this committee rule is you have three minutes you have no minute to conclude who says c two with the lady at the podium green means your time is on yellow means you are going to conclude in thirty seconds in grid means you will stop and with that will start public testimony so that this time we're called up eric post you feel a please come forward and share your thoughts with the committee and introduce yourself if you do represent an mare are being accused of violations of the maui county charter by action outside their authority my question is simple and short as this body our elected officials ever exported their power and authority under thirteen ten of the charter by imposing penalties upon public officials who spend our money carelessly and possibly unlawfully while we appreciate the audits and all the tough talk truly the only thing that happens is the residents become disgusted by the lack of accountability i know this if i park longer than the meter allows in the lot next to this building i will be fined on the flip side america tears down buildings his directors allowed giant walls to be built in residence backyards but there is no consequence why is it that the citizens end up being the enforcement agency resulting in countless unnecessary lawsuits is it because this council does not have the courage to slap these individuals with a fine equal to a parking ticket to let them know they are being watched and their conduct will not be tolerated chair can you address this question today or perhaps can each member  council inform the public if they have any recollection of the council ever opposing a fine upon public official in our county my message is simple had two young kids four years old and seven years old i know all too well gentleman thank you very much for the testimony we'll have rosemary robbins if you would please come forward in share for testimony with us management there is a number two under that which is say march ninth twenty sixteen earlier this month chair boy transmitting rebut entitled review an assessment of the solid waste division prepared by c b and i environmental inference structure infrastructure from illinois they're the folks who did this i came down and went over the binder there was a whole lot of fine print in there but i did just want you know that there is readily available readable in here this is the request from the council chair to the budget and finance committee to take it up and here is the time to review an assessment of the solid waste a vision by that illinois outfit it would be nice if we knew who they were  coming from illinois to do that and i got a copy of the summary  talks about the contract numbers that don't add up with each other and it doesn't give any name support the people are so that we again we're dealing with initials but apparently a meaningful to some people but to most of us not so so that clarification would be nice he talks about requests in order to pay for additional lawsuits because a break in the tory compliances shows in other words  possibly to avoid additional lawsuits for noncompliance the last point in this summary is i'm going to read this for us based on our review the division of environmental management in our own analysis that stat i from illinois believes that the cost savings projected in the division of environmental management who are overstated not a realistic figure according to the people who did this audit problem we need to have accurate information and to have a timely the second point that i hadn't identified and  and transfers there's been we know this is come up a number of times at this microphone and other places there has been money sitting and pockets and it doesn't get service in this case three hundred eighty three thousand dollars and that's such a pattern we ask for money from for example within the state and then we don't use it when it gets slid into a jar someplace apparently in then when it's recognized too big a hill not to be recognized that any money ends up being used for other things to a population here in the community that's very upset with that and they end up paying the fees for extra attorneys for fines for not having those monies that came in in many cases from the taxpayers and some of them from taxpayers from the other forty nine states we don't just by what we put out as having these a records on our bond ratings  there's another whole debate at least that goes along with that so i don't envy you your need to address this kind of council members but it is your job to address this i think you for doing that in advance thank mr robinson any questions for the gentle lady on testimony presented this morning members we thank you for your comments this morning and she welcomes to ask her district offices if is sending out for you a copy of a presentation there will be given shortly we have two representatives c b and i this morning and they will be giving their comments  you shortly the first person i'd like to introduce to the committee is philip call ski he is the client program manager under sol that way services and environmental infrastructure component for c b n i sikorski comes out of st charles illinois and next to him is devin moose who is an engineering director and also has under him called combustion residuals he's also from c b and i from the st charles illinois office gentlemen good morning welcome to our chambers and i will we hear your comments regarding  this thank you chair holcombe good morning council members on behalf of devon in myself or we're pleased to be here to present the results of our study i thought perhaps anticipate dated the question from the press prior participant since this is the first time that we're meeting some of the other council members face to face i thought i would just briefly go through who c v and i is business for over one hundred twenty five years we perform work throughout the world in the u s we have fifty four thousand employees we work in diverse  fields environment in solid waste energy infrastructure devon and myself have worked together for nearly thirty years together so at this table you have over sixty five years of solid waste experience our solid waste practice is vertically integrated we work on all types of solid waste facilities from initial planning through  design to actual operation and maintenance and construction of solid waste facilities we've worked on hundreds of landfills across the u s devon has designed to nearly a billion cubic yards of landfill capacity at various facilities we've worked on dozens of transfer stations we've worked on recycling facilities composting facilities waste energy facilities and emerging  conversion technology projects such as the energy a project so we have a very diverse very solid experience base spanning over decades i think the comment was raised in the paper seeding i was selected for this particular simon through through an r f p issued by the office of of council services so we responded to the opportunity i think it's important to review the objectives of this study there were two questions that we were asked to help evaluate one whether the resources in staffing approved for the solid waste of vision in the fiscal year two thousand and fifteen budget process and subsequently gave the solid waste division sufficient resources to operate in compliance and then the second question was whether the proposed integrated wast e project would result in net cost savings versus the current solid waste system so those are two very important questions i wanted to just maybe clarify a little bit i know there are some subsidiary questions stet that have been raised which were not part of our scope in which we did not address in particular we did not review the energy of technology in in detail so we're not offering an opinion on the feasibility of that alternative or whether it's in fact the best alternative for for this community our approach was to review initially a bunch of documents and we reviewed extensive documentation and we looked at the budget documents for the past three fiscal years  we reviewed all the correspondence between i mean solid waste indeed and the council and the various committees of the council during that fiscal two thousand and fifteen budget process we also review considerable information that was provided by the solid waste division information such as staffing schedules at the landfills position descriptions permits for the solid waste facilities operating plans for the solid waste facilities the schedules we reviewed the compliance history for the divisions facilities because that compliance was one of the key issues in those fiscal two thousand and fifteen budget discussions we also reviewed historical operating cost information from the department of finance finance for the past four fiscal years we did some research on our own t benchmark molly county's solid waste system against other publicly owned and publicly operated solid waste systems we in late september we interviewed solid waste of vision management analysis day it was prepared by concerning the energy a facility all this information informed our our study an analysis of the two questions we also prepared a draft report we want to disturb be a transparent process to give an opportunity for solid waste and dmn to respond back so they were provided a copy of the draft report we took their comments and they are included is an attachment to the final report as well as our responses to some of the some of the comments that they raised so turning now to the to the actual analysis on the first question on staffing in resources for solid waste of vision one of the first thoughts we had was to take a big picture look and see how the solid wastes staffing in resources compares to other publicly operated solid waste systems we did this in two steps we looked at other counties in hawaii and also we added to their dataset by considering systems in florida we selected florida and that by chance or by random florida has a preponderance of publicly owned and operated solid waste systems they tend to use transfer stations in landfills for managing their wastes much like molly county so there were a lot of similarities between the florida systems and the hawaii systems in their first step in looking at this benchmark comparison was to look at staffing in we did a comparison of the model we county system versus t hawaii systems that shown on the graft on the left in this particular chart and it may be a little hard to read but my we county here and what that chart shows is how many staff are employed versus the tonnage handled by those solid waste systems and so what you can see from that shared is that molly county actually falls below the trend line relative to the other systems in the state of hawaii and if you are below that trend line it means you're using fewer employees to manage a given tonnage of waste we also prepared and expanded in the alice's which is the graph shown on the right that includes the of the florida systems i mentioned previously as well as the hawaii systems and i'm going to step up again to the chart to show you where my only county falls sixteen which was following the approval of the six requested positions in what again you can see from this graph is that county falls below the trend line again that shows that fewer we also looked at financial performance and nice charts again show molly county's performance in terms of operating cost relative to system and it generally tells the same story in terms of the hawaii county's maui county is again below the trend line so in this particular instance if you are operating costs are being expended to manage a of waste and when we do the larger comparison include including the florida counties as well if we look at the actual operating costs the county is slightly above the over overall trend line approximately six percent above the overall trend line however there are some unique factors about maui county system notably there are these three smaller  landfills either operated on other islands or in very in a very remote location so we did a similar comparison just excluding the three small landfills from the county system in the operating cost and a net basis is the county falls below the trend line in looking at these overall data we would also note that one of the important line items that factors into operating costs is county it ministration and overhead costs this is typically beyond the control of the solid waste department and does add to the overall operating cost and that those tend to vary from county to county but on balance based on this benchmark analysis our conclusion is that the county is operating along a trend comparable to other publicly owned and operated systems we also evaluated the specific position requests back in fiscal year two thousand and fifteen staff were added both to address operations as well as engineering staff so i'll start with the operations staff at the time asked for three positions at the satellite landfills these are the smaller landfills the purpose of those staff was to provide a dedicated operator position prior to the you approval of those positions the operations at those satellite landfills was being performed by the working supervisor position who also had management responsibilities  solid waste indicated at the time that this presented challenges due to the need to use allow for vacation time for absences due to illness we find that th argument in those issues to be compelling and that the three additional positions will certainly help and facilitate the operations of those satellite landfills solid waste also asked for two engineering positions we reviewed the compliance history of the county solid waste facilities and what this what the church shows  slide is we categorize the compliance of the historical compliance issues into three categories operations related which is shown in blue that's the largest category of historical compliance issues operations related compliance issues pertaining to potential violations that come up in the normal daily operations of the landfill such as supplying daily cover or controlling litter we also looked at reporting related complaints matters those are the green slice of the pie the second largest category those deal with timely filing over required monitoring and other correspondence with the state regulatory authorities and finally there's a third category which which we characterized as design and environmental related issues and that's the smallest component shown in red these tend to be larger issues which which are fall outside the daily operations or the reporting over acquired information to the state but what we found is looking at the six positions that were requested in fiscal year two thousand and fifteen there were two engineering positions in four operations positions requested so the rough proportion of the positions requested was two thirds to operations in one third to engineering and as we reviewed the compliance history the operations related  violations or potential violations relative to the reporting related violations was also an aberration of two thirds to one third so given that you know our conclusion was that the staffing  of that discussion in the fiscal two thousand and fifteen budget process center noncompliance it seemed like they selected staffing that matched where the compliance issues were were coming up one final thought the two engineers requested brings the total engineering staff to six that is within the range of other publicly operated systems that we have seen but it is now at the high end of the range so following this analysis of the benchmark comparison in the specific positions our conclusion was that the solid waste division is positioned now given those resource arse's to add to address compliance issues going of current system in current facilities we started our analysis by reviewing the cost model that they had to hit put together on this and were also tipping fee assumptions what would be charged at the central mali landfill and what would be charged energy a project there was another section and this is probably the most material to the cost model in our analysis which is what were the county's costs at the central mali landfill under current conditions and then following the implementation of the energy of project there were also projections of revenues under both scenarios going forward finally resulting in by comparing the revenues to the costs the net annual cost to the county  under both scenarios and the difference between these two bottom line numbers would be whether they were cost savings to the county or or as we determined cost  increases i think it's important to say i think we are in agreement with them on how the model was set up we think it's an appropriate way of evaluating the costs under both scenarios we utilized in our analysis county data either from the department of finance or from solid waste or from d m or from the actual contract with the energy so we did not come up with estimates of our own we utilized county provided data and i think so we're in agreement on overall methodology and how this project should be evaluated it's just at the end of the day our cost analysis leads to a different conclusion analysis and quickly going through the model the projection is that the energy a project will result in eighty percent diversion of waste from the central maui landfill and to really quickly summarize the d m analysis as you go down this list of different cost categories labor costs operating costs daily cover material costs air space costs  costs what c b and i did to perform our analysis this is we went back in using that historical information cost information we had compiled on the first question we took the model and utilized historical cost average cost for the past four fiscal years and incorporated dat in into our model  that resulted in some differences where is d m projected an eighty percent reduction in labor costs based on our analysis we think six sixty four percent is more appropriate to operating costs d m estimated a seventy five percent reduction based on our analysis we think it's closer to sixty percent and so at the end of the day what we wound up with was d m was projecting that the project would have a cost savings to the county of nine hundred sixteen thousand dollars per year under our analysis we believe it will actually be a cost increase of eight hundred thirty five thousand dollars per year i want to know one other thing that's on this chart  or that's not on this chart going back to the prior slide indicated that one element of the model was was a projection of county revenues going forward in that factors into the analysis so under the d m analysis the estimated revenue from the project to the county which would be the difference between the tipping fee charged by the county at the scale house and a contractual rate paid to energy it to manage the based so under the d m model the tipping fee at the gate was assumed to be ninety dollars per ton in the contract rate paid to energy to process the waste was sixty eight dollars per ton so that's a difference of twenty two dollars per ton which would be retained by the county is its revenue commercial sources so that actually represents a new source of revenue to the county but effectively means that there would be a tipping fee of twenty two dollars ton being charged on the residential trash and that amounts to about one point three million dollars in revenue on an annual basis and at one point three million dollars of new revenue charged on the residence is reflected in those numbers at the bottom of this chart so it's it was and so it's included in both that it's reflected in both the analysis and our analysis but that is a new  so again just to kind of wrap up this portion projected nine hundred sixty thousand dollars in annual cost savings our estimate was eight hundred thirty five thousand dollars in increased costs i wanted to focus on two of the cost elements in particular the starting with labor d m d m assumed that there would be an eighty percent reduction in labor costs at the central maui landfill again that's proportionate to the reduction in tonnage and there is currently twenty two employees staffing the landfill so an eighty percent reduction would reduce their workforce to four point four employees we rounded up to five and given the reduction  they would be expected to manage thirty thousand tons per year of residual materials that central maui landfill when we looked at the current operations at the small landfills we found that there's typically now four to five employees staffing each of those small landfills but those landfills handle much reduced quantity of waste about five thousand tons per year it four or five employees in here central maui landfill current with twenty two employees and again this is plotted against tonnage so if we reduce and fifteen was on these positions needed at the smaller landfills the staffing was increased from four to five employees to manage a much smaller quantity of waste it seemed to stretch to us to say that ok we're going to operate to central landfill in hand thirty thousand tons per waste with four point four employees or four or five and ploys did provide comments on the draft report they said that they're sticking to their labor cost projections on this they indicated some reasons why they believe they can operate the landfill with that much reduced number of employees they stated  instance that this thirty thousand tonnes this residual material coming from the energy project could perhaps be managed one day per week so that the landfill would only be operating one day parade per week but that gets you to a daily throughput level that's even higher than what the landfill is handling currently so to say we're going to take all that material on one day per week with five employees doesn't seem to go with what the landfill is currently cuts in terms of days of operation or hours of operation just an aspect there's that the second cost element was concerning air space and let me kind of define for you what we're talking about on air space air space is  the construction cost to develop the engineered features of the landfill so you're going to have to purchase land you're going to have to build the line or at the bottom of the landfill a construct a the landfill gas collection system and as the landfill gets filled to capacity you're and have to put in engine near a cap over the line over the facility to close it and then provide thirty years of post closure here the d m model assumed a value of thirty dollars per ton for that constructed air space we came up with a lower estimate of thirteen dollars and seventy four cents to fifteen dollars and forty three cents per tonne should actually say it's a calculated value it's not an estimate it too so we have this  difference in in the per ton value of this constructed airspace we requested back up from from d m to kind of itemize what was factoring into the thirty dollars per ton value we were not able to obtain net detail back up but they did respond to email via e mail to us saying that well what's included in the ad value is the cost of developing the landfill in closing it and providing for post closure here so again we're both agreeing to what should be included in the cost of that factor we went back to the historical documents state we had reviewed during the course of this project i think we were able to find at least the basis for for dns to estimate we found a letter to the policy and an on the cost of the three can curbside recycling program and they are solid waste indicated that the marginal cost of putting waste into the landfill was twenty six dollars per ton so based on this is stor documents we were at least able to say see that was was figuring around twenty six dollars per ton they may have rounded up to thirty dollars per ton however in reviewing those documents it was clear to us that was stating closure in post closure costs on a future value basis not on a current cost dollar basis when you do a financial evaluation you never one to compere some costello moments stated in current dollars in other costs stated on a future value basis that's mixing apples and oranges together  so it's not appropriate generally to include mix those types of costs together don't have to take my word for it however on the governmental accounting standards board which prepares accounting standards for units of government has issued guidelines on how closure and post closure costs are supposed to be reported they say that all caution be stated on a current cost basis in fact when the finance department prepares the county's comprehensive annual financial report they too are also reporting all of these costs on a current cost basis  as i sit here today i think that's the difference between the thirty dollars per ton value and the fifteen dollars per ton value that we came up with i think the fifteen dollars per tonne is the more appropriate number to utilize i'll try and finish up here so we can get to any questions you may have we have a number of recommendations some i think would go back to the solid waste department in d it was apparent to us in reviewing all the information for this project that there's a lot of financial information available it's just not being presented on a consolidated basis we think  prepare a ten year financial forecast i think it will facilitate the budget process in future years if if if the council on this committee could review overall system  costs solid waste his legacy facilities which are closed and have to be maintained a have current facilities and programs and with the energy a project there is going to be new a new facility coming on line and we think that having this ten year forecast would allow everybody to approach these these various cost elements on a comparable basis with respect to  council our recommendation is that you review the status of the implementation of the energy a project it leased annually with d m this is a large project for the county it will impact existing programs in facilities both operationally as well as from a from a budget standpoint so again i think it would facilitate everybody's thought process if you're getting regular updates on the status of the project implementation  i think it would be helpful to review both the d m cost model as well as a nice cost model with solid waste of vision management in get there either approval or comments on whether those reductions that are projected going forward are in fact feasible from their standpoint in in  terms of labor and some of the other elements remember an eighty percent reduction in stay out in order for those savings to be materialized those reductions  labor costs in staffing have to be achieved if those positions are just relocated to another part of solid waste or to another part of and they are not moved into a position that is open through attrition in those costs those late projected labor cost savings will never materialize another recommendation ok if there are cost increases associated with the implementation of the energy a project do the benefits proposed by that project in terms of greater waste diversion does to cost measure relative to some of those other community goals and benefits and then finally i think you need to review the contract there are certain milestones that have to be met under the contract and certainly that's going to impact has the facilities implemented both current operations is as well as d n a whole budget process so we think it's important to understand for the council to understand what your rights and obligations are under their contract visually and orally from our auditors c b n i the chair was going to open it up for you to give ask questions first so we can save comments after questions i would prefer you as your key question you for you need a follow up to and will be permitted and then we're going to go to the next member so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in ass questions especially if profitable thank you very much for this insightful presentation i think it helps clarify a number of years off the script sees that we didn't quite understand it when i said scritches i'm not saying you're right they're wrong they're wrong they're right you're wrong they're just what your interpretation and their interpretation is and thank you very very much wanted to go to p g nine and just go directly to page nine i understand the libor reduction in operating cost reduction operation cost reduction in those two i understand you know you saying that you believe to be in your model not quite as substantial as their model is concerned but one that i did have a question on is include in i guess maybe my question to you it was not included as an actual component of their model they did list what they thought were some of the intangible benefits and they did list potential reductions in in equipment operating cost is is a potential cost we thought we we had the capability to evaluate that and so we looked the way we evaluated that we looked at the current in quitman employed to get the central mali landfill there is a reduction but a lot of that equipment would have to be retained under both scenarios even under the the reduced tonnage scenario so you could reduce the compactors or the bulldozers which are currently being used to compact the trash because it would be handling lesser quantities of waste but a lot of the other mobile equipment to get at the landfill would still be required so for instance or trucks out there to move the roll off containers for the for the residential drop off or cyclable those those stores would still have to be retained and so you don't see their proportion in the eighty percent proportion at reduction because they are for more than material would still be required to operate the landfill given the vo thank you chair thank you for this awesome presentation my question would be more in reference to at this time two pages six and seven and regards to  the i guess bullet theory dedicated operate as a small and fills with work unsupervised to focus more on management and compliance and then we turn to the summary of far as the filing of reports are we are we not fighting it on time or is this is what's required for us to meet are responsible for these compliance reports typically they may be part of their overall job duties it would be my expectation alternately though they had that type of reporting to the state would be funneled through the engineering staff ultimately before being submitted to the state so in terms of the working supervisor position in addition to compacting the trash there were other management responsibilities at those particular landfills assigning staff participating in the budget process  so in our view there was a sufficient there was a significant amount of the added responsibility such that a dedicated operator position who would focus on compact in the trash would free up more time for they had working supervisor to address some of those other duties which is not to say that they would not operate the equipment either direction now was that if the if the dedicated operator was not available due to vacation or illness than the working supervisor position would step in to provide those operational capability so there is some is much of the language focused our compliance during that fiscal two thousand and fifteen budget process i guess from our standpoint we look at compliance is two factors it applying daily cover for instance to a landfill at the end of the day is a best operating practice it's required by the regulations but if there wasn't a regulation it's something that you would want to do anyways to maintain it operate the landfill as this is a community asset so that's how we kind of looked at the complete the pass compliance issues on an operational basis which would be addressed by personnel primarily by personnel at the landfill applying daily cover lisi for litter doing those things those activities that have to be performed on a daily basis to maintain  a clean appearance of the facilities we're still reporting things are more monitoring related there's more of an engineering element to preparing those reports before they are preparing in reviewing those reports before they're submitted to the state i think it's also important to remember that we did not preview the operating plans  on reviewing these estimates your question went a little bit too a little bit beyond our scope just so you know we did not review the operating plans and judge their thoroughness or effectiveness to me had about the equipment cost reduction that's that's fine my question is on the airspace cost reduction the both have the same estimated cost reductions so chargers there's actually two components in the year space reduction the first factor is will there be a reduction in your space yes we agree on that and that will be proportionate to tonnage i mean if you're putting eighty percent russin you're using eighty percent less of the air space the second critical factor is what did air space is valued at and that's where we have the  difference we calculated that value is being thirteen to fifteen dollars per ton where is d m calculated it as thirty dollars per ton so so if you multiply that by eighty percent it's a the reduction on the side versus ok so so that it's kind of a follow up it would be nice to have the actual numbers here not the percentages but the actual numbers because it looks like a fifty five percent cost reduction that they didn't put in there would be a lot of a lot more to add to the bottom line there as opposed to the as a positive number for them on that one thought about that and  didn't want to put so many numbers into this presentation did everyone's eyes started to glaze over the backup is in the report i guess i will say this in terms of the two cost analyses the airspace is is the biggest cost factor between the two analyses but i will reiterate we did not come up with our own estimates of the air space we looked to be historical documentation that's available within a six year sea id plan there is in fact a project for additional land acquisition so we were able to fairly value the land acquisition there is a cost for cell construction so we were able to value that component there is a capping event coming up we were able to value that and there's also an expansion of the landfill gas collection system and when we all those numbers together and look at the associated airspace where those construction activities are going to occur that actually results in the lower number thirteen dollars per ton you know that could be paid pay as you go i mean that's what it amounts to thirty you know thirteen thirteen dollars and change if if you're going if you gentlemen are aware of it what would at this time be them maybe in the national average of your species valuations so we have a sense of what other counterparts are doing across the country are you aware of the kind of figures for us yeah i can speak to that in again bear in mind these are going to be broad averages across the country and in in a they from location to location but in terms of your cell development cost so this would include things like land and doing the bottom line or  construction those costs in average would be approximately five dollars per ton on the closure in the post closure care you would be looking at another two or three dollars per ton so i think all in  you'd be looking somewhere seventy eight dollars per ton to construct a cap and provide long term cure for the landfill so just as a reference point you know in our analysis we were at thirteen to fifteen dollars per ton i still think that's fear you're located on an island community i would expect certain construction activities to be more costly than they would be on the mainland because you may need to import materials so nonetheless you know our estimate of thirteen to fifteen dollars per ton would be probably about double what what a typical cost would be on  mainland first subtitle to landfill thank you for that discussion do you think each year and thank you very much gentlemen for this report it's very very exciting to see i am the chair of the environmental reading and i appreciate your folks it it seems unlovable of yes obviously competency but really now why the college how the county came up with their numbers versus your numbers because there's a huge discrepancy and the numbers in the the end from being in a whole positive late being presented to us versus the end result of viewers with a negative in a sense for this county so for me on how you got there  is very very important and i appreciate it was easy to follow and easy to understand i live in the west side so you went to the all the convenience center there i probably one of the first centers to be closed and has been under closure for decades now but i'm looking and compliance has been a stickler here compliance issues with this department has come from all different angles saying and yes we have no we don't we have a consistent eight hundred thousand dollar bill every year and it we could never get to the bottom of that i'm looking at so you just went back to two thousand and twelve for your historical figures no  glancing at page eighteen on the bottom where it's stating that you know the breakdown of what the penalties stem from operations related to environmental or reporting related  compliance history we actually went back to two thousand and one ok and that's in and  that's good so that summary that to we summarize things in attachment one but that's actually for the period two thousand and one through twenty fifty oh ok very good i was hoping that it went and twelve because and i guess it's just you know we've we've seen people sent off on leave from this department from this particular department and with pay and have and to do with there is litigation and things of that nature was the any of that brought up discussed amy and i saw you went around and did interviews with people i'm just trying to figure out how all that plays into what we have today because there's been that's where the conflict has occurred in the sense of what kind of information this body has been receiving and how we can you know appropriate monies appropriately and when have you so i see what you have here but i'm wondering if there were i don't know obviously you can only work with what you're given and for and same for this body so i don't know i'm trying to form a question in a sense but it's a fifty kind so i don't know any of that and it also goes with the recycling program to which has to do with the contract with energy and as in a sense so there were four positions there cut down to one position two are in and didn't administrative leave i believe that's of a severe costs that are out there without this county having a service in return to the function of this department so i think there's something to those points that are occurring but i don't really see it wrapped up in here did may show up in some of the macro numbers that we've looked at but we did not specifically address those those particular things we hope to shed light on that because compliance was used so much during that fiscal year twenty fifteen but you process the focus on the staffing aspects in relationship to those compliance matters as opposed to other it ministre to four or over or management issues that may be going out and having gone through this process in the the basis for some of our recommendations oh please a little clearer we reviewed a lot of information and i think there's a considerable amount of information coming from solid waste indeed during the budget process in response to questions from this committee or from or from or from the council there's a lot of good useful deep detailed information in occurs to me that the value that information is kind of being lost because it's so specific and so detailed and manager for close landfills and this is what we expect going forward with you know our current four operating landfills and then this is going to be the impact of the energy a project or any of you know broader use of the three can program in any of those things what i think would provide some some greater insight and some greater confidence and more i guess a common basis for talking about some of these particular cost  issues that's why i think that that that recommendation could help with that address those some of those issues that you've identified that i that i know you've had to contend with very well thank you very much and that does lead to me segue to the next question chair that i had on page twenty two at the bottom in regards to you folks are i'm in a long range plan and so did you have a chance to look at the integrated solid waste management plan and what did any comment i don't seem to see any comments in regards to that plan i did look at it i i have to want to be very clear in in what i say on the plan because it came before this council at one point in time it was developed in you know with community outreach in input so i want to be absolutely respectful to the process that was employed in in  in developing them plan but here i agree with the solid waste some of the some of the costs implications of the plan and i think they are presenting to you accurate numbers from the material cost we are so i want to be respectful since it is a community plan and there was participation for that you know there is no i'm sure different segments of the public like different aspects of those plans some people may be committed to curbside you know recycling but that being the case with with cost impacts of they have order of magnitude it seems very challenging to me to find the resources to to implement all that well again thank you gentlemen for your insight and expertise in this matter appreciate that hard work you've done and share i'm i'm good at this point thank you very thank you for the opportunity to catch my breath so to speak gentleman thank you very much for the presentation and i wish that i had had the opportunity to be here from the beginning i'm sure i missed something so if i ask you something that was covered i apologize but you know this audit was requested to address the net cost benefit between status quo and the anticipated net cost of the energy a contract if i understand this correctly and what i'm reading in your report is that you feel that a more  concern my my concern is do we have the answer after all of this some and there's a lot of stuff here and a lot of work was done but do we have the answer that we wanted and that was is i a contract a good idea or isn't it and i hate to ask that directly but you know in politics we dance around a lot of stuff i mean i don't have time for dancing i just have nine months left on this council and i need to make decisions didn't i think are marching orders were were pretty clear at least two specific questions i know there could be one of the committees in discussing this very audit study had extensive discussions you were probably involved in those on and to what the scope would ultimately turn out to be and so that's what that's what we focused on and on answering those two particular questions i don't i think we are clear in our conclusion we believe that the project will result in net cost in that net cost savings to the county again for it is similar to my comments on the plan i am respectful to the process of everybody involved from solid waste to the public to the council on how we got to this particular point and so  careful in saying what you do going forward with this as i sit here all i can say is there are some potential benefits with this project in terms of increased diversion there are that's going to from our view come with some associated costs that is the type of we provide information in day out some recommendations we don't formulate the final policy and i think that's ultimately the policy decision on how do we weigh those potential diversion gains versus what what the cost increase would be to the community i thank you very much for your response i think it's a very important day we you know when we commissioned a study where we really do come for his answers and oftentimes we get a whole bunch of big fed documents that tell us a lot of stuff and what we're really looking for is going to work or isn't it going to work which helps us make a decision and yes the decision is ours but i want to have the best information to make it and i also to i would really appreciate the opportunity to see what the department energy type of project that has been built and has provided cost savings through whatever and to be pursued this type of technology  the the data set or the installed base is a better phrase for these types of facilities across the u s is very very small at this point in time  and so there's just not it's not like a landfill or a transfer station or a recycling facility or even a composting facility where you can go out and find some comparable facilities and say ok how how are they operating in what has been there in back from from from a cost standpoint so there just isn't the operating experience yet  in the u s with these types of facilities to make that type of assessment it is very much an emerging technology and type of facility there are is considerable interest among communities across s in these types of facilities as a way of increasing recycling or diversion in their communities but i haven't even on a perspective basis really seen a facility there more presented as a here's a technology that we can employ to increase your diversion that tends to be more the driving factor than hey we're going to to to reduce your look at things i'm i'm looking at the recommendations on page thirteen can you elaborate more on the review counties rights under i d c fifty contract with legal counsel  joining right to modify terms rights with respect to project milestones and then it's goes on to aid in monitoring i give you see p implementation planning for future budgets what exactly are you didn't get into this in the presentation just to keep it brief and one of the contractual provisions that we looked at was a put or paper vision in the contract you know and that is where the county commits to deliver x tons of waste per year to this project and if you don't you pay for any difference we think that here graph is now worded clear and we actually present some examples in the in the report to show how they had him ambiguity in a lane which could lead to some unintended consequences including cost consequences d responded back to that saying given us their interpretation i accept what they indicated is what the true intent of the put or pay provision was now it's still not reflected in the language so i think that language has to be modified just so that everybody is on the same page in terms of how they had put or paid language is going to operate on a year to year basis now throughout this project i've we've had to assume that this is you know the contract is what it is so i didn't want to presume that there's a unit i mean it was negotiated so i can't assume that there's a unilateral light right of the  county for instance to go back and say this this this language has to be changed because we're not comfortable with it that requires a legal opinion so that's why we said you know that entails consultation with with with your legal counsel on how that would be approached there are milestones that will have to be met in terms of the development of this facility so it has business for years now that is that is not all the time in the world and so one question we had again is ok if that milestone is not met there's going to have to be another decision made and frankly i don't know if the administration would make that decision at that point in time or whether the council would make the decision at that time whether additional time would be permitted for development of the project to energy or  not so i we're we can provide you with technical engineering advice cost advice but what i can do is provide the legal advice but i think those are those are some of the things you want to start because three years is not again all the time in the world i think it's something that everyone wants to start looking at in terms of the what the decision would be at that point in time and if the facility does start to get further along in implementation in starts to ultimately starts to operate again and there are current recycling programs that are provided under contract with other private offenders those are going to be impacted will that happen all at once or over a phased period of time  you're going to i think be asked to approve at some point in time construction of the next cell so you know if the facility is operating or close to operating how does that impact the approval of those c ip projects that that are already being planned with respect to the landfill so that was the shortest way we could synopsize kind of all those thought process i mean it is a big project for the county and implementing it is going to not happen instantaneously it's going to occur over time and i think that the that is the council needs to stay abreast of those those types of tim chair it seems as though we next time or we review this merger going to at least for me be looking very closely at some of these legal aspects or issues i see that one of the testifiers submitted is section nine dash twelve of the charter and it seems to me that that if there is an obligation that attaches to the fiscal obligation maybe we should have been at the jurisdiction to approve that contract or not approve it but it seems like if i shared correctly from the experts who's been in the field long in allow the director you know i want to just i also you know that we do have there after stent present if there are some questions for clarification purposes but today's the report of the auditors and that is where you have the two gentlemen before the that i do want to mass our auditors for additional comment is a couple of areas at the front an interesting one is regarding the debt service discussion in your lack of gentlemen and its impact on your bottom line of your analysis how much of an issue or a factor was the debt service for this division or especially for central my w the we requested the existing debt service to get some insight into the historical financial information we received from the department of finance had a single line item for that  then so we you requested information to see if we can get some further breakdown of that because obviously solid waste is collection of the in the holes they operate convenience centers and other landfills so we wanted to see if we can and this was when we were searching for information underlying to thirty dollars per ton and we thought ok if we looked at some detail debt service information we would be able to gain some insight into that thirty dollars per topic we were not able to get that information it's it's my understanding that after a certain part of point in time going back and there's just not a line item by line item this was the prior c ip request which was financed through de in here's these sources of daniel that service i don't think that in new we found a better way i think of addressing that issue however in turn instead of looking at historical cost well what are the future costs going to be in terms of landfill construction at the central maui facility and that's why we looked at those planned projects that are currently in a six year sea ip forecast  for the division i think that's actually a better source of information i will at this though i don't have insight at this point in time how much legacy debt service exists it is attributable to projects at the central maui landfill so if there's another ten years of payments or fifteen years of payments associated with prior construction activities at the central mali land you i mean those costs don't go away so if anything knows our costs in knows that type of legacy debt services is not reflected in in our model rockets so that conceivably could be higher than than than the number that we presented to thank you for that i'm like that point in the community report with the difficulty of getting  additional twenty to a dollar a ton tippin for you on residence because that's what i believe i heard but i want to be clear that that is what is there to proposal is we're going to impose our residence an additional twenty two dollars a t ne tipping fee is that understanding from your cost analysis yes that's what's included in the d m model and there would be above the current hundred forty one forty four we charge the residence for the annual presidential pick up yes that's completely you know the new revenue if you will work in there or a new assessment point three million dollars that you mentioned earlier yes now i would need to look further into that spreadsheet to understand what costs were included and whether some was attributed improperly to residential i  believe that may have been a mistake on the original spreadsheet that that the ninety dollars per tonne was multiplied by the entire one hundred fifty tonnes of solid waste so that number  surviving member of that group that's still here yes by in the sky was given to us as our marching orders so mr iemma dark r g p back you know in other words put everything out there and let's see what we can come up with so in defense of the plan the plan was done with a lot of community groups saying yes we'd like recycling we want days we want plasma arc and they were putting all kinds of stuff out there so i want you to understand that that was the marching orders for that because i was part of that  group that put that plan together and spent almost two years putting it together so i want to defend the plan itself because the way was set up and the way we were given our marching orders was really to put something together and then let the council and in the department come up with what they call policies that would make it feasible for us to use here now and so i won't just want to make that perfectly clear you know the last thing i want to ask you is the difference between your see their savings and your costs increase is nearly two million dollars if used to swing one point seven almost one point eight million dollars i mean spice asked you specifically if you had an answer and you kind of danced around it understand it or really you're not into the policy that's going to be back to us and what we decide but do you see what our d m v our department of environmental management and they're standing on what  believe to be true do you find there is anything that is substantially in that we should focus in on that you feel that maybe they're not really taking all factors into consideration what is from engineering standpoint or from a cost what you have to cross cost point of view my i want to make sure i understand the question mean you mean in terms of the way they currently operate the landfill the county ok is the question then are there things they can do to do you feel they overlook some things they could do that you would recommend them doing that you would put together as far as your final  report i am hard pressed to see where they could they could attain those levels of cost savings that they projected i just i mean there this is the staffing level would be similar to end hand oh yeah you know six times the amount of tonnage i don't see it coming from the labor and the operating cost there's you know fuel is a variable cost and i agree fuel will go down if you're handling less tonnage but there are other operating costs in terms of monitoring the landfill and other activities that are fixed and are just not going to go away whether it's one hundred fifty thousand tons into the landfill or thirty don't i don't think there's anything they could either proactively do operationally or anything neck out overlooked in terms of savings to that the d m commented that we didn't include recycling costs in our initial evaluation so we went back and looked at some of the recycling contracts and i think the costs are going up there too   so i mean your understanding of how this provision works or is written to work increased from one fifty to the c two hundred thousand tons for a three to three year period do we have an increasing the minimum guarantee dead dead those are the examples that we went through in our report and as i read the contract that's how i interpret the language of that contract to say that the actual amount of the guarantee he would increase over time or decrease depending upon actual deliveries on a three year rolling average basis i've had so you know i've had two other people who are also experienced in solid waste contracts within our office review that particular provision hand it was unclear to them as well but that's how i write it now the d m responded to the draft report in and said no that's not correct what it means is that the hundred twenty five thousand tons annual guarantee will be fixed for the life of the contract and where to three are rolling average comes into play is that's how whether the county meets step provision or not will be assessed so that you'll look at the actual deliveries for the last three years take the average and if it's all if the average is over one hundred twenty five thousand tons than you've met her vision and i agree that's also another alternate way to read the language in the contract but that still presents you with some issues in my view going forward as to how it's going to apply so for instance if in year one you deliver one hundred twenty five thousand tons and then it's one hundred ten thousand tons in year two and in back up to one hundred twenty five thousand now let's move forward another year so now we're starting at one hundred ten thousand tons in year two and it's one hundred twenty five thousand tons in year three and one hundred twenty five thousand tons in year four well on at three year basis you're still also on an average under the hundred twenty five thousand tons and it's not clear to me whether you're again going to pay a shortfall even though you've already essentially paid for that shortfall one time that's not is so dead yet i understood you do dear is some basis for a three year rolling average i think it does provide some protection for the county but i would want that language  crystal clear with with some examples so that there's no question later on but thank you for the last question and again the tears in things to defer this because i'm sure we have additional discussion on this that the chair will schedule for in your understanding of what we are regulated under how much does compl as a factor fifty percent in your experience well again i i think it i think it comes down to two things operating stuff in there are certain operating practices which are required by regulation but are also kind of best management practices  and then there are stuff that is good in terms of monitoring either ground water or leach or landfill gas at the landfills that's typically beyond the job description for someone who's operating the equipment and that type of monitoring in reporting and analysis of that stuff is more an in in my view type tied to the engineering so whether you view putting daily cover or controlling literally at the end of the day is being operationally related or or compliance related i guess in my view of the world it's more operationally related although there is ultimately a elation behind that type of stuff so in looking at the types of compliance issues that have been raised before the and i had no expectation that things would work out this way when solid waste requested you know in this proportion two thirds operational staff to kind of the reporting issues and then we went back and i have someone completely separate from myself kind of categorize these compliance issues and report back to me ok how did they divvy up between operations related stuff and reporting related stuff while we did it happen to be that it was in the same proportion so i think i think solid waste at least put some thought into what they were being a have issued notice of violations for and thought about ok what personnel changes can we make to allow us to better address it in came up with you know we need these dedicated operators at the small landfills to make sure that we're handling the daily operating stuff the daily cover the litter better this i think they are well staffed and well positioned to be able to address compliance in the in i q i can never say said there were not be compliance issues going forward but they should be able to operate those facilities where it's less of an issue than ever have been historically and your friend to the twenty two current positions that would be the current staffing e s a at its central maui cut this short it's a coach just one real quick question about the debt service this is a talked about they didn't get the numbers did you ask for the numbers and weren't given them or did you just not know what those numbers were  i did not know them so i asked the request went through council services back to back to the finance department and i did not speak directly to the had a finance site tried to have all the information flow through a central point type but that's what was conveyed back to me by staff from council services that there was not this detail of information available where you could say ok these this is all that debt service attributed to the central maui landfill on east particular projects ok and that number would have gone into the fifteen fifteen forty three a ton or it may have if we see you can look at the construction cost only in fill either on a historical basis in which case the debt service would have would have been one of the parameters that i that i looked at or you can look at it more on it going forward basis which is alternately what we did using the future budget estimates for those future construction projects by the way those numbers those budget requests while i'm sure you're aware of this those are numbers pulled out of a hat i mean i'm sure solid waste had their engineers ok this is what's going to be involved in our next cell construction and here's our construction cost estimate on it so you can either look historically in which case the debt service would have been useful to have i actually think on a forward looking basis is probably even a more relevant information since we are on a forward looking basis but again i will say the debt service on any legacy projects at central it doesn't go away by so so i just don't know what that number is ok thank you terry thank you again to as the chair minute recess bring this meeting back to order papers we're burning sunlight for and you know we have a very aggressive agenda so we would do differently the required is to increase the federal aid and ministration grants from nineteen point one four seven million to twenty four point six seven four million or any crease of five point five to chair real quickly this is just a basically a housekeeping bill there was a bill passed already to the that had increased the amount they were recognizing in federal aid and that was not included in the recently passed budget ordinance so we wanted to make sure that is properly reflected the total amount of the new total we are expecting to receive is to twenty four million six hundred seventy four thousand dollars acceptance of the ordinance it has no relation to new monies they must not be so this is just the actual money that i use the word backlog but it's actually money that we were intending to get in the first place correct we already recognize that in approve the project is just a matter of changing  thank you members may there were a few to b f to dish to this is under the heading of community development block grants or cd b g as we come in the know it this is for the program year two thousand and sixteen fiscal year two thousand and seventeen and so this is the year that starts on july first two thousand and sixteen and ends on june thirtieth two thousand and seven this morning we have to share this again is a resolution authorizing them near to file an application for the community building block grant program for program year seventeen and we request council approval on this so that we can get the advocation filed for hud to review i believe we had some prior discussion on items in mr joseph r c b g program manager is here to answer any questions that you might g program manager i would like to thank you for considering the community development block grant for program year two thousand and sixteen as stated on our february second homeless resource center inc staircase safety initiative walter j walter cameron set up partial funding for cameron center rehabilitation and improvement  april fifteenth two thousand and sixteen again i would like to thank the selection committee for doing an excellent job during the selection process thank you chair thank you a funding source that the chair is very supportive of you know what i would like to us to retain the maximum ability to get the maximum dollars for various county projects that is where i my position of concern comes from regarding the c b d component with that but you know i do have one issue with one of the recommendations but  plan to get to where we supposed to be which is one point five i am to announce that as off our last report we're down to one point five four so the next coming up  that there are as as we know others are worthy projects it's just that with the homeless situation that's going on i'm just wondering how  to take care of both of those equipment of course program your twenty sixteen we want to take care of the safety initiative again you know  in the council don't have the ability to change the course or the selection of the selection committee on the projects that we do here in maui county but prior to tw rehabilitation that you see that i have told you about the is trying to rehab buildings in rooms so that we can continue to provide you know safety those were two objectives that d c to beat the program you know we wanted to take care homelessness affordable housing and safety issues process and we all have our priorities and and i just want to see what we can do more especially now with the need for them to help with the homeless so ok thank you is more bricks and mortar type of projects and again the homelessness and i know they do assist them but you know i did eight say inspection the other day in line and quite a bit of things seemed to be neglected and nothing of a huge but there's in places things and obviously have no time to go into a mall but and they see there's a couple and this is for safety and building deteriorations and what have you so i understand that but i think on a bigger picture with the whole homeless crisis happening  i would have liked to see more focus on those types of things setting up the staging area for those modules or centers something i don't know but again i think this particular entity i have questions that have been brought to my attention into are in regards to how my knees they didn't get from us are being utilized preservation very very old project definitely we're overdue for this type of rehab much older than any law has been around so just some comments share at this  point they're all very worthy because they provide the same type of service to this needy needy community so i know it's a all for take it all or none at all i guess kind of option that we always get every year on this list and a lifeline and give it to somebody else that can do the job son yes thank you terry i commented earlier on this and i'll just kind of keep along the same vein i'm really happy to see that they have been responsive to the other recommendations that we've made you know we did kind of suggest that we wanted to see this go this way instead of you know buying fire engines and i don't see that in here this year and i want to thank them for you know taking attention to our recommendations and again this is a tough one because every project in here i'm sure is worthy but you know i'm glad we do not make this decision because we are going into budget and if there is some of these projects that are of time oh kunt consequences are safety or whatever we may be handling then we could possibly handle that in the budget process so i'm ok with what is proposed and out of course you know we all want to ask them questions but what we have before us is i have no qualms with any of these groups and i will again identify that i am a board member of kali became he she she and that's now well known and i'm not going to back away from that and i've seen the changes in fact we have a new director and i think this young lady will even enhance or say move us forward even further as you're well aware of all the other groups i work with them i've known what their their results have been i've seen it and even our results have been very positive the transitional housing issue has worked out very well yes there's a lot of people that are not satisfied but you cannot satisfy all and i listen to the community as well as any other member of the same and i listen to all of the communities not just one community not just one area mr but the no in those days i travel all around this this this county to find out what goes wrong so i'm pleased in how he does it and i'll close by and so we have what we call our community what is the priority through the process at public facilities are one of the priorities and it's been a change of some somewhat off with this process so it is an intense process to come up with the priorities their e mail to mr pontin and it's interesting they willing to put it in email but they won't sign a letter which is the regional head of the c b d program for housing and urban development it in any other for the questions that needs to be read ass of our person our members if not the will entertain a motion to move forward to the council adoption of your proposed resolution and titled authorizing the filing of an application with the department of housing and urban development a proposed ordinance which is going to recommend increasing carry over see rings by two million dollars increasing department of finance fringe forty percent increase mr bob was opening comments thank you mr chair so before you council members is a request to increase our fringe benefit costs a half a percent and public safety employees one percent as well as a collective bargaining increases you know regular salaries went up so that it's since it's a ratio those numbers went up fairly significantly it but we're going to be seen as a shortfall this year so that's why we're looking at a total net increase in that if it costs of two million dollars so mr chair we thank you for this review and hope that we can pass it out so we can make sure that we're paying our obligations thank you with mr baez for france department this is not something i will be happy to entertain in the next fiscal year i expect better care cool ations we know what is in our country requirements might make any assumption that you have already made your appropriate adjustments for the upcoming fiscal year seventeen proposal so with that i don't expect another two million dollar issue like this in the next fiscal year so let that be clear with that the chair will entertain a motion presage on first reading be ordered to print their recommendation council that we move forward the bill for an ordinance amending the fiscal year two thousand and sixteen budget for the county of maui as it pertains estimated revenues department of finance county where it cost total operating appropriations in total for appropriations operating in capital improvement projects for line up in the appropriate communications as well as allowing staff to make any and subset of changes to address the needs of the another amendment to the fiscal year two thousand and sixteen budget under the department of foreign public safety let's see that i believe we have already pushed out reduced just to verify the amount then you know when the bids went out came back and came out the additional hundred ninety seven thousand dollars is required to fund the total cost of the pumper truck itself or the second bill is just the authorization of the bond issuance related to this purchase and increasing that authorization to match so as to chair that's basically what's in front of you today and we have to supply water to the bumper and all the trucks at the scene all bumper is part merely used as a front line apparatus so it's more of a multi also normally carry saw about seven hundred fifty gallons of water whereas a tanker normally carry saw a thousand or more saw it all depends on the size of the tanker what a community that you know it's a sign to but the bumper does have its own water supply but very limited thank you so much all ask ms since this is being considered for more work or if she has questions on the request notice a big percentage of dollar increases as you try to work on your budget for equipment overall you know it's really hard thing to gauge there are price increases every year some years there's multiple price increases it's something that's kind of hard to forecast and predict but history has shown every year the price does go up never goes down right i like to just comment if i to do the are pro pit maintenance as well as repairs and i was quite impressed to have a mechanic actually make a personal call or plea you know for the safety of the firefighters they cannot continue using what we are using to bandy says on the exterior it looks quite shiny and what have you but if you look under you know or the internal it it's dangerous so his personal plea was council member please please please take care of the safety of keep you think you understand the process you went and so i can appreciate the requests for seven hundred thousand for its big money members yeah and again this is not like we can go to nissan how or why ma we know your i mean i wish we could just go and buy one already made but that's not how it works in the country as it pertains to estimated revenues county or eight other projects county already crimen total care for improvement project appropriations and total appropriations operating in capital improvement projects and this is the bill that would increase the risk by one ninety seven and the second bill a bill for an ordinance amending ordinance number four two two eight billion number thirty five two thousand and fifteen relating to the issuance of general placation bonds of the saw we cannot make it may prove the means to it so we are making do with what we have in i guess i just like to add we fall taken some steps in the design of this new truck to fight some of it corrosion issues you on the bill and we are going to need to make those appropriate adjustments under the totals members so if you don't have staff to make that those corrections that's part of the motion only fair of the motion please say department of environmental management waste water administration program sewer fund department of finance county where it cost total operating appropriations and pro appropriations operating in a capital improvement for the solid week to be the sewer waste water division of the of the department of environmental management regarding to the super fund payments for debt service were budgeted lower than what they were expecting  to fund for this fiscal year required to fund for this fiscal year by about three hundred eighty three thousand dollars in reviewing them it looks like majority of the cost increases for debt service are related to like bond issuance is where we issue them and have a projected fixed schedule later on that we can budget for they come on board when the project is completed  completion date is a very based on when the department authorizes the or except that capital improve so because of some of the timing of those acceptances looks like th the timing of when it's completed sort of triggers when we start paying back the s or if loans which are extremely less than one percent interest rate on those it's just a matter of how fast we can finish our project for the that director moto mentioned is a consolidation of the interest cost and the fee so is generally a three quarter percent fee and a quarter percent interest total of one percent eight percent and mr moody just actually corrected me the department of health has reduced their feed to a half a percent with a quarter percent interest so it's a three quarter percent loan we'll have more discussion of those during the screw seventeen budget deliberations they're also working on a different paper of loan agreement and processing as well to get the money out to us quicker and so that we have more flexibility in using  sewer fund pays for is all of the waste water projects that have been either bonded or use s or if monies so it's a consolidation of those could get you the details but i don't know how those who generally appropriation for the capital project ok very good i didn't know it was general there was specific so that no that answer is i don't need any further details in regards to that but my other question is i guess you couldn't predict this is this payment was going to be due or expected at this time mr miyamoto you mentioned that projects got done quicker than you expected or what have you and that triggered this or kick this payment in what is time frame like you're a month then close now this project payments do or is there a certain you know i mean time frame that kind of triggers the to do the payment do you know once we accept that you know that the facility that were using the money for is in operations in and it passes all of our requirements for for performance then we send the paperwork to the state department of health who sort of oversees it and we sort of to get their their requirements of the contract that we have with them for that and once that is done then we have to start paying the bill i guess you could say for the loan for one of the big projects that was done if you recall was the line  a facility that we had out there we got the facility on board and so now we are able to process more or one water in that facility very good and so i guess not you saw the projects dan you're pushing forward through all your paperwork to d o a age and now you're waiting there you know concurrence or whatever reply is that kind of where the oh we got the letter a letter of approval we're expected back soon or it came really later we where is it because it sounds like at that point it's a pretty good chance it will be a done thing and you know the appropriations should be found to pay the bill yes and that's one of the things like you're saying you know what we try to plan these projects have a schedule for it we work with the department help them to come up with a payment schedule as soon as we see start processing the information to them so how long they take to process that paperwork we have no control over but we try to try to try to schedule those so that we when we know we have to pay back these loans that will come on board that we try to budget for them in advance and it's one of those this is one of those close to the sort of the budgeting period that that sort of could have gone either way we could have delayed the project been paid next year but i think we're better off getting it more so that there's more  ferment to management waste water administration program sewer from department of finance county where it cost the operating appropriations and total appropriations operating in capital improvement projects we have the final i don't prefer the committee this morning is thirty thirty five again and that amendment to the fiscal year two thousand and sixteen budget under environmental protection and budget under highway beautification and disposal of bending the close revolving fund and the request is to increase appropriations in the proviso for salaries in premium pay for the environmental protection and sustainability program for eight thousand dollars eleven thousand five hundred dollars for the operations manager as well as amending appendix eight to incorporate any revisions mr baez any comments please think mr chair can you describe the details of this we have to amend appendix a part two to revise the provisions that are incorporated in that section for that i would beautification fun to allow for these specifically for beautification of our highways as well as the management of abandoned vehicles and so the purposes they were christian use of this funds are appropriate to the state law that  market for a lot of our recycled materials have dropped the end result is that it's costing it's going to cost us to it cost the general public for example if they want to recycle an automobile department it's going to end up picking it up so if it's metals we're picking it up we contract a lot with a new a because they're a great organization and they've seen the increases in here you see that they wanted to be hired the operations manager to better schedule their their volunteer manpower to address some of these littering type issues and so those are being included funds here as far as for our staff the premium pay as we get more and more  abandoned vehicles out there they have to do their level of activity involving that type of vehicle and so we're seeing a lot more extended hours of work because of the amount of roadside material being further restrict that for the revolving funds provisos are put in place so that those funds can be spent for those specific purposes ok and so the additional thirty five thousand for the program this is what aspect i mean this is in play this is occurring the environmental protection and o the general outcome of it was just moving the recycling program out of solid waste into its separate separate program and so the recycling in abandoned vehicles and those type of activities were consolidated in this environment protection sustainability program without significant investment and more resources available unfortunate ok and for the community work day edition of eleven five this the current they do not have operations manager this will create that body in their organization director actually they've already hired someone to do it they just saw the necessity of it it without you know asking funding for it and they're realizing that the the set be they have to sacrifice what they do in the community to pay for this person or ask for the money and we said you know it's an appropriate function that helps benefit the highly beautification front  bevers just looking at what we provide for you know am i reading this correct that dispersement prose salaries and premium pay is limited to one hundred two thousand and eighty five and seven hundred seventy three thousand two hundred five for disbursement for operational services for the that's the overall environment to protection programs t premium costs to employees in working with the recycled abandon all metals of cars that are brought in do we have a contractor that accepts our handles all of the aband sure it's still there so that when we hire a tolling company which we contract out to go ahead and told it to a storage yard which gives them the last registered owner thirty days to try and collect that feeling that the vehicle ends up at our m yes i recall the sentiments of my colleagues that this is a worth or worth the organization they do a really good job of cleaning up the question i have mr don't have that exact cost it's a contracted price obviously and it's pretty fixed i know for the public here they're asking more money because if it has batteries batteries become a hazardous material for them to dispose of the liquids and the tires so some of the public in general the price has gone up but for us we have a contract with a minute think it would be six i don't know that exact number offhand the question i would have is would it be cheaper for us to instead of go through that whole process of picking up in a van and vehicle to subsidize you know have the people drive the car to hammerhead and pick up the difference in cost of the whatever it cost us to to do the whole abandon vehicle process to to pay for it at at the public in as opposed to having to go through the whole you know tagging of the car and then going out and checking the car and then towing it for thirty days and then towing it again to hammerhead going to be cheaper to just say public take the hammerhead and the county will pick up the charge i think that's something we should probably talk about in during the budget hearing for the last i think i can give you the numbers of vehicles that we've processed for i think for example in two thousand and thirteen we did two hundred eighty five vehicles on the cow system two in two thousand and fourteen we did four hundred  sixty three vehicles in two thousand and fifteen we did seven hundred ninety seven vehicles and for the first four months of two thousand and sixteen we've already processed three hundred fifty one vehicles so if you project that out for twelve months it would be well over a thousand  thousand and fifty vehicles for this past year and that's something certainly we can look into this too like you say to try to combine having them toll it because i know even the tolling cost has gone up before they would pay for it now i they want you to pay the toll charge so during the this clear seventeen budget deliberations will loop we'll be discussing in the department of environment management's rates and fees on this topic specifically so we'll be able to have a further discussion on the ok just something to look into  last question i would have was you know we're taking we're proviso ing adding i didn't add it up quickly enough but proximately about eighty thousand it looks like two to the provisos is that money coming from anywhere is that just we're not spending the highway beautification fund it's looks like the anticipated revenues one point five million dollars and that increase was brings up the is a good question it's monies that we haven't been spending out of the ten dollars for all other vehicles we charge one dollar for you drive and five dollars for all of the vehicles you drive i could not find the legal definition of its rental cars right adjustments in car registration know what is under the control of the company including weight tax fuel tax and other things that could be considered as revenue sources for this fun but we'll have that in budget any further questions regarding the specific requests as provided by mr baez if not the chair is going to be recommending that had open to a