State or Federal Legislation to stop that packaging.
(Councilmember DeCosta was noted as not present.)
Councilmember Cowden: Okay. I want to acknowledge the Zero Waste
Kaua`i testifier who is the former Mayor. If my memory serves me correctly, she got
Kekaha Landfill together. It filled up immediately from a six-hour storm and when
there was Hurricane `Iniki. Can you speak to where there is a discrepancy between
what Zero Waste Kauai seems to think would be the diversion rate on curbside
recycling. This says one (1) month per year, nine (9) months out of nine (9) years.
They are putting curbside recycling as their first priority. To me, one-twelfth (1/12)
COUNCIL MEETING 26 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
does not seem we would be getting our bang for our buck. Can you speak to where
you folks are seeing something different.
Ms. Fraley: As I mentioned earlier, there has been studies
that the County has done over the past several years that do talk about looking at
how much recycling you could get out of a program like curbside recycling and a MRF.
Those studies are a bit dated. Being that this plan was not scoped to have a detailed
evaluation of that, and it does require a little more careful consideration to look into
those sorts of topics, that is why we recommended the implementation action of
looking at those studies again and updating them, so you could have an informed
analysis of whether it is still economically feasible and you know where you are going
to be doing that. We took a look at the old study that was done, we updated it to
current dollars now, we looked at the areas that you were currently diverting
material and made estimates looking at other places throughout the country that
implemented certain programs, and came up with an estimate. You need to look at
it a little bit further, and that is why we recommended that enhancement
opportunity.
(Councilmember DeCosta was noted as present.)
Councilmember Cowden: Okay. I am going to ask one more question
because maybe other people will ask questions that are on my list. We have a lot who
are opposing waste-to-energy. I have not seen a lot of discussion where our County
is serious about waste-to-energy. I am calling this "poop to power." This question
might be for Allison. For about a year-and-a-half, we have a provider that would like
to work on sewage wastewater treatment. You would take it straight from the
cesspool or straight from the sewer pipe and turn it into hydrogen power. It is in the
experimental phase, but I have been involved in that. Maybe Allison can speak to
that. If that could get our sewage sludge out of the landfill...I know information was
recently sent to you, did you look at it?
Ms. Fraley: Yes, thank you. We got it the other day and I
forwarded it to Troy. We are going to be looking at it. Sewage sludge is five percent
(5%) of our waste stream. If we could get that out, or is economically feasible, that
would be a great thing. We are definitely going to look at it.
Councilmember Cowden: When I look at our Plan, it could easily be
folded in there. Just because it is not written down in this Plan, it would be under
the exploratory elements to reduce.
Ms. Fraley: There is a recommendation where we will look
at sewage sludge, and there is funding in there, too. It is in the slides that Lyndsey
showed.
COUNCIL MEETING 27 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Councilmember Cowden: We did not source that yet, so it could possibly
go in this direction.
Ms. Fraley: Yes. There is recommendation that we look
at diverting sewage sludge.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: I have a follow-up to that. In the past, people
would compost the sewage sludge so it would not end up in the landfill. I believe the
Department of Health or other regulatory agency made it more difficult to do that. Is
that still a viable option or is that not an option any more going into the future?
Ms. Fraley: I know that they are permitted to compost
sewage sludge in other counties. A composter could amend their permit to be able to
accept sewage sludge.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember DeCosta.
Councilmember DeCosta: Thank you. I stepped out for a little bit, so I
am not sure if the question was already asked. I do not want to be redundant. One
thing that is on my mind is that we did not discuss all the work our past
Administration did at another site with the birds and the airport. I want to know if
that is still on the table and in the Solid Waste Plan or are we not having any more
discussions about that possible site?
Mr. Tanigawa: Good morning, Councilmember DeCosta.
Councilmember DeCosta: Good morning, Troy.
Mr. Tanigawa: At this point in time, we are still studying
that. We do not have any more details to provide on that site now.
Councilmember DeCosta: Okay. I just know that a new site would take
us almost ten (10) years. If this site was still viable or a possible opportunity, we
would be much more ahead of the game.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: I have a follow-up to that question if you are
going to move onto a different topic. Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: My follow-up is on Ma`alo. Thank you for
bringing that up because this was one of my big questions. When we spoke about
putting soil on the landfill every other day, when you put the soil on, it must reduce
the number of birds, right? We do not have as many birds flying. We do not have
that many birds on what they call pu u opala, the landfill out in Kekaha. I go and I
COUNCIL MEETING 28 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
look for birds. Putting the soil on that helps reduce the birds. That is the problem
for Ma`alo.
Mr. Tanigawa: Correct. Covering the waste covers the odor.
Apparently, the odor is what attracts the birds. We place soil and alternate daily
cover on the waste every day.
Councilmember Cowden: Is that looked at when we are seeing what
would prohibit us. My understanding is the biggest prohibition on the Ma`alo place
is regarding the birds getting caught in the engines at the airport. At least that was
a concern. If we are covering it with soil, does that give us a little bit of distance for
what we can have?
Mr. Tanigawa: I think the problem is that for the majority of
the day the waste is not covered. We are receiving waste; waste is being placed and
compacted. It is covered only at the end of the day. There is a substantial amount of
time that the waste is open and considered an attraction to invasive species.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any further questions for the
potential landfill at Ma`alo? Councilmember DeCosta.
Councilmember DeCosta: I have a direct follow-up, and this could be off
base. Are the birds that we are talking about the white egret? Troy, I think that is
the birds that we are talking about or are there multiple birds that visit the landfill
site?
Mr. Tanigawa: Our observations at the landfill site is the
egret is one of the main species that are attracted. There are also myna birds, too.
Councilmember DeCosta: The bird that is detrimental to the airport is
the egret, correct?
Mr. Tanigawa: They talk about the larger birds. The geese
being a real danger; but the egret is large enough where it is causing concern. The
myna birds fly in flocks.
Councilmember DeCosta: The only reason I am bringing this up is
because the egret is an invasive bird. It is not a native bird to the island.
Councilmember Cowden: We are not worried about the bird; we are
worried about the engine and passengers on the plane.
COUNCIL MEETING 29 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Councilmember DeCosta: I know that. It is an invasive species, and we
have an invasive species department in Hawai`i that removes guava and the different
types of invasive animals. Would it be a possibility that we can work in partnership
with them at the landfill, with the invasive egrets, and find a way to get rid of them?
I think we do that at the airport. I think they actually shoot a shotgun at the airport.
Am I correct?
Councilmember Cowden: I think they moved the neve. The nene are the
biggest problem and they moved them.
Councilmember DeCosta: I think they also do a control shot program
with the birds. A controlled invasive bird removal could be implemented at the
landfill. I am just throwing it out there. We need to settle this problem and somehow
work together. I am finding solutions. That is all.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Do you have any other questions?
Councilmember DeCosta: Not on this.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: You can go to your next question.
Councilmember DeCosta: We talked about recycling, which is great, but
do we have a buyer for the recycling? What do we do with all the bottles, cardboard,
and aluminum cans that are recycled? We need to find a spot to keep all the material.
Do we have a potential buyer whether it is in the State, another country, or in the
United States?
Ms. Fraley: I will answer that. Our recycler, Garden Isle
Disposal, does have markets for all the recyclables that we are currently collecting.
A MRF would only improve that because there would be more covered space that
would enable us to recycle more plastics. Plastics are a problem because they get
degraded or "sunburned," is what our recycler calls it, when they are sitting in the
sun and waiting to get into a shipping container. A whole shipping container of
certain types of plastics to be able to market them. The MRF would provide more
covered space for that. Yes, we have markets for all the material we are collecting.
Councilmember DeCosta: The last question I wanted to ask is about the
plastics since you brought it up. I noticed we were mostly targeting our local people
as far as recycling and curbside recycling. However, it seems like the big box stores
who are selling a lot of the products that come out of Costco, a lot of products are
purchased by the vacation rental and hotel industries. How are we holding them
liable? Someone like myself, Councilmember Cowden, or Council Chair Kaneshiro,
we are very conscientious of our island. We do not want to put plastic in our landfill.
This is our aina, but maybe tourists are not as conscientious about throwing away
COUNCIL MEETING 30 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
the large apple tray from Costco, plastics, et cetera. How do we target that market
and figure out what is that piece of the pie of plastics going into the landfill by
non-locals versus locals?
Ms. Fraley: Thank you for asking that. We need to assist
the visitor industry in establishing recycling programs and informing their clientele
or guests on how they can participate in recycling. A lot of people that come from the
mainland are used to recycling and they want to recycle while they are here, but they
might not have the information. Our office has developed regional flyers that can be
modified. We are in the process of getting them out to the visitor industry. Hotels do
a great job already, but this is for vacation rentals where they can easily put a flier
that had all the information in their room to assist the customer. Also, the next best
step would be to have recycling bins in the room, and to educate the customers. You
yourself mentioned "apple trays." Right now, those are not recyclable. Those are
clamshell containers; we are only accepting #1 and #2 bottles and jars. Really
educating customers is where we need to go. We need staff resources for that.
However, our HI-5 specialist can work on the HI-5 aspect and getting HI-5 recycling
programs in our vacation rentals.
Councilmember DeCosta: Thank you, Allison. I am done.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Evslin.
Councilmember Evslin: Thank you for the presentation and all your
folks work on this. I have a couple questions. The plan mentions sixty percent (60%)
of our funding from Solid Waste comes from the General Fund and forty percent (40%)
from the fees, is my understanding. There is the chart which shows the potential
increase fees from curbside recycling. It goes from ten dollars ($10) for a sixty-
four (64) gallon cart, to twenty-nine dollars ($29) if you are doing curbside recycling.
It does not show what the general fund subsidy is. Is that assuming the same
sixty/forty breakdown, General Fund to fees, or is that twenty-nine dollar ($29)
curbside recycling option fully funded from fees? Do you have those numbers?
Ms. Lopez: I believe it is still the same breakdown. Dan,
do you recall?
DAN PITZLER, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (via remote technology):
Not specifically, but I do know that our estimate was seven dollars and fifty
cents ($7.50) a household for the residential portion of curbside recycling numbers.
The pay-as-you-throw options were somewhat separate from that curbside recycling
discussion. There are two (2) issues. Are we going to implement a new program?
The second issue is what is the right mix of General Fund versus pay-as-you-throw?
In part and in response to the comment at the very start of the day today, those are
COUNCIL MEETING 31 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
separate issues and it was about seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per household,
per month, for curbside recycling.
Councilmember Evslin: If it is seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50)per
month, then the chart is a little confusing because it is showing it as current fees is
ten dollars ($10), proposal with curbside recycling goes to twenty-nine dollars ($29).
It is increasing it by nineteen dollars ($19) per month. That must be under an
assumption that it is less General Fund subsidy, or it would be seven dollars and fifty
cents ($7.50)?
Ms. Fraley: Yes. I just want to reiterate what Dan said,
they are separate. The chart is showing the pay-as-you-throw increase and is not just
addressing curbside recycling. That is a way we could pay for curbside recycling, but
that chart is from our original study with the conservation institute that
recommended we do pay-as-you-throw. It said that after you have pay-as-you-throw
in place for a certain amount of time, go ahead and increase the fees. Yes, there would
be less reliance on the General Fund, and we could have more revenue from fees.
Councilmember Evslin: Thank you. The chart is a little deceptive
because I think when people look at the chart, they get sticker shock thinking if they
want curbside recycling it is three-times the price, whereas, that three-times the price
figure is showing significantly more revenue being raised.
Ms. Fraley: It is showing pay-as-you-throw. The last time
we implemented pay-as-you-throw originally, we were the only County that had it.
We had higher fees going in, so the legislative process may change this. This is just
a guide of how we can increase fees. When we come to Council and make the
arguments, at the end of the day, those fees might be different.
Councilmember Evslin: Okay, thank you. With the vertical expansion
of the landfill, it looks like we have until June 2030. The plan references with Ma`alo
or even a new landfill site, that we are looking at ten (10) years when we are
accounting for acquisition, permitting, design, and construction. Even if we start the
process of Ma`alo or looking at new landfill site, it looks like there is going to be a gap
period without widescale diversion or waste energy. Is that an accurate assumption?
The gap period, meaning that we are going to overtop the landfill before we have a
new one.
Ms. Lopez: It really depends on which of the
implementation actions that you go forward and carry out. If you can aggressively
go after all the ones that have been listed here, then it might not have such a big gap.
As the disposal strategy that we discussed, work on what you currently have now, so
hopefully we can reduce what is going into the current landfill by implementing the
ban of C&D and things like that. All the estimates that say the life of the landfill are
COUNCIL MEETING 32 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
not based on those being implemented, it is based on going as you currently are with
your forty-three percent (43%) diversion rate. If you can implement things like the
C&D ban and some of the other organics programs...and eventually potentially the
curbside recycling and MRF, then that life will be extended out, too. Does that answer
your question?
Councilmember Evslin: Yes, it does. Given that, maybe it is outside
of the scope of this plan, and more for doing a follow-up study on the MRF. For me,
it would be nice to see financial projections of looking at what the airspace savings of
diversion are and what that could save us down the road. If we can avoid having to
spend two (2) to four (4) times the price to ship this off-island. I think we get sticker
shock looking at two million dollars ($2,000,000) a year for curbside recycling, but we
do not have a lot of other great options either. It would be good to compare the
financial impacts there. Follow-up to that question on the slide that shows the annual
cost of curbside recycling and a MRF at around two million dollars ($2,000,000). In
the projected cost, does it consider savings, airspace, or extended landfill capacity; or
is that mainly the direct cost of the recycling plus the MRF minus what we would be
selling it for?
Mr. Pitzler: That it is the direct cost, that is correct. It is
a broader analysis to figure out how much airspace is saved and what is the cost of
that? You have to look at the next options and so forth. It is the pure cost of recycling
and MRF.
Councilmember Evslin: Ultimately, where would we get that analysis
from? If you are saying it requires further analysis in comparing these other options,
apparently that was outside of the scope of this. That analysis seems that it is
important for us to decide on how to go forward. Where do we get it from?
Ms. Lopez: I would say the top recommendation is to
update those studies that you have already done on your curbside and MRF. Part of
that would be the full picture of understanding it. You can prepare the scope that is
required of that study and for it to be a good study it should look at all of the costs
and cost-benefit of doing a curbside recycling program versus a landfill option.
Hopefully you can build that into your scope. In our list of recommendations, it says
to update those studies and really evaluate the current financial and other
feasibilities of that project.
Councilmember Evslin: Thank you. One final question. Section 1.4.2
mentions that refuse collection for commercial operators, from what I understand, is
the true cost of collection at sixty-four dollars ($64) per sixty-four (64) gallon cart as
opposed to subsidized rate for residents which is ten dollars ($10) for sixty-four (64)
gallon cart, which seems appropriate. It says that vacation rental operations are
charged at the commercial rate. Then it says there are two hundred sixty-nine (269)
COUNCIL MEETING 33 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
commercial and Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) collection customers who have
opted in for service. Yet, on Kaua`i, I think there is closer to two thousand (2,000)
TVRs. I wonder where that discrepancy comes from. Is it possible that there are
vacation rentals that are at the residential rate getting the subsidized rate, and they
should not be? Do you audit the information on which TVRs are paying the
commercial rate?
Ms. Fraley: I can answer that. As far as I know, there are
not any TVRs that are paying residential rate. They have to opt into the service, so
they are not opting in. We can do further study on that.
Councilmember Evslin: Yes. I do not know if there is ever
reconciliation looking at addresses that are paying TVR tax rate compared to those
paying commercial and residential pickup rates. If they are opting out, that means
they are paying someone else for some type of commercial hauling service, or someone
is dumping it at the landfill illegally, because they should be dumping it and paying
commercial rates. Thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember DeCosta, followed by
Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember DeCosta: Councilmember Evslin, that is a great
suggestion that we need to look into. The TVRs are illegally going to the landfill.
Councilmember Evslin, thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: My follow-up on that is I know a number of
people who clean vacation rentals. Being that rubbish only gets picked up one (1) day
a week, they always leave the garbage can empty for the people. When they go in
and do the big cleans, they typically have a Garden Isle Disposal container that those
bags go into. They are paying a commercial rate because they are putting the bags
into the containers, and they cannot leave garbage in the trash or expect the TVR
renter to know when to take the garbage out. That is part of the answer for that.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: I have a question. Did we do a test on
composting food waste?
Ms. Fraley: Yes. Heart and Soul has a pilot. They still
have a permit with the State Department of Health to accept composting. It is very
small-scale. I am sorry, food waste and food waste containers. For a while, Zero
Waste, when they would do waste diversion at special events, they would take the
materials to Heart and Soul in Moloa`a, and compost it there. The Taste of Kaua`i
had that where they diverted materials to that location. It is very small scale. That
COUNCIL MEETING 34 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
is what we are looking at when we talk about tiered composting and working with
regulators to be able to do different types of composting that would involve food waste.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: This is a fresh question. This is about
employees and our staffing. We would need to be staffing the MRF as well as the new
positions like one-and-a-half full-time positions in the office. Is there any kind of
reference here on filling these employee needs and our employment safety and
retention? That is something very important to me and we just got done with an
audit on unhappy employees. I was looking through here and I might have missed
it. Is there something in this big plan update that talks about how we are going to
be finding people? We are finding people are moving away and it is hard to fill these
jobs. Is that considered in here?
Ms. Lopez: Thank you for your question, Councilmember
Cowden. The plan itself does not talk about that in detail. There is discussion about
how many of these programs and enhancement opportunities are going to need
additional staff. As we have mentioned a couple of times, updating that study for the
curbside recycling program and the MRF, and looking at the current feasibility, it is
not just economic feasibility; it is issues like this. You have the opportunity now to
be thinking about what needs to be in that scope and I do think since it is an issue, it
should be something that is part of the overall feasibility of doing something like this.
It is an opportunity to put that into the next study update.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, I appreciate that. Something else I
really wanted to appreciate in your presentation, somewhere in there you called it
2021 dollars, and I was like "right on." The inflation we are undergoing right now is
pretty evident. Whether it is acknowledged or not, it is very clear. Whatever amount
of money it might cost today, is not at all necessarily what it might cost in two (2)
years from now. I think what we saw in our employment audit, is that when we have
unhappy people or they are working two (2) jobs, maybe we are not paying people
enough, and good paying jobs cannot get filled now. Sorting trash may not be that
easy-to-get people to do that. When we are looking at our MRF, I think we need to
be analyzing how much we are paying people and how we are going to attract them.
Good paying jobs are not filling because they cannot afford the housing and
everything else. Thank you for that.
Ms. Lopez: Thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember DeCosta.
Councilmember DeCosta: I wanted to touch base on what you just said
and to clarify. The employee survey was done back in 2018. I remember two (2)
COUNCIL MEETING 35 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
meetings ago we had clarification that the morale at the landfill was much higher
now and they are much happier. Just to clarify, "I did not want to beat a dead cat."
We talked about that earlier. The next thing I wanted to ask. The C&D material, it
seems like it is a big problem and most of the time it comes from construction
companies. Do we have a program in place that mandates that they must have it
grinded up into much smaller pieces, almost like regrinding concrete to reuse it again,
or are we letting the construction companies throw the large material tonnage in the
landfill like that?
Ms. Fraley: At the landfill itself, there are no restrictions
on size. There are restrictions on disposal of certain items. Green waste, metals, and
cardboard cannot be deposited at the landfill by commercial entities at a rate of more
than ten percent (10%) of the load. Beyond that, we do not have any restrictions at
the landfill. At the transfer stations, we require that commercial or any customer
bring material in at three (3) feet lengths. The only exception is the Lihu`e Transfer
Station where we accept some bulky items like mattresses, couches, et cetera. That
is a restriction at the transfer stations, three (3) feet in any dimension.
Councilmember DeCosta: I think that might be an avenue we can go
after at our current landfill. The C&D would have to be mandated to have it crushed
up to a smaller size. We could reuse some of that material to build stuff or in other
aspects.
Mr. Tanigawa: Councilmember DeCosta, that is a very good
question because in the past, we have been able to work with the Planning
Department to impose conditions on developers who go in for permits, to require the
developer to produce a C&D debris management plan. That steers them to look for
alternatives to the landfill for C&D that can be diverted.
Councilmember DeCosta: Troy, thank you for bringing that up. I have
been to many construction sites. It is a shame. These are multi-million-dollar homes
that want to change a wall or want to change a scope of work on their garage. A lot
of material is torn down and they put fresh material, and that material goes to the
landfill which could be recycled, reused, crushed up into smaller pieces, and not take
up so much space in our landfill. Thank you for bringing up that, Troy.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Carvalho.
Councilmember Carvalho: I have a question on the MRF. I know that
there is a lot of discussion on the location, and I see the questions on that. I want to
clarify that I think the MRF is very important. I was trying to get more information
and Councilmember Cowden and I talked a little bit about the employee part. The
overall MRF itself, the cost to manage that, to operate it, and the location that is
required for that kind of facility. I know we talked about Ma`alo and the current
COUNCIL MEETING 36 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
location. I wanted more information and details on the MRF and where we are at
with that.
Ms. Fraley: I want to make sure I am
understanding your questions. As far as the location, we looked at the Kaua`i
Resource Center. Things have changed since then. That is one thing we want to put
into the study, is to make sure that it is the right site. We have a lot of use of that
space now with the reuse program and other programs that would be difficult to
relocate. We want to look at siting. For the MRF, we would want to build upon the
studies that we did previously where we had looked at all the costs and the cost of
change. Construction costs have really skyrocketed lately. At the time that we
studied the MRF back in 2016, it was looking like a ten million dollar ($10,000,000)
construction project. We were seeing construction costs come in at triple the
estimates now. That is why we want to study this more and to be able to come to
Council with some really good cost information, as well as some of the things we were
just talking about. How can we staff it? For me, how is it integrated with the roll-out
of curbside recycling program. Let us study that more because we only had bits and
pieces of studies on curbside. This was going back to when we implemented
automated refuse collection and looked at curbside recycling. We did the pilot which
was really popular and successful. Integrating both the construction of the MRF and
the curbside together is going to be really important for being able to bring a really
good plan forward to Council for approval.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any other questions from the
Members? If not, I will call the meeting back to order.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I did have a few questions. I have been
tracking some of what our community members have been asking for. I also met with
Allison shortly yesterday. I would like to move towards a deferral on this item. I
recognize the need for us to move it forward as well as quickly as we can. My
recommendation would be for a straight deferral to the next Council Meeting, which
would allow some time for me to not only form these questions a bit further, but go
through the Plan. My biggest...not concern, because I think you have done a
wonderful job with this Plan here, particularly with the implementation actions that
you have identified...but I think from a policy and leadership standpoint,
understanding our role here as a Council as the body to fund and move this Plan
forward is so important for us to know what we want to prioritize first. All these
items that you have listed here need to happen. There is a sense of urgency that I
think is coming from the community and from you all. To get clear for what that
COUNCIL MEETING 37 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
looks like for me translates to an amendment to the Resolution itself about what that
is that we need to and want to focus on. I am hoping that we might have a little bit
of time to form that amendment moving forward. That is just where I am. If not, I
can submit my questions in writing, as I do have some. If we were going to move in
the direction of a deferral, I would do that now.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: It is not going to change the Plan, just the
Resolution?
Councilmember Chock: After talking to the Administration, my
understanding is that it would be problematic to amend the Plan itself. I understand
that. We have our consultant and to keep them on would cost us more. I do think
that moving forward, it would probably be advisable that we do retain our consultants
a little longer. Again, we do have to fund this, and I think that we have not been able
to do that in the last ten (10) years. This Plan comes every ten (10) years. I think it
requires us to take our time to figure out what this body can within the next budget
already support. Also, recognizing that Councilmember Kuali`i is not here, I did think
that it might be prudent for us to give it one more reading.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions on the deferral? If
not, I will let everyone do a final discussion if they want. Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: I will support a deferral. I want to thank
Councilmember Evslin for speaking about sticker shock and asking that question. I
did have sticker shock at the curbside recycling aspect. What you brought out in the
question was very meaningful to me. I thought that three-and-a-half(3.5) times the
cost for one (1) month or one-twelfth (1/12) reduction, that was uncomfortable for me,
especially if I do not know if we will be able to staff it. I do really think something
that I believe is accurate within this Plan that can work...when we talk about a
circular materials stream, I am on page with not sending our sunburnt plastics to
Vietnam to have kids sort, again, that are living in the landfill. Someone told us that
at one of these Zero Waste Kaua`i meetings. That was really hard for me to hear. We
need to be making bricks or finding ways to make things that we can use here. I
guess it could be a question to them, but I believe they answered it. This Plan as it
exists, does include figuring out how to use these products right here. It might be
paper can go to China, but I appreciate the work that was done here. We have a lot
of intelligent people who have been commenting to us and who have been involved in
this for a very long time. If this waited another two (2) weeks, that allows them a
little more time to look at it and adapt to it. Thank you all for the work. It is
important. Inflation is huge. We need a couple more weeks.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any other discussion from the
Members before we possibly take a motion to defer? Councilmember Evslin.
COUNCIL MEETING 38 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Councilmember Evslin: I will be brief. I just want to thank the
consultants here today, and Allison for her heroic efforts on this over the last two (2)
years working on this. There is a lot of good information in here. I think the
discussion today pulled out some relevant information like the seven dollars and fifty
cents ($7.50) for curbside recycling per household. To me, that is an important figure.
I fully support a deferral. I know the previous Council reviewed the previous
Resolution over two (2) meetings and amended the Resolution for the last ISWMP. I
do not intend to try to change the direction in any capacity. I think it is just trying
to highlight some of the things that are already in there and possibly prioritize it
through the Resolution, while also recognizing what Councilmember Chock said in
not wanting to drag it out any further than a single deferral. I support the deferral
today.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember DeCosta.
Councilmember DeCosta: Thank you for bringing up the seven dollars
and fifty cents ($7.50) or closer to eight dollar ($8) figure. The Zero Waste Kaua`i
group and JoAnn Yukimura, a very intelligent lady, brought up that one hundred
seventy (170) people testified in support of the MRF. I think on Kauai, we have
almost seventy thousand (70,000) local residents that live here. If you do the math,
that is just a small fraction of those who testified. Eight dollars ($8) to me, Council
Chair Kaneshiro, or Councilmember Carvalho, that might be nothing. But to a family
that is trying to buy food every month, it could mean a lot. I believe what Council
Vice Chair is saying is that this is the next Plan, and no one has the answer. It might
look good presented in a book like this, but we really have to sit down and come up
with where we are going to satisfy this waste that goes to our landfill. I do not think
we talked enough about Ma`alo. I think we have to discuss that a little more. If we
are going to throw that idea out, then we have to solidify and move forward. If it is
still an idea and the birds are the problem...and the birds can be removed because
they are invasive, we should talk to the Kaua`i Invasive Species Committee (KISC)
our invasive group here on Kauai, and let us address it. Right now, this is the most
important thing that Kaua`i will have to do in the next ten (10) years and we will be
putting our signatures on that. I am willing to discuss it a little more.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Carvalho.
Councilmember Carvalho: As far as the deferral, I support the deferral.
For me overall, the location of this new landfill, wherever it ends up, we need to make
a decision soon. Ma`alo was not out-of-the-blue. It came from a study. Knowing from
before, we went down the list and Ma`alo was one of the locations that the community
embraced at that time. It was centrally located. Yes, it is close to the airport. We
filtered through a lot of the information, and we tried to work with the endangered
species part, but at the end of the day where is the best location for this landfill to be?
The Kekaha community, they were concerned about hosting another thirty (30) or
COUNCIL MEETING 39 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
forty (40) more years. How does that work? I think it is important like
Councilmember Chock mentioned, we need to move. We need to make a collective
decision as far as the Council's and Administration's role. At the same time, the
community overall needs to be involved. The location is to me, will involve the
Disneyland of waste, which is the resource recovery center, which will include the
educational center for youth. I like the educational part of what the presentation
highlighted in working with the schools and helping our young people understand
how important waste and all of that is. That was just my closing remarks overall.
The location and where it ends up being is very important. We need to act sooner
rather than later. Thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: I do have a clarifying question. JoAnn had
said that she wanted to see a goal like seventy percent (70%) diversion by 2025. Do
we have a diversion percentage goal in this document? She had suggested that that
was a good thing to have. I do not know if it has to be the same number she wanted,
but do we have that percentage goal for diversion?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
Ms. Lopez: Thank you for your question. Is it okay if I
answer it? We did take that into consideration as we were changing the way things
were written about it in the Plan. The ISWMP already has prioritized strategies for
each topic area. They do promote the overall sustainability and the reduction of the
waste footprint of the island. In the Plan, it does talk quite a bit about now there is
new text talking about the 2018 General Plan and the goal to become a sustainable
island. We have talked in a couple of different places about the existing State Aloha
Plus Challenge solid waste reduction goal of seventy percent (70%) by 2030. We
continue to stick with those existing plans and goals that are already part of your
planning system. You have your General Plan and the seventy percent (70%)by 2030
goal that is already in there. Setting the County's own goal is not something that
was done in this Plan.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, thank you.
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Evslin.
Councilmember Evslin: I just wanted to clarify one thing that
Councilmember DeCosta made me remember. I do not think that it was really
mentioned today that the Plan shows that recycling per ton costs the County
COUNCIL MEETING 40 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
eighty-two dollars ($82) and landfilling is costing the County between one hundred
four dollars ($104) and one hundred sixty dollars ($160). Recycling saves the County
money. The more we can divert, the more money we are saving. When people are
taking the time to separate their trash and bringing it to a recycling center, they are
ultimately saving all taxpayers money because the General Fund is subsidizing our
landfill. When we are talking about possibly the addition of seven dollars ($7) per
month, that is why I mentioned the importance of comparing it to alternatives,
because we have already in some sense run out the clock with ten(10)years for Ma`alo
or ten (10) years for a new landfill. We have ten (10) years left at our current landfill.
Without diversion we are going to overtop the landfill and be spending between two
hundred dollars ($200) and four hundred dollars ($400) to ship this waste off of
Kaua`i. That is in the Plan. Diversion is not some feel good proposal, diversion is an
absolute necessity before we look at quadrupling the price of our refuse. It would be
great to have those numbers so we can have some sort of concrete idea of the decisions
we are making and maybe that is why further analysis is necessary. I just want to
mention that it goes much further than this feel-good item and is a financial
necessity.
(Councilmember Chock was noted as not present.)
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Does anyone else have any final discussion?
This is a Plan. There are a wide variety of options that we need to explore. There
are some low-hanging fruits, but of course, it has to be financially feasible. Wood
products are a huge item that goes into the landfill. Is there a way to solve that
problem? Paper products is a huge amount of product that goes into the landfill. Is
there a way to solve that? There may be ways, but it has to be feasible. I know we
received a lot of comments about curbside recycling and MRF. Again, it is an option.
We need to see more details. Once this Plan is passed, we are going to need to see
more details to ensure that it is a feasible option and that the numbers are correct. I
think the numbers are probably low right now as far as what we received for doing
curbside recycling and MRF. Those are considerations. Just because it is in the Plan
does not mean we have to do it. We are going to do what makes sense for the island.
Ultimately, there is no way we are going to divert ourselves out of needing another
landfill or another site. I think that point was made clear by the Councilmembers. I
think we want to make it clear again that we do need to keep moving forward in
finding another site because no amount of diversion is going to make us not need to
find another site. No matter how much we divert we are still going to fill up the
current landfill and we are still going to need another site. That is probably one of
the biggest issues we are going to be facing in the future. That is something that we
need to take very seriously now, especially with the long timeline of getting a new
landfill or new technology to get rid of our trash. Those are just my comments. This
is just a Plan. It is not an ordinance that forces us to do any of these items. I think
it sets a good framework as far as options to look at. We should take them into
COUNCIL MEETING 41 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
consideration and ultimately, we need to make sure that they are feasible and makes
sense for the County to do. I have no opposition to deferring this item.
(Written testimony was received and one (1) registered speaker testified
regarding this agenda item.)
Councilmember Cowden moved to defer Resolution No. 2021-47, seconded by
Councilmember DeCosta, and carried by the following vote:
FOR DEFERRAL: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden, DeCosta
Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6*,
AGAINST DEFERRAL: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL — 0.
*Pursuant to Rule No. 5(b) of the Rules of the Council of the County of Kaua`i,
Councilmember Chock was noted as silent (not present), but shall be recorded as an
affirmative for the motion.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes, one (1) excused.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: With that, we are going to take our ten-minute
caption break.
There being no objections, the meeting recessed at 10:41 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 10:53 a.m., and proceeded as follows:
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Welcome back. We are on page 4 of our Council
Meeting agenda.
BILL FOR FIRST READING:
Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2841) —A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. B-2021-877, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING
BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022, BY REVISING THE AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND (Liability Insurance Premiums -
$315,000.00)
Councilmember Carvalho moved for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2841)
on first reading, that it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be
scheduled for December 15, 2021, and that it be referred to the Committee of
the Whole, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions or discussion from the
Members? Councilmember Cowden.
COUNCIL MEETING 42 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Councilmember Cowden: Thank you for all the work that you do, Reiko.
I just have a basic question and need an explanation. Has our liability insurance
premium gone up three hundred fifteen thousand dollars ($315,000)because of inflation
or did we have some kind of big payout? What changed the amount from what we
expected?
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
REIKO MATSUYAMA, Director of Finance (via remote technology): It has
been going up for a while. We have always kind of budgeted for the increase. This time
it was just more than what it was. The primary reason for the increase this time is
because of our excess liability coverage. We had advance notice that our excess liability
carrier was not going to be able to offer us renewal terms. It is not because of us. They
are just no longer covering any public entities. Atlas Insurance, who is our broker, they
did their best to shop the marketplace. They approached a bunch of carriers, a lot of
whom are not underwriting public entities. The options were pretty scarce. This is our
biggest increase. Just for the excess liability coverage, we are looking at a five hundred
thirty-seven thousand dollar ($537,000) increase. That is our overall increase. The
overall increase is five hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars ($537,000) or
twenty-eight percent (28%) over the prior year's renewal. If we just look at the excess
portion, we are going up five hundred sixty-three thousand dollars ($563,000). We are
also reducing our coverage. We went from a twenty million dollar-coverage to a ten
million dollar ($10,000,000) coverage. To get the same twenty million
dollar ($20,000,000)coverage this period, it would have cost us one million four hundred
thousand dollars ($1,400,000). Since we never had a claim for anywhere near the ten
million dollars ($10,000,000), we opted to cut the coverage amount to that level. Our
premium is nine hundred thirty-one thousand dollars ($931,000) for the ten million
dollar ($10,000,000) excess liability coverage. This is five hundred twenty-three
thousand dollars ($523,000) for the first five million dollar ($5,000,000) layer and four
hundred eight thousand dollars ($408,000)for the second five million dollar($5,000,000)
layer. To answer your question, the primary reason for the increase was the excess
coverage. They are not going to underwrite any public entities anymore.
Councilmember Cowden: Who is our carrier now? If it is not Atlas, then
who is it?
Ms. Matsuyama: Our broker remains Atlas Insurance. Peleus
was the underwriter, and they are the ones that are no longer going to renew our
insurance.
Councilmember Cowden: We have a new carrier, correct? We have a new
company that is covering us, right?
COUNCIL MEETING 43 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Ms. Matsuyama: It is two (2) separate companies. There is one
for first layer and one for the second layer. The first one is covering us for the first five
million dollars ($5,000,000) is called Safety Specialty. The second one is Gemini.
Councilmember Cowden: Are they both American carriers? I know
sometimes you have to go offshore to get coverage. Are there American companies?
Ms. Matsuyama: Yes.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any other questions from the
Members?
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any final discussion from the
Members? Councilmember DeCosta.
Councilmember DeCosta: I wanted to say thank you for looking out for
the County in saving us money on the lower premium. You saw that we did not need
the twenty million dollar ($20,000,000) coverage and brought it down to ten million
dollar ($10,000,000) coverage. You always impress us. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: Of course, we appreciate Reiko. We are lucky
to have you. I like how you handle bonds, and you are very good at what you do. I
appreciate that. I just want to acknowledge to the public how the County just like every
family is coping with increasing costs with less capacity. What I am hearing is that we
have not had anything reach the ten million dollar ($10,000,000) threshold, so that is
good. We do not need twenty million dollar ($20,000,000) coverage. What I am getting
is that everything is going up. Who knows where it will be in the future and what level
of liability claims against us? Thank you. I am acknowledging, as we are looking at all
our costs, that this is a good example of where it is going up, without even having a big
claim against us.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Does anyone else have any final discussion? I
know we do get a lot of claims and that is probably a reason why it is getting harder to
find insurance. I do not know what to say. We have had to settle claims and ultimately,
I would love to say that we will never get claims that we have to settle, but that is very
unrealistic. As time moves on, things are going to get more litigious, it is going to be
even harder to find insurance, and it will get more expensive to get insurance. I think
that is just the cost of doing business these days.
COUNCIL MEETING 44 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Councilmember Cowden: This is a question for you. A lot of our policies
seem like we are self-insured, so we have to pay a lot of the fees that we get sued for.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: We pay up to a portion or up to a deductible. I
know our deductible has been increased each year. It has increased a lot since I have
been here. That is because we have been dealing with litigation and lawsuits.
Councilmember Cowden: She is saying that we have not hit the twenty
million dollar ($20,000,000) threshold. We have not even hit the ten million
dollar ($10,000,000)threshold. We have a constant stream of pieces that we are dealing
with. I thought I heard her say it was not because we did something wrong, it was just
because they stopped insuring us.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is that a question?
Councilmember Cowden: I do not know. I am just processing it because
it seems like everything is going up.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any further discussion from the
Members? If not, roll call vote.
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion for passage of Proposed Draft Bill (No. 2841) on first reading, that
it be ordered to print, that a public hearing thereon be scheduled for December
15, 2021, and that it be referred to the Committee of the Whole was then put,
and carried by the following vote:
FOR PASSAGE: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden,
DeCosta, Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST PASSAGE: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL — 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes, one (1) excused.
BILLS FOR SECOND READING:
Bill No. 2836 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10,
KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987,AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE LIHU`E TOWN
CORE URBAN DESIGN DISTRICT (County of Kauai Planning Department,
Applicant) (ZA-2021-4)
Councilmember Cowden moved to approve Bill No. 2836 on second and final
reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by
Councilmember Carvalho.
COUNCIL MEETING 45 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Do we have any questions from the Members?
If not, is there any final discussion? Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: I think that it is a good use of this area. This
is the town area between Kukui Grove and Kawamura Farms, down to Rice Street.
We are going to be able to put more people in there and it is consistent with our
General Plan for urban infill. It is not hard to support this choice.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Does anyone else have any final discussion?
If not, roll call vote.
(No written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to
testify regarding this agenda item.)
The motion to approve Bill No. 2836, on second and final reading, and that it be
transmitted to the Mayor for his approval was then put, and carried by the
following vote:
FOR APPROVAL: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden, DeCosta,
Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL— 6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL— 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes, one (1) excused.
Bill No. 2837, Draft 1 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 1, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO THE KAUAI COUNTY HOUSING AGENCY
Councilmember Chock moved to approve Bill No. 2837, Draft 1 on second and
final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval,
seconded by Councilmember Carvalho.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any questions from the Members?
For this item, I know that we may have a possible Floor Amendment that someone was
going to introduce. We can entertain the amendment if there is an amendment.
Councilmember DeCosta moved to amend Bill No. 2837, Draft 1, as circulated,
and as shown in the Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as
Attachment 1, seconded by Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember DeCosta: This is to add a seventh priority. This says that
"properties with existing cesspools that are failing" and I want to clarify what it means
to have a failing cesspool and why this is so important. A failing cesspool is a cesspool
that requires pumping at least once or more per month or is filled more than once in a
year. What is happening with the cesspools...and I know this because one of my
COUNCIL MEETING 46 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
relatives owns Vidinha Cesspool and Septic Company...we have homes that have been
built fifty (50), eighty(80), or one hundred (100)years ago that are struggling with their
cesspools right now. A lot of them are kupuna and a lot of them are family members
that have shared cesspools with many homes depositing into one (1) cesspool. The
reason that we do not hear about them is because if they go to the State and tell them
that their cesspool is failing, it is going to be condemned and they no longer can live in
that home. We know how much of a problem it is to have our local families in homes.
With that being said, I wanted to circulate this amendment to ensure that our local
families who are struggling with the cesspools that are possibly going to be
non-compliant would have a priority in regard to the funding.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: I have a question for Councilmember DeCosta.
I will support this, but I was anticipating this to be our first priority, not our seventh. I
thought this was going to be first and to push the rest down. To me, it seems like it
should be the first priority because we want to keep people in their homes. A lot of
times, you were speaking about kupuna homes, but kupuna homes end up being
mo opuna homes, right? A lot of times, these homes from one generation go down to the
next to the one beyond that. Many people live in the house that they inherited from
their grandmother. I thought we were saying that when we talked last time, that this
would be the most important. Our first priority is creating a new home, but we do not
want to lose people who are already in their homes. Why did I miss that? Why is this
number 7?
Councilmember DeCosta: Those six (6) priorities were put into play prior
to me adding this seventh priority. We did not include that in this portion. The reason
is because once you go to the Department of Health and let them know that your
cesspool is failing, they have the right to condemn it. If they condemn it, then that
family or those families will no longer be able to live in that home or they may have to
pump it excessively to be able to qualify to be able to stay in that home. That is why it
was never a priority, because once people make that apparent, the Department of
Health could shut them down.
Councilmember Cowden: I have a question for Councilmember Evslin. I
believe you helped to set-up these priorities, is that correct? Whether it is the seventh
priority or first priority my understanding was if we have four million
dollars ($4,000,000), I am just going to be a bit more generous than what we might have
to think about...as people are asking for help, someone wanting to put an additional
home would get first in line and seventh in line is that person with the collapsing
cesspool. Whether they are first or seventh, they are going to have to ask for the
condemnation. How do you feel about having these people first? We do not want to kick
our people out, right?
Councilmember Evslin: I would have to think about it. I want to clarify
though that even if they have...if it stays as the number 7 priority, it does not mean
that they would seventh in line after all these other priorities. Likely, someone with a
failing cesspool falls in under a whole lot of other priorities as well. If they fall under
all of these other...the priorities get stacked. If you live in your house, if you live in one
COUNCIL MEETING 47 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
of the priority upgrade areas, you are adding on to your house, and you have failing
cesspool, then you are going to be number 1 on the list. Or, say you could hit priorities
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and not hit number 1, and possibly still be at the top of the list. I
just want to be careful to say that this does not mean that they would after everyone
else, because they all get stacked and ranked against each other.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I would just add to the conversation that it does
not...I think the priorities do not preclude anyone from applying for the program as
well. In addition, I do have some concern about it being number 1 moving forward.
There are a lot of people who can afford a new system who might have failing cesspools
as well.
Councilmember Cowden: They can afford to fix it, is that what you said?
Councilmember Chock: They are some that would automatically...if I
came to you and was a billionaire and my cesspool is failing put me on the list now, I
would then be number 1. That is problematic. My point is that I think the income
threshold is much more important than this.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay. For clarification, when people put in
that they need a new cesspool, they do not necessarily go in under only one category or
the other. They would be looked at comprehensively. If they are poor, in an
environmentally sensitive area...do we have that in there? Yes. We do list
environmentally sensitive. I noticed that Dennis Esaki, who is pretty sharp at all this
stuff, he was concerned about the environmental sensitivity. Did we address his
concern?
Councilmember Evslin: Let me answer that. I think you had two (2)
questions in there. The Bill does say that "Qualified applicants meeting several
categories of priority shall be given first preference in descending order from the most
to the least number of categories." It allows for the stacking of priorities. I see the
cesspool requirement as something that would push somebody over the top, all things
being equal, if they have a failing cesspool. I fully agree with the intent. Regarding
Mr. Esaki's testimony and there were several aspects to it, I can respond to all of it if
you want.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, please do.
Councilmember Evslin: From memory, he mentioned...
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Maybe you can ask Councilmember Evslin
specific questions. I do not want him to have to try go off memory.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, I am looking at it and it is on our desks
here. If you look at the testimony from the Contractors Association of Kauai and flip it
over to the backside, the one that is important to me is the reference to environmentally
sensitive areas. He mentioned something about Kekaha. Cesspools, having lived in
COUNCIL MEETING 48 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Hanalei or in Anini, these cesspools that are right along the water's edge, they flush
right into the ocean right there. If you are close to a stream or anywhere a cesspool is
mingling with the fresh water or flushing out to the ocean, where in our priority list is
that addressed?
Councilmember Evslin: That is addressed in the second priority, which
is the Department of Health's (DOH) priority conversion areas. The DOH...I cannot
speak directly to their methodology, but my understanding is that it considers the
density in the area, the number of cesspools in the area, the groundwater in the area,
the number of streams, proximity to the ocean, et cetera, to identify where the areas of
highest priority are. We did discuss, as we were developing the priorities, it is known
that places like Kekaha or Anahola, which are lower income communities close to the
water and have sandy soil...there is a real need to help these communities to give them
a "leg up." We did not feel comfortable amending DOHs priority areas. All we want to
do is reference it. These are the areas that DOH says is a priority as of 2018. My
understanding is that potentially they are in the process of updating that and they do
update it regularly. When they update it to show Kekaha, then we would amend this
to reference the latest update. We did not feel comfortable inputting our own opinions
into the DOH report, if that makes sense.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay.
Councilmember Evslin: Where it says, "Kekaha is not included..." and
I heard other people mention that Kekaha residents could not get it...that is part of the
reason why we wanted to put the Additional Dwelling Units (ADU), Additional Rental
Units (ARU) construction as number 1. The number 1 priority could go to anyone on
the island wherever they are at if they are committing to building some housing on their
property. Kekaha residents very much could get it under the number 1 priority. They
would just not be prioritized under number 2.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any other questions from the
Members on this amendment? Councilmember Evslin.
Councilmember Evslin: As I am looking at this testimony, I would just
like to clarify two (2) more things from what he said. I think they are common
misconceptions. The first is that it will only help forty (40) homes. As we have talked
about and we all know, the intent is for this funding to be available annually. As
Ms. Pruder said, hopefully this funding is available through 2050. That is a whole lot
more than forty (40). That is forty (40) every year. As we had talked about, if the
Housing Agency has the capacity to do more than thirty (30) or forty (40), then we could
stretch those funds out by having the homeowner come in in some capacity. It would
pay for an aerobic unit, if required by law, or even if the homeowner opts in for one with
knowledge of everything that an aerobic unit requires. It does not exclude anybody who
needs an aerobic unit. I just wanted to mention those two (2) other aspects.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember DeCosta. Final discussion on
the amendment.
COUNCIL MEETING 49 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Councilmember DeCosta: I just wanted to thank Councilmembers Chock
and Evslin for this. That seventh priority is fine where it is. It will evaluate itself. I
am glad that we have that ADU unit on. It will allow the Kekaha people to participate.
Remember forty (40) homes, that is forty (40) more people that we as a body have
helped. That is our goal, right? To help people on Kauai. Whether we can help them
move into a home, help them with their cesspool, et cetera, we are making strides in
helping our community be in a better place for them to live in. Thank you for that.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: I want to acknowledge that while it could be
thirty (30) or forty (40) homes, the main piece of this is setting up a mechanism for the
County to be able to be funneling granted moneys or whatever kind of other funding
source...this is really being utilized to develop a mechanism...we could go after United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) moneys, Department of Health moneys, et
cetera. Whatever it might be, we can find other moneys later. The primary focus is not
about helping the thirty (30) or forty (40) homes, but it is creating the functionality to
be solving this very needed problem for those who particularly cannot afford it.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Does anyone else have any discussion on the
amendment?
The motion to amend Bill No. 2837, Draft 1, as circulated, and as shown in the
Floor Amendment, which is attached hereto as Attachment 1, was then put,
and carried by a vote of 6:0:1 (Councilmember Kuali i was excused).
Council Chair Kaneshiro: The motion is carried. We are back to the
main motion, as amended. Are there any questions from the Members?
Councilmember Evslin.
Councilmember Evslin: Adam, I know that we have talked about it in
general terms, but I was wondering if you could lay out an outline or timeframe...
There being no objections, the rules were suspended.
ADAM P. ROVERSI, Housing Director (via remote technology): I am sorry,
you switched to mute, I am not hearing your question.
Councilmember Evslin: Sorry. Could you give us an outline to the best
of your abilities of when you expect the program to be running and accepting
applications? That is probably the most common question that we are all getting.
People are anxious to make sure that they do not miss the boat in some capacity.
Mr. Roversi: Good question. The Council has provided
some preliminary funding to get this program off the ground. Internally, we are
reviewing what staff capacity we have to start implementing this right away. We are
having discussions internally about whether we are going to seek an outside nonprofit
COUNCIL MEETING 50 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
partner to handle the administration of this program as opposed to bringing on
additional staff to try to run it internally. We may be coming to Council for an ask
for funding for administrative costs to ramp this up. The funding question aside, if
we answer that question as to whether it is us or an outside entity, I am imagining
that we could probably begin taking preliminary application sometimes shortly after
the New Year. We would set up an application process, online portable document
format (PDF) to apply. Separately and in parallel to that application process, we are
going to have to...my understanding in discussions with DOH, is that we are going to
have to go through a Request for Proposal (RFP)process to seek an outside contractor,
engineering firm, or a team of engineering firms and contractors to do the work once
applicants are selected. That will take several months to publish the RFP, wait for
responses, vet the RFP, select a contractor, et cetera. I would imagine we would start
taking preliminary applications sometime in late January. We would not have a
contractor selected and awarded probably until February or March. Then, we have
to submit the selected applicants and all of that to DOH for their approval, which is
going to take some time. The funds do not become available until the next fiscal year,
so there will not be any work happening on any of these cesspool conversions until
the next fiscal year. Our challenge will be to put our package together for DOH in
time for them to have their internal processing times to be able to award us or not
award us funds on or about July 1st. That was a rambling answer to your question.
I will keep my fingers crossed that we could begin taking preliminary applications
from people early in the new year, possibly in late January.
Councilmember Evslin: My follow-up question was going to be your
preliminary thoughts on how you were going to administer it, so you answered both
questions already. Thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Councilmember Cowden.
Councilmember Cowden: Thank you, Director Roversi. I have a
question. As a matter of practice, does the County of Kaua`i always use licensed
contractors?
Mr. Roversi: Yes, that is a requirement.
Councilmember Cowden: I am just asking because the Contractors
Association of Kaua`i was asking for delineated language within the Bill for that. For
everything the County does, we have to go through licensed contractors, so we do not
need to specifically delineate that.
Mr. Roversi: That would be correct. We also have a long
list of general terms and conditions that we require any contracting entity to comply
with that goes far over and above typical licensing requirements. For better or worse
that often narrows the pool of willing bidders for County projects, because we have
COUNCIL MEETING 51 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
an extensive list of requirements that somebody in the private sector would not need
to comply with.
Councilmember Cowden: Okay, thank you.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Are there any other further questions from
the Members?
There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded
as follows:
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any final discussion? Councilmember
Chock.
Councilmember Chock: I would just like to thank Adam Roversi, our
Housing Director. He is obviously taking on the brunt of this program and willing to
do so. It is really a stretch for our County. Unfunded mandates are not something
that I think we all aspire to integrate into our system here. I think this does fill a
huge gap that we have been looking at ways to try to respond to in the last few years.
This is not the panacea for solving our wastewater issues and it is certainly in my
mind should not take away from what our main goals are in expansion of our
wastewater sewer systems. That is still in my mind priority number 1. What this
does do is that it offers us a means to address those outliers that we know we will not
get to ever. We need an answer for that as well. I am excited about that opportunity.
So much of what we have tried to do here with this Bill is to move it forward as quickly
as possible with some priorities and structure so that we can be first to the lineup to
take advantage of this program. I anticipate, like any program, that it will need some
adjusting and we will learn a lot within this next year about what works and what
does not. We have already talked about wanting to incur some administrative fees
within the fund so that we can keep it sustainable. We already talked about how we
can disseminate the funds and get more houses or cesspools transitioned with the
annual allotted amount. Those are all things that I think that as the Sewer
Expansion Study is completed and DOH's priorities are identified, I think we are
going to have to come back as a group to revise. I am looking forward to that. Thank
you to my colleagues for having the same passion for this.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: Is there any further discussion from the
Members? If not, we will take a roll call vote.
(Written testimony was received and no registered speakers requested to testify
regarding this agenda item.)
The motion to approve Bill No. 2837, Draft 1 as amended to
Bill No. 2837, Draft 2, on second and final reading, and that it be transmitted to
the Mayor for his approval was then put, and carried by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEETING 52 NOVEMBER 17, 2021
FOR APPROVAL: Carvalho, Chock, Cowden, DeCosta,
Evslin, Kaneshiro TOTAL — 6,
AGAINST APPROVAL: None TOTAL — 0,
EXCUSED & NOT VOTING: Kuali`i TOTAL— 1,
RECUSED & NOT VOTING: None TOTAL— 0.
Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Six (6) ayes, one (1) excused.
Council Chair Kaneshiro: This concludes our agenda items. Not seeing
or hearing any objections, this Council Meeting is now adjourned and we will be going
into our Committee Meetings.
ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, the Council Meeting adjourned at 11:24 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
%Ad
El V
JADE 0 NTAIN-TANIGAWA
County Clerk
:ks
Attachment 1
(November 17, 2021)
FLOOR AMENDMENT
Bill No. 2837, Draft 1, Relating to Residential Cesspool Conversion Program
Introduced by: BILL DECOSTA, Councilmember
Amend Bill No. 2837, Draft 1, by amending proposed Subsection 2-1.16(e)(7)(A) to
insert a Seventh Priority as follows:
"(vii) Seventh Priority properties with an existing cesspool that is
failing. A failing cesspool is a cesspool that requires pumping at least once per
month or has spilled more than once in a year."
(Material to be added is underscored.)
V:\AMENDMENTS\2021\FA- Bill No. 2837, Draft 1 BD_AMK_ks.docx