The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-12-08 EEC AgendaAgenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall - Community Room Meeting will take place in person. Masks are optional. Thursday, December 8, 2022 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission November 10, 2022 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Special Presentation: 2021 Edina Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory VI.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Review and Comment: EEC Plastic Bags Working Group Draft Items B.Monthly call for communication requests VIII.Chair And Member Comments IX.Sta1 Comments X.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli3cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: December 8, 2022 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission November 10, 2022 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve EEC meeting minutes, November 10, 2022 INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description EEC Minutes: November 10, 2022 Agenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall - Community Room Meeting will take place in person. Masks are optional. Thursday, November 10, 2022 7:00 PM I.Call To Order Chair Martinez called the meeting to order at 7:01pm. II.Roll Call Answering roll call were Chair Martinez, Vice Chair Horan, Commissioners Dakane, Haugen, Hovanec, Lukens, Tessman and Schima, Student Commissioners Machart and Rawat. Absent: Commissioner Lukens III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion by John Haugen to Approve Meeting Agenda. Seconded by Tom Tessman. Motion Carried. IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission October 13, 2022 Motion by Michelle Horan to Approve Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Hilda Martinez Salgado. Motion Carried. V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Special Presentation: Edina Organics Coordinator EEC received a report from Organics Coordinator Singh regarding 2021-22 progress on goals. B.Special Presentation: Project Earth EEC received a report from Edina High School's Project Earth including projects and goals for the next 12 months. EEC discussed ways to support Project Earth via EEC student commissioner leadership. VI.Community Comment No community comment was received During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Monthly call for communication requests EEC requested advice on ways to promote Project Earth projects such as school clothing swaps and free closets. B.EEC 2023 Work Plan with CM comments EEC received an update on their work plan proposal, with City Manager comments. VIII.Chair And Member Comments Chair Martinez invited all Members to make comments around the room. IX.Staff Comments X.Adjournment The EEC meeting was adjourned at 8:42pm. Motion by Tom Tessman to Adjourn. Seconded by Bayardo Lanzas. Motion Carried. T he City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: December 8, 2022 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Special Presentation: 2021 Edina Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Receive information from Ted Redmond, of PaleBLUEdot, regarding Edina's 2021 greenhouse gas inventory results. INTRODUCTION: Edina's Climate Action Plan requires a biennial greenhouse gas inventory. The City's prior inventory was conducted for the year 2019. ATTACHMENTS: Description Edina 2021 GHG Progress Report 2021 Community GHG Emissions Progress Summary December 2022 Prepared by: Table of Contents Section 01 Introduction Section 02 Findings In Brief Section 03 Climate Action Goal Metrics Appendix 1 GHG Inventory Calculation Summary Spreadsheets Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary 1-1 Path of Anticipated GHG emissions levels if we do not act. Path of GHG emissions reductions by implementing our CAP plan. Avoided GHG Emissions Projected City-wide GHG reductions from CAP implementation The City of Edina’s GHG emission reduction goals are to be compatible with the 2015 Paris Agreement and shall target a reduction in City operations and community- wide emissions of 45% below 2019 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. 1-3 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary Introduction Edina’s Climate Action Plan In December 2021, the City of Edina adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) with a commitment of reducing the community-wide carbon footprint and fostering sustainability. Edina’s CAP is anticipated to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2030, upon suc- cessful implementation of the strategies and action items detailed in the Plan. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory paleBLUEdot has conducted an update to the Village’s GHG Inventory for 2021. This inventory includes community- wide emissions as well as emissions as- sociated with municipal operations. The inventory is summarized in the fol- lowing pages with detailed calculation spreadsheets provided in Appendix 1 of this report. GHG Emission Sector Project Resource Residential Energy Consumption - Electric- ity Data Source: Xcel Energy Emissions Factors: Same as above Residential Energy Consumption - Natural Gas Data Source: Centerpoint Energy Emissions Factors: US EPA Commercial/Institutional Energy Con- sumption - Electricity Data Source: Xcel Energy Emissions Factors: Same as above Commercial/Institutional Energy Con- sumption - Natural Gas Data Source: Centerpoint Energy Emissions Factors: US EPA Transportation - On Road Data Source: State of Minnesota DOT Emissions Factors: US EPA MOVES model Waste - Solid Waste Data Source: City of Edina, State of Minnesota Emissions Factors: US EPA Warm Model, State of Minnesota Waste Characterization Study Water and Wastewater Data Source: City of Edina, Metropolitan Council Emissions Factors: US Community Protocol population based emissions models / Fuel Mix Disclosure Report / US EPA eGRID Methodology, Sources, and Terminology This GHG inventory is assembled based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for businesses and communities established by GHG Protocol (www.ghgprotocol.org/) and is consistent with the protocol established by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. The terminology used in this report is consistent with international Carbon Footprinting protocols. Unless noted otherwise, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions shown in this report are in metric tons of CO2e: Carbon Dioxide Equivalent. CO2e is a standard for expressing the impact of all greenhouse gas including those from other pollutants including methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gasses like Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) in terms of the equivalent amount of CO2 that would have the same impact. GHG inventories, generally, arrive at an estimated emission in each emissions sector by multiplying raw consumption data - total electricity consumed as an example - by an emissions factor which define the greenhouse gasses emitted per unit of raw consumption. The chart to the right illustrates the sources used for all raw consumption and emission factor data used in the GHG inventory calculations. 1-4 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary Introduction Energy Emissions are produced from the combustion of heating fuel, natural gas, coal, and other fossil fuels primarily for heating, cooling, and electric- ity generation. Transportation Emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels for ground transportation and air travel. Solid Waste Emissions in the waste management system come from the decompo- sition of biodegradable waste (e.g., food and yard waste) in the landfill. Water + Wastewater Emissions from energy uses are calculated for treatment and distribu- tion of water and the collection and treatment of wastewater. Key Greenhouse Gas Sectors Where do GHGs come from? Introduction What Are GHG’s? A greenhouse gas (GHG) is a mole- cule in the atmosphere which does not react to light energy in the visi- ble range (like sunlight), but does react to light energy in the infrared range-like that which is emitted from the Earth after being warmed by the sun. The most common greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Why do GHG’s Matter? GHG’s let the sun's light shine onto the Earth's surface, but they trap the heat that reflects back up into the atmosphere. In this way, they act like the insulating glass walls of a greenhouse. The more GHGs there are, the more heat that is trapped in our atmosphere and the more we experience the impacts of global warming. What can we do to reduce GHG’s? Greenhouse gases can be reduced by making changes within the key greenhouse gas sectors within our community—particularly through the reduction and elimination of fossil fuel combustion and the ad- vancement of clean energy sources. 2-1 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary 02 S e c t i o n Findings in Brief Click here to return to TOC Edina GHG Emissions Overview Community wide total emissions for the City of Edina have decreased 15.3% from 709,509 metric tons in 2019 (Climate Action Plan Baseline Year) to 600,954 metric tons in 2021. GHG Emissions Reduction Achieved vs Goal The community-wide annual GHG emission goal for 2021 to be in alignment with the Climate Action Plan’s 2030 targets is a total reduction of 8.2% below 2019 CAP Baseline levels. GHG emissions for the year 2021 achieved 15.3% reduction significantly exceeding plan goals for the year. * Population estimates from US Census Bureau Quick Facts, Employment estimates from US Census Bureau On The Map data, GDP values are City of Edina pro-rata share of county total based on data from US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2019 By The Numbers 2021 By The Numbers 2 CAP Year Trend Dashboard GHG Emissions GHG Emissions GHG Emissions 709,509 600,954 -108,555 -15.3% 13.4 MT Per-Capita 11.3 MT Per-Capita -2.0 MT Per-Capita 16.7 MT / Job 14.3 MT / Job -2.2 MT / Job 0.1335 MT / $1,000 GDP 0.1187 MT / $1,000 GDP -0.015 MT / $1,000 GDP Population* Population* Population * 52,857 53,318 +461 +0.9% GDP * GDP * GDP * $5,312,326,108 $5,111,224,023 -$201,102,085 -3.8% $95,863 GDP Per-Capita $95,863 GDP Per-Capita +$3,241 GDP Per-Capita Employment* Employment Employment 42,386 41,909 -477 -1.1% 2-2 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary How Large Are Community wide GHG Emissions? The community’s total emissions have re- duced 15.3% from 2019 levels (Climate Action Plan Baseline Year) —equivalent to eliminating over 2 Billion cubic feet of human-made greenhouse gas atmosphere—shown in green in this image. The volume of the remaining 2021 emissions are equal to 10.5 Billion cubic feet, or a cube 2,400 feet wide and deep and 2,000 feet tall— shown in blue in this image. The depictions of Edina’s emissions viewed here are seen from over 2 miles away. 2-3 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary Findings in Brief Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory paleBLUEdot has conducted an update to the Village’s GHG Inventory for 2021. This inventory includes community-wide emissions as well as emissions associated with municipal operations. This GHG inventory is assembled based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for businesses and communities established by GHG Protocol (www.ghgprotocol.org/) and is consistent with the protocol established by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. In December 2021, the City of Edina adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) with a commitment of reducing the community- wide carbon footprint and fostering sustainability. Edina’s CAP is anticipated to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2030, upon successful implementation of the strategies and action items detailed in the Plan. On an annualized basis, the community-wide GHG emission goal for 2021 to be in alignment with the Climate Action Plan’s 2030 targets is a total reduction of 8.2% below 2019 CAP Baseline levels. Transportation Water + Wastewater Solid Waste Buildings + Energy 2030 GHG Emission Goal City of Edina 2021 Community-Wide GHG emissions are 15.3% below 2019 levels, on-track with Climate Action Plan goals. Community-Wide Annual GHG Emissions 2-4 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary Findings in Brief Community-Wide Sector GHG Trend Lines Transportation Buildings + Energy Solid Waste Water + Wastewater 2019 CAP Baseline 2021 Value 2030 CAP Goal On Track *2019 value corrected from original Community GHG Inventory 2-5 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary Findings in Brief Municipal Operations GHG Emissions Municipal Operations GHG emissions include energy consumption related to vehicle and equipment fleet operations, building and site operations, solid waste generated on municipal sites, and the municipal portion of water and wastewater treatment. On an annualized basis, the community-wide GHG emission goal for 2021 to be in alignment with the Climate Action Plan’s 2030 targets is a total reduction of 10.8% below 2019 CAP Baseline levels. Fleet 2030 GHG Emission Goal Water + Wastewater Solid Waste Buildings City of Edina 2021 Municipal Operations GHG emissions are 35.6% below 2019 levels, on-track with Climate Action Plan goals. Municipal Operations Annual GHG Emissions 2-6 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary Findings in Brief Municipal Operations Sector GHG Trend Lines 2019 CAP Baseline 2021 Value 2030 CAP Goal On Track Fleet Buildings + Streetlights Solid Waste Water + Wastewater *2019 value corrected from original Community GHG Inventory 3-1 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary 03 S e c t i o n Climate Action Goal Metrics Click here to return to TOC Climate Action Goal Metrics The 2021 Edina Climate Action Plan’s purpose is to guide actions to advance sustainability, climate change resilience, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions community-wide as well as within municipal operations through 2030. The structure of the plan establishes aspirational goals organized in 8 sectors of community-wide focus which are supported by 36 strategies to be achieved through the implementation of 200 detailed actions. The Climate Action Plan established GHG reduction goals across four sectors as well as 16 additional performance metric goals across six of the eight total sectors. This section provides a review of the current status of the GHG reduction and performance metric goals for the four sectors included in the GHG Inventory: Transportation, Buildings and Energy, Solid Waste, and Water + Wastewater. The metrics for each of the performance goals of the four GHG Inventory sectors are outlined on the following page. Metrics whose progress is on-track for meeting the City’s 2030 Climate Action Plan goals are shown with a symbol while metrics whose progress is currently not on-track for meeting 2030 goals are sown with a symbol. 3-2 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary Enhancing the resilience of our community’s mobility while reducing GHG emissions through sustainable transportation. Increasing the sustainability and resilience of our community’s building stock while reducing GHG emissions through increased energy efficiency and use of renewable energy. Reducing GHG emissions associated with water consumption and wastewater treatment while increasing our community’s flooding and stormwater resilience. Climate Action Goal Metrics drop in GHG emissions 2021 Metrics decrease in vehicle miles traveled public transit commuter use electric vehicle share of vehicle stock people / acre drop in GHG emissions 2021 Metrics renewable energy share of total total electricity consumption total natural gas consumption LMI Population in Energy Poverty Reducing GHG emissions while increasing our community’s sustainability through an increase in recycling and re-use of materials, organics collection, and a reduction in total waste generated. increase in GHG emissions 2021 Metrics total water consumption GHG emissions per capita for sector * Updated data not available. drop in GHG emissions total solid waste handled tons of organics collected 2021 Metrics tons of recycling collected landfill diversion (including waste-to- energy) A1 S e c t i o n GHG Inventory Calculation Summary Sheets Click here to return to TOC A1-1 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary A1-2 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary A1-3 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary A1-4 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary A1-5 Edina 2021 GHG Emissions Progress Summary Prepared by: 2515 White Bear Ave, A8 Suite 177 Maplewood, MN 55109 Contact: Ted Redmond tredmond@paleBLUEdot.llc Date: December 8, 2022 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Review and Comment: EEC Plastic Bags Working Group Draft Items Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and comments on draft EEC Plastic Bag Working Group items, which will go to Council in January, 2023. INTRODUCTION: Initiative Title: Plastic Bag P olicy - Revise and update 2017 report on possible recommendations for a plastic bag ordinance. Deliverable: updated report with recommendation. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft EEC PBWG Ordinance Draft EEC PBWG Report ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER XX  OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING MERCHANT CARRYOUT BAGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Sec$on 1. Chapter XX of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Ar$cle XX to read as follows: ARTICLE XX. CARRYOUT BAGS PROVIDED BY RETAILERS TO CUSTOMERS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Purpose and Objectives. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to: 1.Promote waste reduction and greenhouse gas reduction.   a)Lowering the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during the production, incineration and land@illing of merchant carryout bags.   . b)Assisting the City in reaching the greenhouse gas reduction goals established in the City of Edina’s Climate Action Plan, and the waste reduction goals established by the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County.   2.Promote waste prevention.   a)Encouraging the use of reusable bags.   b)Reducing or eliminating single-use merchant carryout bags.   3.Promote behavior change. Section 1. Definitions. The following words shall have the meaning ascribed to them, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Carryout bag means a paper, plas$c, or reusable bag that is provided by a retail establishment at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other point of departure to a customer for the purpose of transpor$ng food or merchandise out of the establishment. Carryout bags include: (1) Single-use plas$c bags; (2) Compostable plas$c bags; (3) Paper bags; and (4) Reusable bags.   Pass-through charge means a charge to be collected by retailers from their customers when providing carryout bags, and retained by retailers to offset the cost of bags and other costs related to the pass-through charge. Point-of-sale system means a cash register, credit card machine, or other device that can be programmed or is capable of being used to itemize purchases including a descrip$on and/or 1 cost for each item, which can calculate sales tax, add applicable fees, and which is capable of genera$ng sale reports. Retail establishment means any person, corpora$on, partnership, business venture, public sports or entertainment facili$es, government agency, street vendor or vendor at public events or fes$vals or organiza$ons that sell or provide merchandise, goods, or materials including, without limita$on, clothing, beverages, household goods, or personal items of any kind directly to a customer. Examples include but are not limited to department stores, clothing stores, jewelry stores, grocery stores, pharmacies, home improvement stores, liquor stores, convenience stores, gas sta$ons, and temporary vendors of merchandise at street fairs and fes$vals. Food banks and other food assistance programs are not considered to be retail establishments for the purposes of this sec$on. Sec$on 2. ExempBons. Carryout bags do not include: (1) Produce and bulk good bags; (2) Dry cleaning bags; (3) Newspaper and doorhanger bags; (4) Secondhand bags; (5) Personal belonging bags; (6) Flower wrap bags; (7) Prescription drug bags; (8) Bags brought by a customer; and (9) Bags in packages with multiple bags (10) Litter clean up bags Sec$on 3. Carryout bag requirements. (a) Retail establishments shall collect a pass-through charge of not less than five (5) cents for each carryout bag provided to customers. It shall be a viola$on of this sec$on for any retail establishment to pay or otherwise reimburse a customer for any por$on of the pass-through charge. All retail establishments shall indicate on the customer transac$on receipt the number of carryout bags provided and the total amount of the pass-through charge. Retailers may use the five cent charge to offset their costs of administering the program and educa$ng customers about their op$ons to avoid the charge. (b) Retail establishments are not required to collect a pass-through charge from anyone with a voucher or electronic benefits card issued under the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) support programs, or the federal Supplemental Nutri$on Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as Basic Food), or a recognized Minnesota food assistance program. 2 (c) Retail establishments shall provide, upon the occurrence of the periodic inspec$on or upon order of any authorized enforcement official, a report iden$fying the number and value of the carryout bag fees charged to customers. The director of community planning and economic development, the director of public works, the commissioner of health, the director of regulatory services, the licensing official and the authorized representa$ves of those officials shall be authorized to assist with the enforcement of the provisions of this ar$cle. Sec$on 4. Enforcement. The City shall have the duty and the authority to enforce provisions of this chapter pursuant to City Code Sec. 20-445. Sec$on 5. Severability. If any part or provision of this ordinance or the applica$on thereof to any person, en$ty, or circumstances shall be judged uncons$tu$onal or invalid by any court of competent jurisdic$on, such judgment shall be confined in its opera$on to the part, provision or applica$on which is directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this ordinance or the applica$on thereof to other persons, en$$es, or circumstances. Sec$on 6. EffecBve Date. June 1, 2024. First Reading: XX/2023 Second Reading: XX/2023 Published: Aaest __________________________ _______________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk James Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current - Send two af@idavits of publication.  Bill to Edina City Clerk 3 DRAFT CITY OF EDINA PLASTIC BAG WORKING GROUP REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS DECEMBER 2022 1 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduc@on and Execu@ve Summary Page 3 Sec@on 1: The Environmental Impact of Merchant Carryout Bags Page 4 Sec@on 2: Ac@ons Taken By Government En@@es in Minnesota and Elsewhere Page 7 Sec@on 3: Strategies for Reducing Merchant Carryout Bags Page 10 Sec@on 4: Conclusions and Recommenda@ons Page 12 Endnotes Appendices Appendix A — Memorandum from Dave Kendell and Eric Kvasnicka, Campbell Knutson A>orneys Appendix B — Enacted plasAc bag legislaAon by state and select sample of exisAng U.S. bag regulaAon . Appendix C — Stakeholder feedback Appendix D — DraG merchant carryout bag ordinance for City of Edina Appendix E — Side-by-side merchant carryout bag exempAon comparison with City of Minneapolis Appendix F — Proposed outline for educaAon and outreach 2 DRAFT INTRODUTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Thousands of plasAc bags are used in the United States every second. Most curbside collecAon programs don’t accept plasAc bags, and only 10% or less are recycled.1 PlasAc bag producAon and polluAon pose a threat to our land, water, and air on a local, regional, and global scale. Concerned about the serious and growing environmental impacts of plasAc waste, in 2017 the Edina Energy and Environment Commission delivered a report to the Edina City Council on the advisability of regulaAng the use of single use plasAc bags (SUPB) in the City. Although the Council iniAally postponed acAon on the 2017 EEC report, it approved the creaAon of a PlasAc Bag Working Group (PBWG) — composed of members of the EEC and City residents — in early 2021. The charge of the PBWG is to build on the iniAal EEC report from 2017, evaluate the pros and cons of plasAc bag policy opAons, and make a recommendaAon to Council in early 2023. PBWG Recommenda@on: Establish a small fee for all merchant carryout bags. The PBWG recommends the City of Edina adopt an ordinance requiring businesses charge a minimum $0.05 bag fee for all merchant carryout bags (paper, compostable, and plasAc of all thicknesses) and coordinate a comprehensive outreach campaign to educate businesses and patrons about the new requirement. This non-taxable fee would be collected and retained by merchants to be used at their discreAon. The recommendaAon complies with a 2017 state statute preempAng an outright ban on plasAc bags.2 This recommendaAon is informed by Edina and Twin CiAes metro business feedback and the research outlined in this report. It also meets the following goals and is consistent with the City Council’s approval in December 2021 of the Edina Climate AcAon Plan (CAP): •Reduce the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. The City is commi>ed to supporAng the Hennepin County and State of Minnesota greenhouse gas emission goals. These goals are to be compaAble with the 2015 Paris Agreement and shall target a reducAon in City operaAons and community-wide emissions of 45% below 2019 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.3 •Meet City goals as defined in the Climate Ac@on Plan.4 •Strategy WM 1: Decrease total per capita municipal solid waste handled,5% by 2030. •AcAon WM 1-5 Eliminate petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing out the use of single-use plasAcs, including plasAc bags, by 2025. •Reduce nega@ve impacts on health and the environment. All merchant carry out bags, regardless of composiAon, produce polluAon that affects our air, land, and water resources. Reducing our reliance on single-use bags is one way we strive to lessen those negaAve effects and the impacts of climate change. 3 DRAFT •Inspire merchant and consumer behavior change. Behavior change is difficult but not impossible. Offering and implemenAng effecAve strategies that assist both customers and merchants in making successful, long-lasAng change is essenAal. The remainder of this report explains the raAonale and supporAng research for the PBWG recommendaAon. It is organized in four parts: First, the report examines the adverse environmental impacts of all plasAc bags, as well as the impacts of other bags such as paper bags, compostable bags, and reusable bags. Second, the report summarizes the acAons taken by other governmental enAAes in Minnesota and elsewhere to address this issue. Third, the report idenAfies several acAons that may help to address this issue and discusses which acAons are viable for our City. Finally, the report explains our recommendaAon to establish a merchant carryout bag fee along with supporAng efforts and tacAcs for reaching CAP goals. 1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MERCHANT CARRYOUT BAGS Plas@c Bags Harm Both Our Land, Water, and Air Resources PlasAc doesn’t biodegrade. Instead, it breaks up into smaller pieces called microplasAcs. These Any plasAc pieces less than 5 mm in size accumulate in the environment and have devastaAng consequences on wildlife and the natural environment. MicroplasAcs are mistaken for food and ingested by fish and other wildlife, and plasAc polluAon is a pervasive issue for many communiAes along the river.5 While plasAc bag li>er is not an overwhelming issue for the City of Edina, the City is part of both the Nile Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek watersheds; those creeks ulAmately flow into the Mississippi River, and plasAc waste and other li>er that travels through through storm drains will ulAmately end up in there. As the second longest river in North America, the Mississippi River is an essenAal inland waterway for commerce, contribuAng $400 billion a year to the U.S. economy. It also provides drinking water to more than 20 million people in 50 ciAes in 10 states and provides habitat for a wide range of plant and animal species.6 As it makes its 2,320-mile-long journey from headwaters in northern Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico, it is a major conduit for plasAc waste — both solid and in the form of microplasAcs — and other li>er to reach the ocean. Every year oceans take in an esAmated 5 million to 13 million tons of plasAc from land-based sources, and on our current trajectory there will be more plasAc than fish (by weight) in the oceans by 2050, pushing some marine species to the brink of exAncAon.7 4 DRAFT As destrucAve as microplasAcs are to our coastal areas and oceans, emerging research suggests that terrestrial microplasAc polluAon is an even greater issue. PlasAcs in landfills, including bags, can take up to 1,000 years to decompose. In doing so, they leach potenAally toxic substances into soil, sediments, and freshwater causing harm to both wildlife and humans.8 PlasAc bags are made from fossil fuels, specifically ethylene from natural gas, and fossil fuel extracAon, transportaAon and refining is greenhouse gas intensive. According to a May 2019 report released by the Center for InternaAonal Environmental Law, it is esAmated that ”12.5 to 13.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent are emi>ed per year while extracAng and transporAng natural gas to create feedstocks for plasAcs in the United States.”9 Although other merchant carry out bags, such as paper and compostable bags, do not use fossil fuels for their producAon, they sAll emit greenhouse gases in some quanAty — or even more than plasAc bags — during the various phases of their life cycle. Therefore, the PBWG recognizes the need to consider all types of merchant carryout bags in a bag ordinance, not only plasAc, when striving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Plas@c Bags Are Rarely Recycled and Interfere with Recycling Equipment  As menAoned in the opening paragraph of this report, less than 10% of plasAc bags are recycled. A major reason for this low recycling rate is that plasAc bags are not accepted in curbside recycling programs in the Twin CiAes and in most programs around the country. PlasAc — in its numerous types and forms — is expensive to collect and sort and it degrades aGer just a few uses.10 However, a powerful and persuasive effort by the plasAcs industry coupled with years of public service announcements around the benefits of recycling lead many people to sAll try to include plasAc bags and other soiled items in their regular recycling cans — a pracAce known as “wish-cycling.” Republic, the City of Edina’s curbside recycling partner, states that “wish cycled ” items, including plasAc bags and films, make up an average of 22% of the materials set out by consumers for recycling.11 PlasAc films like bags, bubble wrap, zip locks, newspaper and bread bags, outer wrapping, and produce bags cause wrapping and fouling of recycling and sorAng equipment, which leads to unscheduled maintenance and line stoppage while repairs are made. Along with the costs of the downAme, which can run in the thousands of dollars annually, recycling faciliAes incur costs associated with running longer to process materials and a safety risk that comes along with repair work. When plasAc waste isn’t recycled, it ends up in waterways, landfills or incinerators, or as li>er. The City of Edina has a contract with Waste Management which requires waste be brought to Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC), a trash-to-energy incinerator. HERC, which operates adjacent to low-income communiAes of color and other incinerators like it, produce toxic air pollutants that have demonstrated links to asthma, lung disease, high blood pressure, and heart disease.12 The PBWG argues strongly that plasAc bag use in Edina is an environmental jusAce 5 DRAFT issue for us and our neighbors in Minneapolis. We are interconnected; the acAons we take have an impact beyond the boundaries of our City. Evalua@ng the Environmental Impact of All Single-Use, Reusable Bags (Plas@c, Paper, and Compostable) – Through Life Cycle Analysis  While it might seem sufficient to focus on SUPBs alone, we know that even the most well- intenAoned acAons can have unintended, and someAmes negaAve, consequences. Edina businesses use many thousands of paper and plasAc bags each month. The PBWG learned that two major grocery stores, Jerry’s and Lunds/Byerlys at 50th and France use a significant number of paper and plasAc bags each month, with big spikes during the holiday season. Jerry’s averages 35,000 paper bags and 25,000 plasAc bags each month, with a 10% increase during the November-December holiday period; Lunds/Byerlys averages 60,000 paper bags and 25,000 plasAc bags per month, with an increase to 250,000 paper bags and 75,000 plasAc bags during the November-December holiday period. Because the total number of paper and plasAc bags used throughout Edina and other communiAes each year is so significant, it is important to consider Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) on plasAc, paper, and reusable bags to evaluate their full environmental impact. LCAs explore the environmental impacts throughout all stages of the product’s life: from material extracAon, manufacturing, transportaAon, uAlizaAon, recycling, and disposal. While results from these studies can vary depending on the locaAon, parameters, or report sponsor, the most frequently cited LCAs have determined that creaAon, recycling, and disposal of paper and plasAc, reusable and compostable bags all require significant resources and energy. Favoring one type of merchant bag over another does not necessarily result in the least impact on the environment. Having examined several studies, the PBWG believes that a 2020 meta-analysis report from the United NaAons which examined seven LCAs published in English since 2010 is an excellent resource for understanding the complexiAes associated with single use bags. For example, paper bags that end up in landfills cause emissions of methane with high climate change effect, while plasAc bags are relaAvely inert. Paper bags contribute less to the impacts of li>ering but in most cases have a larger impact on the climate, eutrophicaAon and acidificaAon, compared to SUPBs, unless the paper bags are reused mulAple Ames, and/or are incinerated rather than deposited in landfills. On the other hand, incineraAon of used plasAc bags affects the climate through emissions of fossil carbon dioxide (CO2), while the CO2 emi>ed from incineraAon of paper bags is part of the natural carbon cycle.13 The UN report concluded that: “reducing environmental impacts of bags is not just about choosing, banning, recommending or prescribing specific materials or bags, but also about 6 DRAFT changing consumer behavior to increase the reuse rate and to avoid li>ering. The shopping bag that has the least impact on the environment is the bag the consumer already has at home.”14 Figure 1: Environmental Impact Category in the Life Cycle of the Bags.   Source: UN Environmental Programme Report "Single-use PlasAc Bags and Their AlternaAves: RecommendaAons from Life Cycle Assessments” (2020) 2. ACTIONS TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IN MINNESOTA AND ELSEWHERE  While the City of Edina has not yet implemented a specific acAon addressing merchant carryout bags, the CAP calls for an eliminaAon of petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing out the use of single-use plasAcs, including plasAc bags, by 2025. AddiAonally, the Energy and Environment secAon of the City’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan, which was formally adopted by the City Council in August 2020, calls for not only intenAon around environmental sustainability but demonstrated acAon and results, including learning about environmental best pracAces and integraAng those into acAon plans and educaAng the community about the environment and sustainability.15 TargeAng a reducAon in merchant carry out bags through a City ordinance addresses these goals in same way that the green-to-go-packaging ordinance does. 7 DRAFT Although the City has commi>ed to phasing out SUPBs, Minnesota is one of 18 states that, as of 2021, have passed preempAve legislaAon restricAng SUPB regulaAon. In contrast, eight states have banned plasAc bags (Appendix B). As a result of the Minnesota state law preempAng a ban, the PBWG requested the City of Edina’s a>orneys address the impact of state preempAon on several policy opAons we were considering to address plasAc bags. The feasibility and legality of these opAons are discussed in SecAon 3 of this report, and the a>orneys’ memorandum can be found in Appendix A. In Minnesota, Minneapolis and Duluth have taken acAon to regulate bags. In Minneapolis, there is a $0.05 fee on paper and plasAc carryout bags and in Duluth there is a $0.05 on plasAc carryout bags.16, 17 The PBWG consulted several Edina and Minneapolis merchants for feedback on bag regulaAon. Minneapolis merchants noted that most customers were fine with the five-cent fee for a bag, and in some cases would opt not to get a bag. There have not been any significant barriers for merchants to implement the ordinance. Because customers expect to be charged a fee at all stores in Minneapolis from chain grocery stores to locally owned retailers, most do not have a problem with it. Owners of businesses in Edina noted that while they might prefer a voluntary program, they understood the raAonale behind an ordinance aimed at reducing single-use bags. Specific merchant feedback can be found in Appendix C. Overwhelmingly, the towns and ciAes where SUPB bans or fees are in effect are located on the coasts or near large inland bodies of water. Proponents frequently cite li>er and water resource protecAon in their raAonale in support of regulaAon. That said, having encountered unintended consequences, some municipaliAes that previously enacted only SUPB bans or a hybrid ban on plasAc bags with a fee for other merchant carryout bags (paper or compostable) are now exploring mandated fees for all merchant carryout bags. According to plasAcbaglaws.org, best pracAces for bag regulaAon laws are those that have a fee mandated for all carryout bags as this addresses all bag types and is most effecAve at changing consumer and business behavior.18 The ciAes of Chicago and Evanston, both located along Lake Michigan in Illinois, recently evaluated the effecAveness of their efforts to address plasAc bags. A 2021 report “Skipping the Bag: The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Disposable Bag RegulaAon” explores two regulaAons in Chicago: a ban on plasAc bags (which went into effect in 2015) and then, aGer the ban was repealed in 2017, a $0.07 tax on all disposable bags (paper and plasAc of all thicknesses). The tax went into effect one month aGer the repeal. The authors’ analysis indicates that the tax was significantly more effecAve than the ban at reducing disposable bag use: during the first year of the tax, Chicagoans reduced their disposable bag usage from 2.3 bags per trip to 1.8 bags per trip —a nearly 28% difference.19 8 DRAFT More recently, the City of Evanston has decided to evaluate its ban on plasAc bags. The current ordinance, approved in 2014, prohibits stores 10,000 square feet or larger from distribuAng disposable plasAc bags to customers. However, as of June 2022, the City is exploring an opAon to replace that ordinance with a $0.10 tax on all point-of-sale bags, including paper and reusable ones. According to Alison Leipsiger, Evanston’s Policy Coordinator, and Brian Zimmerman, the city’s Solid Waste Coordinator: “Bag taxes have been shown to curb behavior while allowing enough flexibility for individuals who do, at the moment, need a plasAc bag. This proposed bag tax will help generate a greater behavior change, as was seen in Chicago aGer implemenAng a bag tax, will address more point-of-sale types of bags, and expand the number of parAcipaAng retailers.”20 Several other ciAes have seen compelling results aGer enacAng similar bag regulaAon legislaAon, including San Jose, CA (reusable bag use increased from 4% to 62% and bag li>er decreased 59% on streets, 60% in creeks and rivers, and 89% in storm drains)21; Washington, D.C. (60% reducAon in single-use carryout bag consumpAon in the first year)22, and Sea>le, WA (48% reducAon of plasAc bags in residenAal waste and 76% reducAon of plasAc bags in commercial waste).23 On a global scale, according to a 2021 report from the UN, 77 countries have passed some sort of full or parAal ban on plasAc bags. See Figure 2. More recently both China and Canada have announced plans to significantly reduce single-use plasAcs. By the end of 2022, all non- degradable bags will be banned in China, and the manufacture and import of single-use plasAcs will be banned in Canada.24, 25 9 DRAFT Figure 2: Global Overview of Countries with Manufacture, Free DistribuAon, and ImportaAon of PlasAc Bags. Source: UN Environmental Programme Report “Legal Limits on Single Use PlasAcs and MicroplasAcs: A Global Review of NaAonal Laws and RegulaAons (2021) 3. STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING MERCHANT CARRYOUT BAGS When it’s easy to access new bags, regardless of their composiAon, consumers are not likely to change their behavior. And yet we know a reducAon in consumpAon of materials that frequently get discarded, like single-use paper, plasAc, and reusable bags, means less energy being used to make those materials. In fact, the greatest environmental benefit occurs when we displace the need to extract virgin materials for producAon or the need to produce new products at all.26 The Minnesota Waste Management Act established criteria for managing solid waste. The waste management hierarchy prioriAzes waste reducAon and reuse before all other waste 10 DRAFT management strategies. Placing a fee on all carry out merchant bags is consistent with the goals of the waste hierarchy and the goals of bag legislaAon.27 The PBWG evaluated the following strategies as possible opAons to reduce single use bag consumpAon, taking into consideraAon the preempAve legislaAon at the State level as well as the goals set out in the City CAP adopted in December 2021. These strategies are not mutually exclusive. No single acAon will fix our exisAng environmental challenges; we need acAon at mulAple levels. The strategies include: 1.A ban on single-use plas@c bags. As noted earlier, eight states currently have some sort of plasAc bag ban in effect. Although Minnesota state law currently prohibits local government bans on single use plasAc or paper bags, the PBWG believes it is worthwhile to include language in any ordinance that would allow for a complete ban on SUPB and maintain a fee for other types of merchant carryout bags, such as paper, should the state law change someAme in the future. 2. A fee for all merchant carryout bags. Charging a modest fee for merchant carryout bags is an effecAve way to lessen reliance on them — a concept known as loss aversion in cogniAve psychology, decision theory, and behavioral economics; the painful experience of loss is more effecAve at changing habits than a posiAve gain. People are less eager to pay for something they see as valueless, and data from ciAes across the U.S. and internaAonally support this claim. 28, 29 3. Ban on single-use plas@c bags and fee for other merchant carryout bags. Known as “second generaAon” bag laws, this strategy combines both banning thin plasAc bags and placing fees on all other carryout bags (paper, reusable, compostable). AGer straight plasAc bag bans failed to result in the desired consumer behavioral change (customers bringing in their own bags), ciAes kept the ban on thin plasAc bags and added a fee to all other carryout bags. 4. Educa@onal “bring your own bag” campaigns, credits, and incen@ves. EducaAonal iniAaAves aimed at voluntary reducAon of disposable bags can drive customer behavior by raising awareness of the environmental, equity, and economic impacts associated with merchant carryout bags. While voluntary "bring your own bag” iniAaAves have an important role in educaAng, promoAng, and encouraging the reducAon of single use bags, they are not as effecAve in reducing single use bags as a fee. Some stores already have programs in place, and these should conAnue to be pursued and expanded alongside other reducAon acAons. 11 DRAFT The PBWG also sees an opportunity for a “borrow a bag” or “boomerang bag” iniAaAve modeled aGer the Don’t Waste Durham iniAaAve which aims to make free and equitable access to reusable bags a city-wide norm.30 5. A recycling bag program to decrease use of bags. Some towns and ciAes require businesses and/or bag manufacturers to provide customers with opAons for plasAc bag recycling. Recycling requirements can be standalone or coupled with a bag ban or fee to increase the effecAveness of merchant carryout bag reducAon opAons. Recycling programs sAll come with costs associated with energy and resources used to manufacture and transport bags. Also, as noted earlier, only about 10% of plasAc bags in circulaAon are actually recycled. Proper disposal and recycling of SUPBs is important, and there are ways to make customers more aware of opportuniAes through programs like plasAcfilmrecyling.org, TerraCycle, Ridwell, and Hennepin County Green Recycling. However, the PBWG suggests that greater emphasis be spent on lessening consumpAon of merchant carryout bags in the first place. 4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our City strives to be a community where all are welcome and we are a producAve and collaboraAve partner to neighboring towns and ciAes. The PBWG believes that based on the City’s expressed leadership in the area of sustainability, the goals set out in the CAP, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the recent adopAon of the Green-to-Go packaging ordinance, and the PBWG’s 9 month-long effort to research the pros and cons of bag regulaAon, this is a moment to take acAon on all merchant carry out bags, regardless of their composiAon. Edina’s CAP notes “ConAnuing to establish policies and operaAonal refinements to advance meaningful landfill diversion and beneficial use of waste streams represents a significant environmental opportunity for Edina.” Because deciding which bag is be>er for the environment is not as simple as choosing, banning, recommending or prescribing specific materials or bags, we recommend not favoring any one parAcular type of merchant carryout bag. Rather, we should focus our efforts on reducAon of all merchant carryout bags and reuse and proper recycling of those that are in circulaAon.  It is the PBWG’s recommendaAon that the City of Edina adopt an ordinance aimed at reducing the number of merchant carryout bags used by customers and businesses. This acAon will reduce green house gases resource use, waste and li>er. Other posiAve impacts include paving the way for other waste reducAon measures, increasing awareness and prompAng customers and businesses to take direct acAon. In addiAon, Edina further demonstrates its commitment to being a leader in the area of environmental sustainability and jusAce. 12 DRAFT While lessening our consumpAon of merchant carryout bags will not solve all environmental problems, it is a significant step we can take to protect our environment and minimize impacts to human health. Our recommendaAons are as follows: 1.Assess a Modest Fee for all Merchant Carryout Bags to Lessen Reliance on Those Bags and Incen@vize a Low-Waste Lifestyle. We strongly recommend a minimum $0.05 bag fee for all merchant carryout bags (paper, compostable, and plasAc of all thicknesses), with limited excepAons. The fee would be collected and retained by the retailer, who can apply it to cover the cost of the bags, used for other expenses, such as green-to-go packaging, or a reusable bag program, or donated to charity. The fee would not be taxable. Although PBWG recognizes the raAonale behind some bag exempAons such as prescripAon drug bags, produce bags, and dry cleaner bags, we believe there should be few exempAons for businesses - as long as a business has a point of sale, there should not be an exempAon. We also recommend that the ordinance exempt anyone with a voucher or electronic benefit card issued under the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) support programs, or the federal Supplemental NutriAon Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as Basic Food), or a recognized Minnesota food assistance program. For a recommended exempAon list compared with Minneapolis please see Appendix E. We also recommend that enforcement of this ordinance rely on voluntary compliance. Where there is slow or no compliance, merchants will feel social pushback from consumers who expect Edina retailers to abide by ordinances that support the Climate AcAon Plan and the environmental goals of the community. Similar policies, such as compostable leaf bags and no- smoking policies, have proven to be self-enforcing as customers embrace the change over Ame. The PBWG appreciates the effect the current economic climate has on some residents and shoppers in Edina and recommends that several months of robust community and business engagement and educaAon precede implementaAon of a fee for merchant carryout bags. 2.Create a Robust Educa@on and Outreach Program and Incen@ves to Develop Low-Waste Habits. If we all work to implement changes in our consumpAon, we can create a ripple effect that has a posiAve impact reaching beyond our community. Our research and analysis of merchant carryout bag regulaAon across the U.S. and globally leads us to the conclusion that the City of Edina needs to take steps to drasAcally reduce consumer and business reliance on merchant carryout bags and plasAc packaging of any kind. 13 DRAFT We envision a bold, visible promoAonal and educaAonal campaign to generate awareness before and aGer the ordinance takes effect with extensions to other CAP iniAaAves. While City resources will be needed to develop and implement materials related to such a markeAng campaign, there are many excellent resources and campaigns already in existence; some of those may be a model for Edina, and volunteers and commissioners should be leveraged to do research and make recommendaAons to staff. Please see Appendix F for preliminary research and suggesAons offered by the PBWG. Another component in the outreach effort should be the development of programs that allow customers to take and return reusable bags from businesses and other points around the City to create an ongoing cycle of use. Such a “borrow a bag” or “boomerang bag” program would help ease the economic burden that some consumers might experience from a fee on merchant carryout bags. It is worth exploring how merchants that offer these types of programs might be recognized for their efforts. Finally, while we recommend that stores conAnue with or establish in-store recycling programs that provide opportuniAes for consumers to return clean plasAc bags for recycling, we would prioriAze reducAon strategies.  ENDNOTES 1. Environmental ProtecAon Agency. h>ps://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials- waste-and-recycling/frequent-quesAons-regarding-epas-facts-and#PlasAcBags. Accessed 10/28/22. 2. Minnesota Legislature Office of the Revisor of Statues. h>ps://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/ cite/471.9998. Accessed 10/28/22. 3. City of Edina Sustainability. h>ps://www.edinamn.gov/458/Sustainability. Accessed 11/23/22. 4. Edina Climate AcAon Plan. h>ps://www.edinamn.gov/1779/Climate-AcAon. Accessed 10/28/22. 14 DRAFT 5. Environmental ProtecAon Agency Trash Free Waters ArAcle Series. PlasAc PolluAon in the Mississippi River – Regional CooperaAon for a Transboundary Problem. h>ps:// www.epa.govsitesdefaultiles2021-05documentstrash_free_waters_mississippi_river_plasAcs_a rAcle.pdf. Accessed 10/28/22. 6. Mississippi River PlasAc PolluAon IniAaAve Factsheet. h>ps://www.unep.org/resources/ factsheet/mississippi-river-plasAc-polluAon-iniAaAve-factsheet. Accessed 10/28/22. 7. World Economic Forum. Ocean plasAc polluAon threatens marine exAncAon says new study. h>ps://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/exAncAon-threat-ocean-plasAc-polluAon/ 8. NaAonal Library of Medicine. MicroplasAcs as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. h>ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arAcles/PMC5834940/. Accessed 10/28/22. 9. Center for InternaAonal Environmental Law. “PlasAc & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a PlasAc Planet.” h>ps://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/PlasAc-and-Climate- FINAL-2019.pdf. Accessed 11/22/22. 10. NPR “Recycling plasAc is pracAcally impossible — and the problem is only gewng worse" 10/24/22. h>ps://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plasAc-is-pracAcally- impossible-and-the-problem-is-gewng-worse. Accessed 10/29/22. 11. Republic Services 2020 Sustainability Report (see page 36): h>ps:// www.republicservices.com/cms/documents/sustainability_reports/2020-Republic-Services- Sustainability-Report.pdf. Accessed 10/29/22. 12. Sahan Journal “Environmental jusAce advocates push for zero waste aGer new report highlights shortcomings in plasAcs recycling” 8/12/21. h>ps://sahanjournal.com/climate/ plasAc-waste-minneapolis/. Accessed 10/29/22. 13. LCA Source United NaAons Environment Programme (2020). Single-use plasAc bags and their alternaAves — RecommendaAons from Life Cycle Assessments: h>ps://wedocs.unep.org/ handle/20.500.11822/31932. Accessed 11/3/22. 14. LCA Source United NaAons Environment Programme (2020). Single-use plasAc bags and their alternaAves — RecommendaAons from Life Cycle Assessments: h>ps://wedocs.unep.org/ handle/20.500.11822/31932. Accessed 11/3/22. 15. Edina Comprehensive Plan Energy and Environment Chapter (see 8-3, 8-4). h>ps:// www.edinamn.gov/647/Comprehensive-Plan. Accessed 10/30/22. 16. Minneapolis Bring Your Own Bag. h>ps://www2.minneapolismn.gov/business-services/ licenses-permits-inspecAons/business-licenses/bring-your-own-bag/. Accessed 11/24/22. 15 DRAFT 17. Duluth PlasAc Carryout Bag Fees. h>ps://duluthmn.gov/city-clerk/plasAc-carryout-bag-fee/ about-plasAc-carryout-bag-fees/. Accessed 11/24/22. 18. PlasAc Bag Laws. PlasAc Bag LegislaAon. h>ps://www.plasAcbaglaws.org/legislaAon. Accessed 10/29/22. 19. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. “Skipping the Bag: The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Disposable Bag RegulaAon” 2/10/22. h>ps:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22325. Accessed 10/29/22. 20. Evanston Roundtable. “Evanston may be ready to dump 2014 plasAc bag ban, replace it with 10-cent tax” 6/1/22. h>ps://evanstonroundtable.com/2022/06/01/evanston-plasAc-bag-ban- tax/. Accessed 10/29/22. 21. San Jose, CA. h>p://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Commi>eeAgenda/TE/20121203/ TE20121203_d5.pdf. Accessed 10/29/22. 22. Washington DC. “The data proves the the D.C. bag fee is working.” 5/15/15. h>ps:// ggwash.org/view/38159/the-data-proves-the-dc-bag-fee-is-working. Accessed 11/16/22. 23. Sea>le, WA. h>ps://www.reusethisbag.com/arAcles/where-are-plasAc-bags-banned- around-the-world. Accessed 11/24/22. 24. BBC News “Single-use plasAc: China to ban bags and other items” 1/20/20. h>ps:// www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51171491/. Accessed 10/30/22. 25. Government of Canada “Single-use PlasAcs ProhibiAon RegulaAons – Guidance for selecAng alternaAves”7/14/22. h>ps://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/ managing-reducing-waste/reduce-plasAc-waste/single-use-plasAc-guidance.html. Accessed 10/30/22. 26. Minnesota PolluAon Control Agency. Product Bans & RestricAons: A guide for local government policy makers. h>ps://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf. See pages 12-13. Accessed 11/3/22. 27. Metropolitan Solid Waste ManagementPolicy Plan 2016 – 2036. h>ps:// www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/w-sw7-21.pdf. Accessed 11/22/22. 28. CNBC “New York’s plasAc bag ban is a lesson in how consumers treat money” 3/3/20. h>ps://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/new-york-plasAc-bag-ban-is-a-lesson-in-consumer-money- issues.html. Accessed 11/3/22. 16 DRAFT 29. ScienAst AcAon and Advocacy Network. EffecAveness of plasAc regulaAon around the world. Revised 4/15/19. h>ps://plasAcpolluAoncoaliAonresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ EffecAveness_of_plasAc_regulaAon_around_the_world_4_pages.pdf. Accessed 11/3/22. 30. Don’t Waste Durham Bull City Boomerang Bag: h>p://www.dontwastedurham.org/ programs. Accessed 11/3/22. 17 DRAFT APPENDIX A Memorandum from Dave Kendell and Eric Kvasnicka, Campbell Knutson Aeorneys SHORT ANSWERS 1.The City could enact an ordinance mandaAng a fee imposed by the retailer and paid by the consumer for single-use bags because this does not ban the use of the bags and does not restrict the merchant’s opAons to offer single-use bags. 2.The City could likely require that single-use bags be cerAfied compostable or have a minimum recycled material content because neither of these requirements restricts the ability of the retailer to offer plasAc, paper, or reusable bags. The City cannot require the bags to be biodegradable because distributers cannot sell bags labeled biodegradable in Minnesota, so this would funcAon as a ban. 3.The City cannot set a limit on the number of single-use bags retailers may offer annually because this restricts their opAon to provide customers with plasAc and paper bags. 4.The City could likely collect a fee designated for enforcement, but likely cannot collect a fee designated for educaAon or conservaAon. A fee designated to by collected and retained by retailers is highly likely to be valid. DISCUSSION 1.Single Use PlasAc and Paper Bag Fee Edina could enact an ordinance that establishes fees paid by the consumer and imposed by the retailer for providing a single use paper or plasAc bag. Two other ciAes in Minnesota have enacted similar ordinances aGer the State Legislature passed Minn. Stat. § 471.9998. Minneapolis passed an ordinance in 2019, although it did not take effect unAl 2021. It reads, in relevant part, “Retail establishments shall collect a pass-through charge of not less than five (5) cents for each carryout bag provided to customers.” Title XI, SecAon 225.930 (a). It has a number of excepAons, including for those purchasing food using a food assistance program such as WIC, bags used to purchase item in bulk, bags used at carry-out restaurants, and others. Id. at M E M O R A N D U M TO: GRACE HANCOCK FROM: DAVE KENDALL AND ERIC KVASNICKA DATE: JUNE 16, 2022 RE: PLASTIC BAGS – EDINA 18 DRAFT 225.920, 225.930 (b). Duluth also passed an ordinance in 2019, although it also did not come into effect unAl 2021. Duluth’s ordinance reads, in relevant part, “Retail establishments shall collect a pass-through charge of not less than five cents for each carryout bag provided to customers.” Duluth’s ordinance also does not apply to certain types of bags. Notably, although the Minneapolis ordinance requires pass-through charges for plasAc, paper, and reusable bags, the Duluth ordinance only requires pass-through charges for plasAc bags. Finally, both ordinances specify that the pass-through charge goes directly to the retailer and is not collected by the city. Neither of these ordinances has been subject to a lawsuit, so there is no case law or guidance on whether they would withstand a challenge in court. If challenges, the ciAes which have these ordinances could argue in court that the ordinance is legal because it does not operate as a ban. They are more akin to a tax, which discourages the use of plasAc bags without banning them enArely. Further, the ordinances are compliant with Minn. Stat. 471.9998, subd. 1, which requires merchants to have the opAon to provide customers with bags, because the merchants have the opAon to provide bags, or not, under the ordinances. Edina could follow the path of Minneapolis and Duluth by passing an ordinance that places fee on the use of single use plasAc and paper bags. 2.Requirement for Single Use Bag Material a.CerAfied Compostable or Minimum Recycled Content Under Minn. Stat. § 325E.046, subd. 2, compostable bags must meet the ASTM Standard for Compostable PlasAcs. Bags conforming to this standard are currently sold in Minnesota. Some Minnesota municipaliAes have enacted ordinances on zero-waste packaging. For example, St. Louis Park requires food establishments to use zero-waste packing, which includes reusable containers, single-use recyclable containers, and single-use compostable containers. St. Louis Park City Code §§ 12-202, 12-203. This seems legally analogous to the proposed opAon for Edina: requiring cerAfied compostable plasAc bags or that plasAc bag materials have a minimum recycled content. Minn. Stat. § 471.9998, subd. 1 may, however, foreclose this opAon. Under the statute, merchants must have the opAon to provide customers with a paper, plasAc, or reusable bag. A court is required to effectuate the intent of the legislature by following the plain language meaning of the statute. City of Waconia v. Dock, 961 N.W.2d 220, 229 (Minn. 2021). Courts interpret words by their common definiAon, which can be determined by using a dicAonary. Perham Hosp. Dist. V. Cnty. Of O<er Tail, 969 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn. 2022). The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 471.9998, subd. 1 suggests that municipaliAes cannot restrict merchants from offering plasAc, paper, or reusable bags. “PlasAcs” are “any of numerous organic syntheAc or processed materials that are mostly thermoplasAc or thermosewng polymers of high molecular 19 DRAFT weight.” Most compostable plasAcs are made of polylacAc acid. PolylacAc acid is a 1 2 “thermoplasAc polymer.” Under these common use definiAons, a compostable plasAc bag is a 3 plasAc bag. Therefore, the City would not be restricAng the ability of merchants to offer plasAc bags if the City places a requirement on merchants to use cerAfied compostable bags. This analysis applies to single-use plasAc bags containing a certain minimum amount of recycled material: the nature of the bag as a paper or plasAc bag would not change because it used recycled material. The City could likely enact an Ordinance requiring single-use bags to be cerAfied compostable or made of a minimum amount of recycled material. b.Biodegradability Standard The City cannot enact a requirement that plasAc bags conform to a biodegradability standard. Under Minn. Stat. § 325E.046, subd. 1, manufacturers, distributers, and wholesalers cannot sell plasAc bags labeled “biodegradable” or “degradable” unless there is a scienAfically based standard developed and the plasAc bags conform to that standard. Currently, although there is a widely accepted scienAfic standard for compostable plasAcs, there is not a standard for biodegradable plasAcs. Thus, to require single use plasAc bags to meet a minimum biodegradability standard would be to ban the bags, because vendors could not purchase bags to saAsfy the requirement. 3.Sewng a Limit on the Number of Single-Use PlasAc and Paper Bags The City cannot set a limit on the number of single-use plasAc and paper bags retailers may provide annually. A court might find that an annual limit does not funcAon as a ban, because it does not eliminate the ability of retailers to offer paper and plasAc bags. However, a court also might find that an annual limit does funcAon as a ban at the end of each year when the merchant may no longer offer plasAc or paper bags. Minn. Stat. § 471.9998, subd. 2. More importantly, aGer the annual limit has been exceeded, retailers no longer have the opAon to provide customers with plasAc or paper bags, but instead must offer only reusable bags— directly in violaAon of Minn. Stat. § 471.9998, subd. 1 (“all merchants . . . shall have the opAon to provide customers a paper, plasAc, or reusable bag”). Although there is no case law on this point, a court is unlikely to find an annual limit on paper and plasAc bags to be permissible under the statute. Plastic, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plastic.1 Robert Sanders, New Process Makes ‘Biodegradable’ Plastics Truly Compostable, Berkeley News (Apr. 21, 2021), 2 https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/04/21/new-process-makes-biodegradable-plastics-truly-compostable/. Vidhya Nagarajan et al., Perspective on Polylactic Acid (PLA) Based Sustainable Materials for Durable 3 Applications: Focus on Toughness and Heat Resistance, 2016 ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Eng’g 2899, 2899 (May 17, 2016). 20 DRAFT 4.DesignaAng the DesAnaAon of the Fee a.To the City The City may be able to collect the fee, if the City designates that the fee may only be used by the City for enforcement. CiAes may raise funds for specific local improvement projects under their limited taxing power. First BapAst Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul, 884 N.W.2d 355, 359 (Minn. 2016). When a charge is imposed under a city’s police power, however, the charge is a fee and not a tax. Id. “Although broad, a municipality’s police power does not ‘extend[] to permit revenue raising measures.’” Id. (quoAng County Joe, Inc., v. City of Eagan, 560 N.W.2d 681, 686 (Minn. 1997). To determine whether a charge is a tax or a fee, Minnesota courts look to the primary purpose of the charge—if the charge is to recover the cost of regulaAon, it is a fee; if the charge is to raise funds, it is a tax. Id. “The crucial quesAon is not what power a city exercises when it uses the funds collected, but rather what power a city exercises when it collects the funds.” Id. at 361 (emphasis in original). In this case, a charge collected by the City would have to fall under the City’s police power and be a fee in order for the ordinance to comply with Minnesota law. If the City does not uAlilze the money to reimburse the City for enforcement costs, a court would deem the fee a tax and invalidate it on that basis. Therefore, the City likely cannot designate the collected money for educaAon or conservaAon, as those are revenue-raising measures to benefit the people of the City. If the City designates the funds for enforcement, the collected money is more likely to be deemed a fee for the service the City provides in enforcement. b.To the retailer A fee that is collected and retained by the retailer is not a charge going to the City. Therefore, it is not a fee paid to the City for services nor is it a tax paid to the City to raise revenues. This avoids the issues discussed in the previous paragraph. Both Duluth and Minneapolis designate the charge collected by the retailer for the single-use bags shall be retained by the retailer to cover their costs. This pracAce has not been challenged in court and therefore appears to be permissible, unless and unAl it is challenged. CONCLUSION Edina has the opAon to pass an ordinance similar to those passed by the ciAes of Minneapolis and Duluth, subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statute and cases governing city powers to collect fees and taxes.   21 DRAFT APPENDIX B Enacted plas@c bag legisla@on by state and select sample of exis@ng U.S. bag regula@on Enacted PlasAc Bag LegislaAon by State. Source NaAonal Conference of State Legislatures (2021) 22 DRAFT City/ Town Popula@ on (2020) Effec@ve Date Ordinance Overview and Ra@onale Addi@onal Informa@on Louisville, CO 21,226 January 1, 2022 All retail stores in Louisville are required to charge $0.25 cents for every plasAc or paper bag used at checkout. h>ps://www.louisvilleco.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/ 30323/637503628614900000 Edwardsvi lle, IL 25,332 July 12, 2021 Requires a $0.10 per bag fee for disposable plasAc and paper checkout bags at all retail businesses greater than 7,000 sq. G. in the City of Edwardsville. h>ps://www.cityofedwardsville.com/571/ Single-Use-Bag-Fee Newton, MA 88,923 January 8, 2020 (for stores 3,500 square feet or larger) July 8, 2020 (for stores less than 3,500 square feet) If bags are provided to customers, the bag shall be either recyclable paper bag or a reusable checkout bag (see ordinance for a definiAon of each) A retail establishment that provides any type of checkout bag shall sell it for no less than ten cents ($0.10). All moneys collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be retained by the retail establishment. h>ps://www.newtonma.gov/government/ health-human-services/inspector-of-weights- measures/plasAc-bag-reducAon-ordinance Boulder, CO 108,777 July 1, 2013 $0.10 fee on all disposable plasAc and paper checkout bags at grocery stores in the city. This fee is intended to address the impact of disposable bags in the community and encourage the use of reusable bags. h>ps:// bouldercolorado.g ov/media/5858/ download?inline 23 DRAFT Minneapo lis, MN 429,954 October 1, 2021 Retailers must charge a minimum $0.05 fee per carryout bag. The fee is kept by the retailer and is not a tax. It can be put towards the cost of the bags, used for other expenses, or donated to charity. These fees are not taxable. Unless a transacAon is specifically exempt, a retailer must charge the fee to customers, and can’t choose to absorb the cost. In general, non-profits are not exempt from the fee. h>ps:// www2.minneapolis mn.gov/ businessservices/ licensespermitsinspecAons/ business- licenses/ bring-your-ownbag/ Denver, CO 715,878 July 1, 2021 Encourages shoppers to switch to reusable bags and requires retail stores in Denver to charge $0.10 for each disposable bag (plasAc, paper, or other material including but not limited to compostable material) provided to customers at checkout. h>ps:// denvergov.org/ Government/ AgenciesDepartments- Offices/Agencies- Departments- Offices-Directory/ Climate-AcAon- SustainabilityResiliency/ZeroWaste/Bring- YourOwn-Bag-Program 24 DRAFT APPENDIX C Stakeholder feedback Minneapolis businesses Two Hardware store. •Smaller volume store saw the charge as a way to make up for the cost of bags and other expenses. •Larger store charges for bags around 80% of the Ame. Not many people get upset. •Some customers will ask if there is a charge for bags, and will refuse a bag if so. •Some customers will accept the 5 cent charge for convenience. Toy Store •They charge their customers for carry out bags, and are supporAve of the iniAate. •Customers do not seem to get upset. •Some will refuse a bag if they are told of the charge. Liquor Store — they do not generally charge customers. Grocery Store •They charge their customers for carry out bags — not always informing the customer of the charge, because the ordinance has been in effect for a while now. •Most are fine with the fee, either refusing a bag or accepAng the charge. •They provide a box where customers can both donate used bags and grab a bag with out a charge. Garden Center •They charge their customers for carry out bags. •Some customers get upset when they are told that it’s 5 cents for a bag. •Those who do get “annoyed” will usually refuse a bag, which “while it can be frustraAng in the check-out experience, it is ulAmately the whole point”. 25 DRAFT Edina’s Green Recognized businesses Clothing store. As a store, they have go>en rid of plasAc bags and sell a reusable bag. Most customers are “pleased with the decision”. However, the owner does not favor an ordinance. “I do not like the idea of having the city require businesses to charge for any kind of carry out bag. I think this is one more thing that small business owners would have to ensure is happening and manage”. Grocery store They would prefer a voluntary program, similar to what they are currently doing: for those customers who voluntarily bring in their bags, the store donates money to a charity. BouAque clothing and giG shop “We purposely sourced paper bags that are not coated for this very reason that are blank so they can be reused again and again, for giGing, etc.” “If the city were to impose a $.05 fee for all bags unilaterally to all stores it wouldn’t be a huge deal, as customers would come to expect it from everyone.” PR firm “Generally, we are very supporAve of an ordinance that would seek to reduce the amount of single-use plasAc use across the city of Edina. Bellmont Partners would not be affected by this type of ordinance in our business operaAons, but we have a strong value of sustainability and would love to see less li>er and microplasAc polluAon throughout our community. We’re proud to see Edina taking a leading stance on this topic. “We support a $.05 fee on all carry-out bags, as it seems to be a largely symbolic fee that is likely to not be cost-prohibiAve to most customers, but we would also support nuances or exempAons that would make it easier for businesses to comply (parAcularly small/local businesses), and/or for lower-income customers to afford the fee.” Edina Residents •This is the Energy and Environment’s third a>empt to regulate plasAc bags. This iniAaAve has been taken up by three different groups of Energy and Environment Commissioners, illustraAng that it is, and has been a prominent environmental issue for many Edina residents. •Hometown Hero Fartun Ismail, founder of the Somali American Women AcAon Center (SAWAC), engages many seam stresses in Edina to create reusable tote bags called "Dambiil". It is important to these Edina residents to fight the impacts of plasAc bags because they have “been climate refugees once, and we don’t want to be climate refugees again”. •Edina students from both middle school and high school have repeatedly tried to bring the negaAve impacts of plasAc bags to the forefront of Edina policy.   26 DRAFT APPENDIX D Drai merchant carryout bag for City of Edina ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER XX  OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING MERCHANT CARRYOUT BAGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: SecAon 1. Chapter XX of the Edina City Code is amended by adding ArAcle XX to read as follows: ARTICLE XX. CARRYOUT BAGS PROVIDED BY RETAILERS TO CUSTOMERS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Purpose and Objectives. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to: 1.Promote waste reduction and greenhouse gas reduction.   a)Lowering the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during the production, incineration and land@illing of merchant carryout bags.  . b)Assisting the City in reaching the greenhouse gas reduction goals established in the City of Edina’s Climate Action Plan, and the waste reduction goals established by the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County.   2.Promote waste prevention.   a)Encouraging the use of reusable bags.   b)Reducing or eliminating single-use merchant carryout bags.   3.Promote behavior change. Section 1. Definitions. The following words shall have the meaning ascribed to them, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Carryout bag means a paper, plasAc, or reusable bag that is provided by a retail establishment at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other point of departure to a customer for the purpose of transporAng food or merchandise out of the establishment. Carryout bags include: (1) Single-use plasAc bags; (2) Compostable plasAc bags; (3) Paper bags; and (4) Reusable bags.   Pass-through charge means a charge to be collected by retailers from their customers when providing carryout bags, and retained by retailers to offset the cost of bags and other costs related to the pass-through charge. 27 DRAFT Point-of-sale system means a cash register, credit card machine, or other device that can be programmed or is capable of being used to itemize purchases including a descripAon and/or cost for each item, which can calculate sales tax, add applicable fees, and which is capable of generaAng sale reports. Retail establishment means any person, corporaAon, partnership, business venture, public sports or entertainment faciliAes, government agency, street vendor or vendor at public events or fesAvals or organizaAons that sell or provide merchandise, goods, or materials including, without limitaAon, clothing, beverages, household goods, or personal items of any kind directly to a customer. Examples include but are not limited to department stores, clothing stores, jewelry stores, grocery stores, pharmacies, home improvement stores, liquor stores, convenience stores, gas staAons, and temporary vendors of merchandise at street fairs and fesAvals. Food banks and other food assistance programs are not considered to be retail establishments for the purposes of this secAon. SecAon 2. Exemp@ons. Carryout bags do not include: (1) Produce and bulk good bags; (2) Dry cleaning bags; (3) Newspaper and doorhanger bags; (4) Secondhand bags; (5) Personal belonging bags; (6) Flower wrap bags; (7) Prescription drug bags; (8) Bags brought by a customer; and (9) Bags in packages with multiple bags (10) Litter clean up bags SecAon 3. Carryout bag requirements. (a) Retail establishments shall collect a pass-through charge of not less than five (5) cents for each carryout bag provided to customers. It shall be a violaAon of this secAon for any retail establishment to pay or otherwise reimburse a customer for any porAon of the pass-through charge. All retail establishments shall indicate on the customer transacAon receipt the number of carryout bags provided and the total amount of the pass-through charge. Retailers may use the five cent charge to offset their costs of administering the program and educaAng customers about their opAons to avoid the charge. (b) Retail establishments are not required to collect a pass-through charge from anyone with a voucher or electronic benefits card issued under the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) support programs, or the federal Supplemental 28 DRAFT NutriAon Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as Basic Food), or a recognized Minnesota food assistance program. (c) Retail establishments shall provide, upon the occurrence of the periodic inspecAon or upon order of any authorized enforcement official, a report idenAfying the number and value of the carryout bag fees charged to customers. The director of community planning and economic development, the director of public works, the commissioner of health, the director of regulatory services, the licensing official and the authorized representaAves of those officials shall be authorized to assist with the enforcement of the provisions of this arAcle. SecAon 4. Enforcement. The City shall have the duty and the authority to enforce provisions of this chapter pursuant to City Code Sec. 20-445. SecAon 5. Severability. If any part or provision of this ordinance or the applicaAon thereof to any person, enAty, or circumstances shall be judged unconsAtuAonal or invalid by any court of competent jurisdicAon, such judgment shall be confined in its operaAon to the part, provision or applicaAon which is directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this ordinance or the applicaAon thereof to other persons, enAAes, or circumstances. SecAon 6. Effec@ve Date. June 1, 2024. First Reading: XX/2023 Second Reading: XX/2023 Published: A>est __________________________ _______________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk James Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current - Send two af@idavits of publication.  Bill to Edina City Clerk 29 DRAFT APPENDIX E Side-by-side merchant carryout bag exemp@on comparison with City of Minneapolis Minneapolis Edina (Proposed) Types of bags that are exempt: Produce and bulk goods bags Produce and bulk goods bags Restaurant carryout bags Dry cleaning bags Dry cleaning bags Newspaper and door hanger bags Newspaper and door hanger bags Litter clean up bags Litter clean up bags Secondhand bags Secondhand bags Personal belonging bags Personal belonging bags Flower wrap bags Flower wrap bags Prescription drug bags Prescription drug bags Bags brought by a customer Bags brought by a customer Bags in packages with multiple bags Bags in packages with multiple bags Types of establishments that are exempt: Those without a point of sale system Those without a point of sale system Farmers markets Food banks Food banks Car dealerships & car washes 30 DRAFT Types of customers that are exempt Anyone with a voucher or electronic benefit card issued under the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) support programs, or the federal Supplemental NutriAon Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as Basic Food), or a recognized Minnesota food assistance program Anyone with a voucher or electronic benefit card issued under the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) support programs, or the federal Supplemental NutriAon Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as Basic Food), or a recognized Minnesota food assistance program Minneapolis Edina (Proposed) 31 DRAFT APPENDIX F Proposed outline for educa@on and outreach Implementation Planning for Single Use Bag Fees Once the single use bag fee is approved by the City Council, a detailed implementation plan and timeline is necessary to make sure that residents, visitors, and retailers all understand the importance of the Single Use Bag Fee and how to comply. Examples from other cities: · City of Philadelphia · City of Denver · City of Edwardsville, IL · State of New Jersey Key Elements of the Implementation Plan I.Timeline that allows adequate time from ordinance approval to implementation. II.Impacted Businesses communication via information sessions, mail, and email. III.Direct to Resident communication via mail, email, social media, and city publications. IV.Website to include important resources for residents and businesses including approved ordinance, FAQs, communications materials for business use. V.Other Considerations I.Developing a reasonable Implementation Timeline is key to a successful rollout. Most timelines are 6-18 months from ordinance approval to full implementation. Example of an implementation timeline from City of Philadelphia: A.Approximately 6 months before Ordinance goes into effect. The City of Philadelphia approved a ban in late 2019 and created a timeline to implement the fee in 2020. Though the plan was significantly delayed due to the Coronavirus pandemic, here is the timeline as implemented in 2021. B.This timeline allows for residents and businesses to learn about the new policy in advance of the ban taking effect. It requires that businesses begin posting signage to communicate when the program will begin and exactly what the program entails. II.Communication with Impacted Businesses A.Info Sessions for Impacted Businesses. The City of Philadelphia hosted several virtual information sessions for businesses that would be impacted by the new ordinance. It was a forum for businesses to learn more about the coming ban and ask any questions they had regarding the ordinance. The sessions were scheduled after the ordinance was passed, but prior to when it went into affect. 32 DRAFT Example of Virtual Info Session Content Example of Training for Businesses NJ Video B.Materials for impacted Businesses. Provide signage and communication tools to impacted businesses. To assist businesses through this transition, the City of Philadelphia is providing various resources, all of which are available on a new webpage. Resources available include: 1.Signage—in multiple languages—that businesses can download, print, or order. a)Window signs/clings b)Point of Sale signs (at check out) c)“Bring your Bag” signs for parking areas 2.Flyers about the ban. 3.Training materials for employees regarding the fee Lousiville Colorado 4.Virtual business information sessions available to watch online III.Direct Communication to Residents A.Postcards mailed to city residents B.Email communication via City Communications (Newsletters) C.Social media notifications (Twitter/Facebook) D.Yard signs E.Press Releases to local media (TV, newspaper, radio) IV.Website A.In depth rationale for the single use bag fee B.Complete Ordnance C.Frequently asked questions (FAQs) D.Contacts for more information E.Resources for businesses F.Place to report violations V.Other Considerations A.Distribution of Reusable Bags to Residents and/or Retailers B.Bag Exchange Programs. Examples: 1.Bull City Boomerang Bag 2.DC Share a Bag 3.Goatote C.Communication to schools D.Signage with scannable QR code 33 Date: December 8, 2022 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager Item Activity: Subject:Monthly call for communication requests Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Submit any communications requests to staff liaison for processing INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description EEC Communication Channels Energy and Environment Commission Communication Guidelines Communication Channels These channels are used by Edina’s Communication Department and can be accessed by the EEC. While turnaround time is included, it is recommended that requests be made as early as possible for planning purposes. There will be a call for communication requests as a standing agenda item at each EEC meeting. The staff liaison will coordinate requests with Communications Director, Jennifer Bennerotte. Type Content Materials from EEC Publishing Frequency Turnaround Time Website Press releases/news alerts (Hometown Heroes is a longer feature – also on social media and recognized at City Council meetings) Topic/ nomination, willingness to be interviewed Ad hoc 1 week (Hometown Heroes = 1-2 months) Better Together Edina Any topic that the Commission wants to get feedback on or engage with the public Topic, drafted text, type of engagement, etc. Ad hoc 1 week Sun Current Newspaper- Guest Column (cannot be submitted on behalf of the Commission/City). Anything coming from the City needs to be submitted by the Comms Dept. Text Weekly Independent submission Edition Edina Newsletter Topic, willingness to be interviewed Monthly 60 days Social Media Facebook, Twitter, Instagram Topic, # of posts Ad hoc Campaign = 1 month Basic post = 1 day Video Agenda: Edina /Mayor’s Minute/ Youtube idea Topic, willingness to be interviewed 2x/month 1 month Direct Mailers postcards, inserts, posters, flyers, etc. Budget, topic Ad hoc 1 month Send Text Text Topic Opt-in 1 month Other Newsletters PW Pipeline and Parks Activities Directory, The Times (Senior Center newsletter) Topic, willingness to be interviewed 2x/year (The Times = 10x/yr) 3 months City Extra Emails Can choose topic area-bulk emails Topic, draft text Opt-in 1 week Contact Information Grace Hancock Sustainability Manager GHancock@EdinaMN.gov Communication Department Project Lead Times The following lead times are organized by level of work involved by Communication Department. These are recommended by the staff to provide guidance for marketing and communication development. Level 1 (1 day) • Re-order of existing project Level 2 (3 days) • Re-sizing existing project (no other edits) • Website banner images • Basic photo editing Level 3 (1 week- small changes) • Copy changes where text doesn’t move • Postcards • Rack cards • Social media graphics based on existing campaign • PowerPoint presentation graphics for public event Level 4 (2 weeks-updates) • New social media graphics • Updates to existing pieces (new copy, colors, photos or combination thereof) • Posters and flyers • Ads Level 5 (3-4 weeks-significant projects) • New campaigns • New art • Brochures • Reports • Pamphlets and booklets Level 6 (More than 1 month (to be negotiated or determined with Director-large projects)) • Re-brand • Logo design • Publication redesign