Cities Index.
Minutes

Ripon City Council
April 25, 2022

Document
Minutes
Meeting
April 25, 2022
Body
Ripon City Council
Original file
591 KB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on riponcityca.iqm2.com. That file is the official record.

Ripon City Council Workshop Minutes
Informal Informational Meeting
DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2022
PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 259 N. WILMA AVENUE, RIPON, CA 95366 TIME: 11:00 AM

1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dean Uecker Mayor Present
Michael Restuccia Vice Mayor Present
Leo Zuber Council Member Present
Daniel de Graaf Council Member Remote
Gary Barton Council Member Present
OTHERS PRESENT: City Administrator Kevin Werner, Planning Director Ken Zuidervaart, Director of Public Works James Pease, Senior Civil Engineer Sarah Collins, Deputy City Clerk Jane Kilgore, Information Systems Technician Hunter Crosby.

2. TOPICS OF DISCUSSION

RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS FOR ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL
Discussion/No Action California State Legislation SB 1383 imposes certain regulations that impact
solid waste collection in Ripon. Staff has
put together options for Council to
consider regarding residential disposal
options in order to comply with these new
State regulations.

Director of Public Works Pease said the goal of today’s workshop is to provide the City Council information on SB 1383 and the key components that will have the greatest impact on the City. Impacts will be seen in residential garbage rates, capital expenses, procurement obligations, and operational challenges. Pease said he is looking for feedback from Council on the items he will be presenting today.

Pease summarized the history and goals of SB 1383 saying the target of the bill is to reduce organic waste disposal by 50% in 2020 and 75% by 2025 and rescue 20% of City Council Page 2 April 25, 2022
currently disposed of surplus food by 2025. Pease pointed out that the program has failed in its first goal.

Pease described the one, two and three-can systems that are the current options available. He described the one-can system as the system currently in use by the City.

However the regulations require the City take the black cans to a facility that can separate and recover 50% of organic material by 2022 and 75% by 2025. He pointed out that CalRecycle has not designated any facilities capable of this degree of separation and recovery. He said Gilton in Modesto is actively working towards this goal.

Pease described the two-can service requirements as having one container for organic waste only and one can for mixed recyclables and trash. He said this option will eliminate some of the inspection and enforcement from City staff and allow organic waste to be hauled to the current facility. Staff is working with the facility already in use to determine what residents will be allowed to put in the organic container. Pease described the three-can service as requiring one container for organic waste, one for mixed recyclables, and one for trash. Pease said this option will allow trash and organic waste to be hauled to the current facilities but will require recyclables to be hauled to a separate facility.

City Administrator Werner said it is important that the residents comply with whichever option is implemented. Pease said the easiest option for residents would be the current one-can system and he anticipates receiving compliance with a three-can system will be difficult. The two-can and three-can options will require education for the public in order to for residents to be able to comply.

Discussion was had regarding the education residents will need in order to obtain compliance. Pease said CalRecycle will be auditing the City to ensure education is being provided and CalRecycle will also require an inspector from the City.

Pease said the lowest price point for the City and residents is the three-can system. A one-can system will be a 32% rate increase for residents versus a 19% increase with a three-can system. He said this is because the tipping fees for a one-can system are so expensive that the cost to dump the one-can system is higher than the capital and operational costs of a three-can system.

Pease said staff is recommending the two-can system where the City would purchase and implement required green cans for all residential households; this will require an additional 1,250 greens cans. This will be a capital cost of $113,000 and an operational cost increase of $85,000 annually. The customers who receive the required green can will be charged the regular $3.00 a month rate. Pease said current green can households will have no change except to put food waste into the green can. Staff is working with the current facility to identify acceptable compostable food items so outreach efforts can begin.

City Council Page 3 April 25, 2022
Pease said it is important to note that this will not bring the City into complete compliance with the State law, this is the best we can do in order to be compliant because the required facilities do not yet exist. Gilton is working towards providing a compliant facility by mid-2023 and at that point, the City would need to revisit this and possibly add a third can.

Council discussed the importance of continuing to ensure residents understand that the State is forcing the City to implement these requirements and that it is important for residents to know that the rates will be going up because of the regulations.

Pease gave a brief overview of the procurement policy requirements that will be required under SB 1383 saying the State will require Ripon to procure approximately 1,350 tons per year of eligible compost, eligible mulch or renewable gas. The City will also be required to obtain recycled content paper products.

Pease summarized the next steps as purchasing and implementing green cans for all residents, developing ongoing education and outreach for all residents and unfamiliar businesses, begin work with permitted haulers to implement SB 1383 and revise the procurement policy.

Staff was given direction to proceed with the two-can system and bring it to Council for approval.

3. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:13 PM.

KEVIN WERNER
City Administrator

← All documents from this meeting