County of Hawaii Integrated Resources and Solid Waste Management Plan (IRSWMP) Update

SWAC Meeting Notes – July 2, 2009

Meeting started at 11:10 a.m.
Recess 12:40 p.m. to 12:50 p.m.
Reconvene meeting 12:50 p.m.
Meeting ended 2:00 p.m.

Present: Barbara Bell, Mike Gleason, Alex Leonard, Shon Pahio, Nimr Tamimi, Ted Vorfeld, Steve Okoji, Christine Dochin, Paul Buklarewicz, Russell Ruderman

Absent: Jes Foster, Mike Kaha

Staff Present: Lono Tyson, Mike Dworsky, Linda Peters, Suzanne Andrade
Consultants: Dan Pitzler, Marc Dexter

DOH Rep: Lane Otsu – Absent

Approval of June 2, 2009 Minutes: Motion by Paul Buklarewicz, seconded by Shon Pahio

Motion: Alex Leonard, seconded by Christine Dochin. Motion carried unanimously.

Revisit all priorities and vote by show of hands which ones should be deemed (H) high priority under category “New Projected Operating Expenses.”

Motion: Ted Vorfeld, seconded by Christine Dochin.  Motion carried unanimously.

After changes and suggestions to draft have been incorporated, the SWAC approves said draft to be sent to the Department of Health to begin their review process….

General Discussion:

Barbara: Convened meeting.

Kelly Greenwell outlined his Park System Plan
• Would like soil generated from solid waste to use for park. Including from old Kona Land Fill.
• Lono will work with Kelly on developing plan. Conceptual at this stage. It’s an opportunity at this point.

Shon: If trucking from East Hawai`i to West Hawai`i is an option, we should go with that.

Mike: We need to have multiple options, and the plan allows for expanding the South Hilo landfill, but trucking to West Hawai`i is still on the table depending on costs and successful expansion of the South Hilo landfill.

Steve: Should we include Kelly’s option in this plan? It was agreed to make mention of this as a long term option that would be compatible with the plan.

Shon: South Hilo Sanitary Landfill (SHSL) expansion has more variables than trucking.

Alex: Perhaps add weight to studying trucking option in plan.

Shon: Need to explain why we are recommending certain options. More verbiage is needed.

Lono: During process economy has changed. Public will need to get swayed to accept.
• Would like to see more reasoning behind decisions and what alternate costs are.

Barbara: More rationale on which recommendations are put forth.

Shon: Wants more implementation detail.

Barbara: Each table in implementation plan needs reference to appropriate chapter. It was agreed to add cross references in the implementation plan tables.

Steve: Missing the “why” of it. More detail that would help convince public of necessity to act.

Christine: Education is its own separate component, over thinking can kill the process.

Shon: Did the recommendations come from a vote? Organics not covered in here. Dan explained that the recommendations came from the votes submitted by SWAC members and the public, and conversations with staff from the Department of Environmental Management.

Alex: No chance to revisit recommendations after each meeting, and take a vote.

Shon: Should have a chance to vote on these.

Barbara: Ask everyone to bottom line components and present solution.

Ted: Public does not understand plan. Committee has to do what is best for
community. Lono must explain to council. No matter how much you do, public may not understand plan.

Christine: Some things she would not want to see in plan, but majority rules. SWAC exercise has helped her to be open to ideas. Need to do that for public.

Paul: Master composter program is very detailed and content is massive. Suggests simple summary of program.

Alex: What do we get for our money, and why do we need to spend money are valid questions that should be addressed in the plan.

Steve: Wants to see consequences of not acting outlined more clearly.

Mike: Nice to know history, current issues, agrees with Shon that more detail would be good, but feels document is representative of what SWAC members have supported.

Barbara: Add section in ES re. consequences of inaction. Memory of the decision process will fade. So it’s good to have documented “no action” consequences embedded.

Shon: Page references to sections, then add text at reference point in text add decision rationale to text. Also, should add text about why some options were not selected.

Mike D.: Happy with comments so far.

Linda: Good to have “no action,” also good to have recommendations cross-referenced in text as well as in tables. References to where things are covered elsewhere.

Lono: His concern is that it meets Hawai`i Department Of Health requirements, AND that the plan reflects the opinions of SWAC. As for implementation, multiple factors will affect the ability to implement plan as outlined.

Mike: Wants to go after things that are in his control, and that will have big impact. Plan allows him flexibility in what options he works on.

Barbara: Suggested that we move the discussion to prioritization. Staff will need as much “ammunition” as possible to help push things through Council. Priority list helps understanding of what to fund if funds are limited.

Linda: Make sure numbers are accurate if this goes to council. Council can pick on a number, and then when it turns out higher, they may reject it.

Russell: Don’t reduce staff or operating hours. Shouldn’t high priority items be done first? Conduct things that reduce waste quickly first.

Public: Suggest just putting high priorities in the plan?

Alex: Can we have a revote?

Motion by Alex seconded by Christine to Revisit all priorities and vote by show of hands which ones should be deemed (H) high priority under category “New Projected Operating Expenses.”

Dan then led the group through each of the recommendations in operating plan and CIP and asked for a show of hands by SWAC members who felt a recommendation was a high priority. If the majority felt the priority was high, that recommendation was denoted as a high priority item.

Opportunity to Recycle: Reword to Clarify what this Means

Shon: Can you combine staff positions to have just one person do multiple tasks? Reword to show just one new position. County should “walk the walk.”

Event Recycling: Require event organizers to develop recycling plan (as permit requirement).

Barbara: How about permanent Household Hazardous Waste centers? Mike and others commented on the very high cost of such centers and the rebuilt recycling and transfer stations will have drop-off areas for some items (like florescent light bulbs and possibly paint), but not the toxics requiring special handling.
In the implementation plan, we should look to move fund the High Priority
recommendations earlier rather than later in the 5-year planning cycle.

At the end of the meeting, Ted Vorfeld made a motion, seconded by Christine Dochin as follows: After changes and suggestions to draft have been incorporated, the SWAC approves said draft to be sent to the Department of Health to begin their review process.

The motion carried unanimously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I do this to keep the spammers away * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.