Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013-02-14 Packet
DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday February 14, 2013 7:03 PM I. CALL TO ORDER 7:03p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering Roll Call was Brandt, Gubrud, Heer, Kostuch, , Risser, Rudnicki, Thompson, Zarrin, and Chair Sierks Late Arrival: Latham, Sokol Staff Present: Ross Bintner, Rebecca Foster and Solvei Wilmot III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. Chair Sierks requested Items VI. B. ii. and F. to be delayed until after Member Latham arrives. Motion made by Member Rudnick! and seconded by Member Kostuch to approve the amended Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes B. Attendance report and roster C. Workgroup list and minutes. Member Risser requested the following Water Quality Working Group Members to be removed from the list due to lack of participation Bill Johnson, Robert Skrentner and George Hunter. Motion made by Member Risser and seconded by Member Zarrin to approve the Minutes for December as amended and the Work Group list as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Thompson to approve the Minutes for January as amended. Motion carried unanimously. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT. No Comments. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Air and Water Quality WG. Member Risser said the Storm Water Pollution Plan will be the group's main focus. The group would also like to work closely with the Laura Adler the new Water Resource Coordinator. Laura coordinates the Wellhead Protection Plan, Storm Water Prevention Pollution Plan and Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. B. Recycling & Solid Waste WG i. Edina Business Recycling Task Force. Member Zarrin gave an update on how Hennepin County is creating a Business Recycling Brochure and the task force is hoping it'll be done by April. The manager from Allied Waste will be at the next meeting to discuss how business recycling is done and how it's different from residential recycling. Member Zarrin is planning on promoting business recycling in the About Town, Chamber of Commerce Newsletter and Sun Current. All 4 articles will be reviewed by the City's Communications Department before it's released. Member Zarrin would like to promote businesses, especially Jerry's Foods, who's currently zero waste and ask them how they did it. Member Zarrin would like the city's website to be updated with Edina Business Recycling. ii. Report recommending amendment of ordinance section 1300 Collection and Disposal of Refuse and Recyclables. Member Latham gave an update on the edits to the ordinance section 1300 Collection and Disposal of Refuse and Recyclables. A final copy will be approved at the May meeting. C. Education Outreach WG L April 18th Edina Forum: "what's up with the weather?" Member Thompson gave an update on the Forum of "Changing climate and what to do about it". The event will have a resource fair prior to the forum. The event will be advertised in the About Town Calendar. Senator Franken will either be speaking or do a welcome video. All of the legislators are invited too. Member Latham suggested having master gardeners or horticulturist that live in Edina talk about what's changed with gardening. Paul Douglas will be the Keynote presenting Minnesota's changing weather. J. Drake Hamilton, Fresh Energy, will discuss what actions people can take legislatively. Member Rudnicki asked Members Sokol and Brandt to Tweet about the event and other energy tips. Both Members said they'd be willing to Tweet if the Commission provides bullet points for them. Member Thompson might request money to place an ad in the Sun Current and for promotional materials. Member Gubrud will write a proclamation for Earth Day to get approval at the March EEC meeting. D. Student Initiatives. Member Sokol announced that Planet Earth Club didn't get the grant for hand dryers in the bathrooms. E. Energy WG. Member Heer said they had a joint meeting with the Education and Outreach work group, because the work plan overlapped between both works groups. The work group will focus on the Building Energy Efficiency through the State program first. F. Green Step Cities Presentation. Philipp Muessig is the coordinator for Green Step Cities. He presented what the current and possible future green steps will include. He said Step 4 might be completing more actions at higher star level, more actions under a Best Practice or more Best Practices. Chair Sierks thanked Member Latham for her time in having the City complete Green Step Cities. Mr. Muessig said Edina's PACE program puts them at a higher level than other cities. Mr. Muessig said Green Steps is used as a reporting system for cities to help Councils see sustainability, cost savings and a vehicle for more transparency. He said Step 5 might be for cities to start using Regional Indicators Reports as a measuring tool. He said Steps 6 & 7 might be indicators looking at wealth, health, school attainment, noise or crime. VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS. No Comments. VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS A. 2013 Workplan and Commission workgroups. Chair Sierks reviewed the EEC work plan and proposed a meeting schedule to accomplish the work plan priorities. B. Schedule of work and future meeting topics and speakers. Chair Sierks proposed the meeting schedule to stay more focused on priorities. A discussion about how to accomplish the work plan item will occur at each meeting. Chair Sierks asked the Members to review the plan and email Ross if they have any concerns about the priorities. Member Kostuch was concerned that Work Plan 4 and 8 are too much for the July meeting. Chair Sierks is asking work groups to create a work plan, so new volunteers understand what the group does before they join. Chair Sierks said maybe the work group model needs to be reviewed and matched up with a work plan item in order for the EEC to accomplish their work plan. Member Zarrin suggested that more communication about what the EEC is doing to get the public more interested in joining work groups. The mandatory joint Work Session with Council will occur June 18th IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. March Meeting: Election of chair and vice chair, outgoing member recognition and incoming member orientation. Chair Sierks asked Members to email Ross if they are interested in being EEC Chair or Vice Chair this year. B. Miscellaneous Updates. Mr. Bintner invited Members to the Boards and Commissions Dinner on March 11th from 5-7pm at Braemar Club house. Mr. Bintner will do a brief orientation to the new EEC member before the March meeting. i. April 22nd DQ Green Expo. Dairy Queen will be hosting a Green Expo for their employees on April 22nd at 10:30a.m. Mr. Bintner was thinking about presenting on B3 or other sustainability issues. ii. Turf Management Plan. Mr. Bintner said the Council will be approving the plan at the March 5th meeting. iii. Coal tar enforcement. Mr. Bintner said the investigation is completed and fines have been issued between $600-$1000. iv. City environmental goal summary. Mr. Bintner is going to present a summary of all the City's environmental goals at the March meeting. Member Latham arrived at 8:07p.m. Member Latham presented an Advisory to Council to restore the Urban Forest Task Force to the EEC work plan. Member Latham would like to finish the report before her term ends. VC,K Motion made by Member Kostuch and seconded by Member Heer to approve+w&more meetings to finish report documentation and send it to Council for approval. Motion carried unanimously. Member Brandt excused himself from the meeting at 8:20p.m. There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Chair Sierks declared the meeting adjourned at 9:22p.m. Motion made by Member Latham and seconded by Member Heer to adjourn meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 6 CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday March 14, 2013 7:00 PM AGENDA ITEM 6.6 Annual Volunteer Award Reception Nominations ATTACHMENTS 1. Example nominations forms (Staff will fill these in after the EEC makes its nominations.) AGENDA ITEM 6.0 Home Energy Squad - Enhanced ATTACHMENTS 1. Presentation slides AGENDA ITEM 6.1) April 18 Event ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft poster AGENDA ITEM 6.E Summary of City Environmental Goals ATTACHMENTS 1. Bintner Summary Memo, Attachment and Links imbedded in PDF format. AGENDA ITEM 7.A Regional Indicators Report ATTACHMENTS 1. Report 2. Select Graphs from Spreadsheet (email Ross if you want a copy of entire spreadsheet) AGENDA ITEM 9 Staff Comments ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of grant application for electric vehicle 2. Draft 2013 EEC meeting schedule 3. Email of website metrics 4. Memo about neighborhood reconstruction project purchasing, sod vs. hydroseed 5. Revised EEC workplan to include urban forestry work item 6. France avenue background information LINK item V.A UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS: City Events Calendar (link) 3 CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday March 14, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes B. Attendance report and roster C. Workgroup list and minutes V. COMMUNITY COMMENT (5min) During "Community Comment," the Energy & Environment Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission, or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their testimony 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 Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead the Commission might refer the matter to staff or to an EEC Working Group for consideration at a future meeting. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Election of Board Chair and Vice Chair (10min) B. Nominations for Recognition Event (10min) C. HES-Enhanced (20min, Carl Nelson) D. April 18 Event: What's Up with the Weather? Our Changing Climate in Minnesota (40min Jennifer Bennerotte) E. Summary of City Environmental Goals (20min, Ross Bintner) F. Air and Water Quality WG G. Education Outreach WG H. Energy WG I. Recycling & Solid Waste WG i. Business recycling task force J. Student Initiatives VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS A. Regional Indicators Report VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Electric Vehicle Grant B. Earth Day Proclamation C. 2013 EEC Meeting Schedule D. Website metrics E. Neighborhood reconstruction seed/sod purchasing F. Council actions; urban forestry and turf management G. France Avenue urban design charrette UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS: http://www.edinamn.gov/ <click calendar> 3/19/13 City Council Meeting — City Hall 4/2/13 City Council Meeting — City Hall 4/11/13 EEC April Meeting — City Hall 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 amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. 2 Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Foster GIS Administrator Liaisons: Report attendance monthly and attach this report to the Commission minutes for the packet. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meetina Held ION MEETINGS'UM Attendance Recorded ION MEMBER'S LINEI Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type 1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type 1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1 " under the month on the meetings' line. Type 1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type 1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting" Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type 1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type 1" under the month WALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. 'A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is given, the previously -scheduled meeting is considered to have been cancelled and replaced with a special meeting. NOTES: Edina Energy & Environment Commission Working Groups, Task Forces and Projects Draft of 2-14-13 Air Quality Working Group (AQ WG) - Temporarily deactivated 9 Feb. 2012 Water Qualitx Working Group (WQ WG) - 4`h Thursday at 6:30pm - Chair Julie Risser - Members: Jon Moon, David B. VanDongen End Workin FG WG)- 3`d Tuesday at 7:00 pm -Chair Bill Sierks, Co -Chair John Heer - Commissioners Bob Gubrud aner�raterlin - Members Richard Griffith, Richard Oriani, Greg Nelson, Gary Wahman, John Howard, Bill Glahn, Braan, ohn Do p ' Prospective Members Chad Bell _ Peter L rson 2-1- ) ye' erCh ge, no rt de icar' g to rking�with no, ofits to repdu�ee energy U mp 'o via a guaranteed energy s gs program. •' ` 'LLF Education Outreach Working Group (EO WG) -ALluesday at 7:00 pm - Co- Thompson and Bob Gubrud - Members: Sarah Zarrin (EEC), John Howard, odd Willme , ara Gupta and Bevlin Jennings. 10 UYVZ61J-' -- Home EneEU Squad Task Force (HES) - Meets as needed - Chair Bill Sierks - Commissioners - Paul Thompson, Bob Gubrud Purchasing - Meets as needed - Chair Keith Kostuch Recycling & Solid Waste Working Group (RSW WG) - ls` Thursday at 7:00 pm - Chair DP Latham, Commissioners Sara Zarrin and Tim Rudnicki - Members Michelle Horan, Melissa Seeley - City Staff Solvei Wilmot Urban Forest Task Force (UF TF) - Meets as needed over lunch hour - Chair DP Latham - Commissioners - Joseph Hulbert (Pk Bd), Michael Schroeder (Planning Commission) & City Forester Tom Horwath (Staff). Solar & Wind Ordinance Task Force -Chair Open, Members - Bill Sierks (EEC) Michael Platteter (Planning), Ken Potts (Planning) with support from the EEC Energy Working Group - City Planner Cary Teague (Staff) Bylaws Working, Group - Chair Dianne Plunkett Latham (EEC), Carbon Disclosure Project Committee - Commissioner John Heer Edina Business Rec cv ling - 3`d Wednesday - Chair Sarah Zarrin - Members: Lori Syverson (Chamber of Commerce), Ben Knudson (Hennepin County Environmental Services), Andre Xiong (HCES), Aileen Foley EBR Meeting held at Edina Chamber of Commerce on February 201h at 3:30pm Present: josh Sprague, Member of Edina City Council Rich Hirstein, Municipal Area Manager for Allied Waste Ross Bintner, City of Edina Environmental Engineer Ben Knudson, Hennepin County Environmental Services Andre Xiong, Hennepin County Environmental Services Sarah Zarrin, Edina Energy and Environment Commissioner, Edina Go Green Aileen Foley, Edina Go Green • Rich told us that the newly adopted single stream residential recycling has been hugely successful in Edina. • Rich demonstrated the significant financial benefits of recycling for businesses. A presentation was forwarded to all EBR task force members. Rich offered to do a presentation on business recycling at one of the Chamber of Commerce gatherings, explaining the financial and environmental benefits to businesses. Hennepin County Environmental Services will set up a workshop table to provide information and answer questions on business recycling. Andree is working on brochures which will be ready by end of March and website will be ready by mid April. All these supports should be available in time for a business recycling workshop in May. Ben stressed that the barriers businesses face should be addressed. Rich made clear that Allied Waste will not be mentioned during his presentation/workshop and that the workshop is not in any way intended as an advertising platform. Rich said that Allied Waste will donate ten awards for business recycling to businesses that meet certain criteria. These awards will be presented annually at a City Hall meeting. These awards could be publicized by Chamber of Commerce, About Town, Sun Current. Lori and Bill will identify businesses (small, medium and large) for pilot projects. Allied is willing to do a waste audit at start of the year and help them with a plan. The businesses will have to complete an application form stating how and what they are recycling. Hennepin County Environmental Services has already committed to contact some businesses regarding recycling and waste audits. • A mandate was discussed. It was decided that after a year of education and promotion, a mandate may be necessary to ensure that efforts are not wasted 10 and that business recycling continues on. The main concern has been how to maintain and encourage businesses to recycle. At this point not many multiple rental properties are recycling. If manager/owner changes, recycling might not continue. However, if we have it in the city code then businesses know that recycling is required by law. If business recycling is enforced or not is not the point here. • Josh Sprague said that he will approach Colliers, owners of the Edina Realty building and encourage them to be a leader in business recycling in Edina. • Ross will ask Scott Neal to set up an appointment with Lori van Dalen of Simon Properties to discuss recycling at Southdale. Next meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 20'' at 3:30pm at the Edina chamber's office. 11 Edina 'Business Recycling' Task Force Meeting February 20, 2013 12 ALLIED WAST! SERVICES * A REPUBLIC SERVICES COMPANY Our Plan for Today's Meeting Introductions Open Discussion: what are issues/driving factors for this? Outline Business Recycling Options Ideas for Helping Businesses Make the Change Questions/Feedback s • Chamber Meeting Presentations: Give the facts, make it EASY • Appeal to their environmental side • Appear to their financial side • Remove the barriers to participation • Provide easy -to -understand, color -coded literature for the office • Make the transition as easy and painless for them as possible • Follow-up 14 'A Container Options" 2 cubic yards to 8 cubic yards'k,, Large Compactors Residential Style Carts Newspaper & Newspaper inserts Magazines & Catalogs All Junk Mail & Envelopes Cardboard (break -down boxes) Office & School Paper (all colors) Phone Books Cereal & Cracker -type boxes Brown paper sacks/bags Aluminum, Steel & Tin cans Glass bottles & Jars Plastics: #1 thru #7 — bottles, cups, plastic food containers, tubs, bowls, yogurt cups & margarine/whip cream tubs Plastic milk jugs & Paper milk cartons Plastic bags (place all bags in 1 bag inside the cart so they don't blow around) Juice boxes & other paper cartons NO ---Do; NOT Recycle These Items No garbage No food waste No food -tainted items (used paper plates) No paper towels or paper napkins No pizza boxes No egg cartons No wax -coated cartons No ice-cream cartons No aluminum foil No Styrofoam cups/plates or packaging No aerosol cans, propane tanks or helium tanks No batteries Current: Wq- j Two 'Financial Appeals' For Business Recycling 6 yard TRASH container, emptied 3 times a week: $430 per month $73 per month State of Minnesota tax (17%) $62 per month Hennepin Co tax (14.5%) $565 total per month Step #1: Add a Recycling 6 yard container: 6 yard TRASH container, emptied 2 times a week, plus a 6 yard RECYCLING container, emptied 1 time a week: $320 per month for TRASH $ 88 per month for RECYCLING $54 per month State of Minnesota tax (17%) 546 per month Hennepin Co tax (14.5%) $508 total per month „ (Save $684 per year) Step #2: 6 yard TRASH container, emptied 1 time a week, plus a 6 yard RECYCLING container, emptied 2 times a week: $175 per month for TRASH $164 per month for RECYCLING $30 per month State of Minnesota tax (17%) $25 per month Hennepin Co tax (14.5%) $394 total per month ,8 Save $1,584 per year Scenario with a 2 yard sk Current: 2 yard TRASH container, emptied 3 times a week: $230 per month $39 per month State of Minnesota tax (17%) $33 per month Hennepin Co tax (14.5%) $302 total per month ��r Step #1: Add a Recycling 2 yard container: 2 yard TRASH container, emptied 2 times a week, plus a 2 yard RECYCLING container, emptied 1 time a week: $155 per month for TRASH $ 55 per month for RECYCLING $26 per month State of Minnesota tax (17%) 22 per month Hennepin Co tax (14.5%) b $258 total per month ` 19 (Save $528 per year) Step #2: 2 yard TRASH container, emptied 1 time a week, plus a 2 yard RECYCLING container, emptied 2 times a week: $80 per month for TRASH $105 per month for RECYCLING $14 per month State of Minnesota tax (17%) $11 per month Hennepin Co tax (14.5%) $210 total per month 20 (Save $1,104 per year) help with this process? • Tours of our MRF make it'real' We can speak at a Chamber luncheons/meetings • We can help with on-site waste audits • Literature and stickers for containers ---teach everyone WHAT is recyclable • Financial incentives back to the employees »`k • DVD—'How it all works' gives people the knowledge and desire to participate hki M % 21 t We Are Not Simply A 'Garbage Compan y' • We are 100% committed and environmentally -focused. • We've invested millions of dollars locally to change the way materials are handled and processed. • We have designed and implemented major innovations in recycling that have driven the volumes collected up dramatically. • We are partnership -oriented, advisor -qualified and often called for our 'green expertise'. 22 Feel free to contact me Rich Hirstein (952) 946-5330 RHirstein@RepublicServices.com 23 %i'll1i'lo Ross Bintner s 1 Energy & Environment Comm. February 8, 2013 The City of Edina will host its 34`hAnnual Volunteer Awards Reception on Tuesday, April 30`h, from 5 to 7 PM at the Warren C. Hyde Clubhouse at Braemar Golf Course. We hope that you, as a community leader, will promote the event in your organization and participate in a time of fellowship to honor Edina's many special volunteers. In response to feedback from participants of last year's event, we are sticking to the two changes in format that made the pace of the event a little quicker and more enjoyable for everyone: First, we ask that your organization selects just one person to recognize. This may make for a difficult choice, but we'd like you to do your best to focus your attention on one honoree. The enclosed pink form confirms that your organization will be honoring someone, and it must be submitted by Friday, April 5`h. Second, we ask that you select a presenter from your organization to read a short biographical description of your organization's honoree and the reason for your honoree's selection. The honoree will join the presenter on the stage for the presentation, and he/she is not obligated to give an acceptance speech following receipt of the award. Following the recognitions by the community organizations, Mayor Jim Hovland will present his six Commendations. I have enclosed a green form for you to use to nominate someone for one of these Mayor's Awards. To be considered by the Mayor for one of the 2013 awards, we must receive nomination forms by Monday, April 151. A yellow RSVP form is enclosed for attendees within your organization, and it must be returned to us by Friday, April 12`h. We're looking forward to a great event again this year. I hope you will be able to join us so that we can honor the volunteer spirit of Edina. Sincerely, Scott H. Neal City Manager CITY OAEDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov 9 952-927-8861 9 Fax 952-826-0390 VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION ; BY INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION., PLEASE RETURN THIS FORMBY FRIDAY. APRIL51h TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM Our Club/Organlzatlon would like to recognize the following volunteer at the 34th Annual Volunteer awards Reception on Tuesday, April 30th, 2013: Club/Organization: 'tay 1z0tjKr 'T. cahmsslatA Club/Organizatton Contact Persorr, Phone Award Presenter: (He/she will make a formal. presentation, up to.three minutes, to honor the volunteer.) The Honored Volunteer., Comments Regarding Honored Volunteer: (words that will be printed inside: the program) COMPLETED FORM MUST BE RETURNED, BY FRIDAY, APRIL 5th, TO: SUSAN HOWL CITY OF EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET E©INA, MN 55424 26 PLEASE RETURN BY FRIDAY, APRIL 12th 34th ANNUAL VOLUNTEER AWARDS RECEPTION AT BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE - TUESDAY, APRIL 30TH, 2013 RESERVATION SHEET Organization Contact Name Address Phone Names of those attending: TOTAL NUMBER OF RESERVATIONS: TOTAL AMOUNT @ $20.00 PER PERSON: Make check payable to the City of Edina. PLEASE MAIL THIS RESERVATION SHEET TO: SUSAN HOWL CITY OF EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MN 55424 RESERVATIONS CLOSE FRIDAY, APRIL 12th. 27 RECIPIENTS OF MAYOR'S SERVICE CLUB COMMENDATION 1979 - League of Women Voters (again in 1993) 1980 - Edina Federated Women's Club (again in 2003) 1981 - Edina Garden Council (again in 1999) 1982 - Edina Lions (again in 2007) 1983 - Edina Optimists' Club (again in 2004) 1984 - Jaycees 1985 - Edina Rotary Club (again in 2005) 1986 - Woman's Club 1987 - Chamber of Commerce 1988 - Historical Society 1989 - Southdale Y's Men 1990 - Braemar Men's Club 1991- Special Children's Group 1992 - NO AWARD 1993 - League of Women Voters (also in 1979) and Kiwanis Golden K 1994 - Basketball Association and Morningside Rotary Club (again in 2005) 1995 - NO AWARD 1996 - NO AWARD 1997 - NO AWARD 1998 - EVENT WAS NOT HELD 1999 - Edina Garden Council (also in 1981) 2000 - Edina Parent Communication Network 2001 - Blue Ribbon Committee 2002 - Edina Newcomers and Friends 2003 - Edina Federated Women's Club (also in 1980) 2004 - Edina Optimists' Club (also in 1983) 2005 - Edina Rotary Club (also in 1985) & Morn. Rotary Club (also in 1994) 2006 - Friends of the Edina Library 2007 - Edina Lions (also in 1982) 2008 - Edina Morningside Rotary Club (also in 1994 & 2005) 2009 - Edina Community Foundation 2010 - Edina Public Art Committee 2011 - Edina Federated Women's Club 2012 - Kiwanis Golden K Club of Edina 28 RECIPIENTS OF MAYOR'S INDIVIDUAL SERVICE COMMENDATION 1979 - Ardythe Buerosse 1980 - Virginia Bodine and Ray O'Connell 1981 - Shirley Taylor 1982 - Ann Bros and Bob Reid 1983 - Nancy Grimsby, Pam Keating and Phyllis Kenaston 1984 - Ralph Campbell, Janet Chandler and Scott Crosbie 1985 - Janet Cardle 1986 - Leonard Ring 1987 - Judy Smith 1988 - Galene Erickson, Betsy Flaten and Sharon Hale 1989 - Kay Bach and Betty Hemstad 1990 - Dorie Barman and Lynne Westphal 1991 - Mary Estrem and Harlan & Ruth Hansen 1992 - Gardner Gay and Lance Leupold 1993 - Frank Cardarelle 1994 - Doug Johnson 1995 - Jan Buth, John Rocheford and Jean McGlennon 1996 - Marian Hansen and Kathy Iverson 1997 - Don Schlaefer 1998 - EVENT WAS NOT HELD 1999 - Jacci Manson 2000 - Jim Van Valkenburg 2001 - Bob Kojetin 2002 - Gary Soule 2003 - Bob Reid 2004 - Kevin Ries 2005 - Dianne Plunkett Latham 2006 - Mary Brindle 2007 - Andy Otness 2008 - Laura Nisi 2009 -Jack Rice 2010 -Wayne Kostroski 2011 -Paul Mooty 2012 - Kevin Staunton 29 RECIPIENTS OF MAYOR'S OUTSTANDING SENIOR COMMENDATION 1979 - Ruby McLaughlin 1980 - Ella Terry 1981 - Ray Condon 1982 - Ann Salovich and Marion White 1983 - Katherine Sehlin 1984 - Tom Oye 1985 - Margaret Hanson and Homer Kinney 1986 - Jan Cooper 1987 - Orrin Knutson and Irene Russell 1988 - Ann Thompson 1989 - May Strand 1990 - Muriel Cords 1991 - Tax Consultants for the Elderly 1992 - Paul Otness and Ed Skluzacek 1993 - Polly Denison 1994 - Ruth Bakken 1995 - NO AWARD 1996 - NO AWARD 1997 - NO AWARD 1998 - EVENT WAS NOT HELD 1999 - NO AWARD 2000 - Dorothy Brindle 2001 - Lila Larson 2002 - Edina Senior Center Advisory Council 2003 - Jack Barstow 2004 - Harold Westerberg 2005 -Jean Hedberg 2006 - Janet Johnson 2007 - Sandy Schley 2008 - Ray O'Connell 2009 - Betty Pollitt 2010 - Bob Hartshorn 2011 -Shirley Johnson 2012 - Marshall Schwartz 30 RECIPIENTS OF MAYOR'S YOUTH COMMENDATION 2002 - Caitlin Rogers 2003 - Paige Backenstose and Lindsey Vance 2004 - Will Amundson 2005 - Catherine Elliott 2006 - Kelly Hayes 2007 - Brett Stone 2008 - Birgen Hartman & Emma Weisberg 2009 - Dolan Lee, Hailey Lee & Shara Mohtadi 2010 - Abigale Dauth & Robbie Latta 2011 - Apeksha Goonewardena & J. D. Loyle 2012 - Katelyn Dussik & Elizabeth Montgomery 31 RECIPIENTS OF MAYOR'S CONNECTING WITH KIDS COMMENDATION 2005 - Mark Peterson 2006 - David Kunz 2007 - Terry Stevens 2008 - Matt Meyer & Charlie Weigel 2009 - Karen Hoops 2010 -STRIVE Initiative 2011 - Communications Explorers Post 3411 2012 -STRIVE Program 32 RECIPIENTS OF MAYOR'S COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COMMENDATION 1982 - Vince Bongaarts 1983 - Craig Swanson 1984 - Patrick Lilja 1985 - Pat Greer and Marion Ward 1986 - Dennis Cain and Ralph Johnson 1987 - Susan Heiberg and Bob Kojetin 1988 - Ken Rosland and Solvei Swenson 1989 - Ceil Smith 1990 - Gene Bartz 1991 - Diana Hedges 1992 - Sue Weigle 1993 - Ruth Schmoll 1994 - Courtney Heyda 1995 - Marce Daehn 1996 - Gordon Hughes 1997 - Florence Moynihan 1998 - EVENT WAS NOT HELD 1999 - Fran Hoffman 2000 - Steve Bergren 2001 -John Keprios 2002 - Susie Miller and Donna Tilsner 2003 - Eric Anderson 2004 - Mike Siitari 2005 - Jennifer Bennerotte 2006 - Tim Zimmerman 2007 - Tom Jenson & John Valliere 2008 - Heather Worthington 2009 - Aaron Kuznia 2010 - Rebecca Foster 2011 -Brian Hubbard 2012 -Jeff Long 33 (-ee5* :1 -7, '�:,: L, cr ,. -, J E, i; ceeo*Center forEnergy and Environment .... Center for Energy and Environment A leader in implementing energy -efficiency programs for over 30 years Residential: Manage MAC sound insulation program (8,000+ homes), run programs for Xcel/CenterPoint, assist with other programs Commercial: Administer comprehensive building recommissioning program for larger buildings Small business: Served over 9,000 small businesses with One -Stop small business lighting efficiency program (an ACHE "Exemplary Program") Financing: Financed 18,000 home improvement loans resulting in $130 million worth of home improvements Research: Completed over 100 energy efficiency research projects 35 ceeLJ V F+ _a 'r_,( �{ J L,' ai .... Since 2010, CEE has helped implemented comprehensive residential programs in 8 cities • Community Energy Services (Mpls & St. Louis Park) • be. Apple Valley (Apple Valley) • Conserve & Save (Austin/Owatonna) • Neighborhood Energy Challenge (Rochester) • Energy -Efficient Cities (Duluth, Park Rapids) 36 ceeo. ' -„ r"- Goals for Edina Home Energy Squad Enhanced ..:. Edina Home Energy Squad Enhanced Program Goals Make saving energy easy (and fun!) for residents Focus on comprehensive range of cost-effective energy-saving opportunities, achievable by all households Get results ■ kWh and therm savings ■ Satisfied participants 37 cee* r , ;1 Lr �r2- n t. ..., Home Energy Squad Enhanced is like standard Home Energy Squad, but more + For participating cities, CEE can provide city -specific marketing support + Home Visits include installed items (like Home Energy Squad), plus diagnostics and Home Energy Report + CEE provides additional follow-up support 38 F' i ce e t.,1 s ',1 Ea r rIItr; , Community Engagement and Education �., --The Recipe for an Energy Smart Home Fail Good Habits Good Products11 Good Investments 40 CEE coordinates community-based marketing campaign: + mailers + tabling at community events + educational events + presentations, etc � ,,—eeo* 11 'teeLrerqj -a,'d Lt .... Home Energy Squad Enhanced Program Process A& CenterPoints XcelEnergya 'E-nerff 39 ••�• Home Energy Squad Enhanced Visit $50 cost to homeowner (w. city buy -down) 2 hour visit by 2 energy experts Install materials for immediate savings (like included in regular HES visit) (materials worth � $50 on average, not including labor cost to install) + Programmable thermostat + Door weather-stripping + Compact Florescent lightbulbs + and more Blower door test and other diagnostic work for major upgrade potential (this is not included in regular HES visit) + Qualifies homeowner for CenterPoint rebates 41 cee4* •�• Home Energy Score Your Personalized Energy Index YOUR CURREN WMATE SCORE: POT13 WL. 85 WALL MULATON 27 PONf3 You have Muuflicierd irwlatlon in your waM: inerr411on k reconrnended. MEA7WG SYSTM 28 POMS loon repkanswYL choose a 95%AFlEH91%AFIE nodeL AIR SEALING 20 PONf3 Air setup 1s reowwrWded. ATTIC INSULATION 17 POINTS Your aft Woukoon is MrAllcIsM treuletlon is rsoorrtrorded. VWWOWS 10 PONES No upgrade reoorrrnmded. tent In l Aye, represent cost-e0earve oPP«Midw Gives visual representation of a home's energy efficiency level Provided at the home visit 42 `Or Er �, a r,,:i Follow -Up and Financing Assi -' Call line for follow-up questions Assistance with utility rebates Assistance with financing including PI omULIUI I UI any city -specific offers 43 ••��Contractors and Quality Assurance Qualified contractor list — participants get competitive prices Require air sealing and insulation training and certification (Building Performance Institute installer certification) Quality control checks on 10% of installs cee** �High customer satisfaction rates Overall. how satisfied are you with your home vrsit? 4 Dlssabs Neutral l Satlshed 1379 .�., ..,�sfied M A" High satisfaction rate with workshop and home visit (98% satisfied or very satisfied) 99% would recommend to a friend I'll, I SOURCE: On-line survey responses from 840 CES pth ticipants (gip cee,, ••�• Written comments from participants "Great value and love that they installed materials for me! Plus we had no clue how to prioritize projects - they really helped." Matt and Laura, Kingfield "The experience was great. I felt that I was doing something that will change how I consume energy and help me to save money going forward." Bill, Longfellow "I appreciated that Tracie and Corrie did not talk down to me or make me feel like our energy problems were insurmountable. They did a wonderful job and we can't wait to reap the benefits." Megan, Waite Park "I think the whole program, workshop/home visit, is great. It is beneficial for those just beginning to think about how to make their homes more energy efficient as well as those who are looking for the next step. " 46 Joe, Waite Park ceeo* ..=Cost to City + $70 per resident that completes a home visit ($50 goes to the resident, $20 to CEE for additional services) + Assuming goal of: + 1%) 200 homes = $147000 + Option for renters 47 ..��Outreach Plan - initial goal of 200 residents (Would work out specific details) + Work to get community leaders involved with program, to promote by word of mouth, at businesses, and through congregations + Develop city -specific marketing pieces (mailers and doorhangers) + Schedule community workshops/events + Edina -specific web and social media content + Water bill stuffer (?) + Tabling at local events 48 Carl Nelson Manager of Residential Programs cnelson@mncee.org 612-335-5871 www.mncee.org 49 VV d AT'S U P VV TH OUR WEATHER*,) OUR CHANGING CLIMATE AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT Y sooilsoiedby THE EDINA ENERGY & ENVIROMENT COMMISSION eDL . EDINA HIGH SCHOOL 6754 VALLEY VIEW RD FICK AUDITORIUM DATE: March 14, 2013 TO: Energy and Environment Commission CC: Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager; Wayne Houle, Director of Engineering. FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: City of Edina Energy, Environment and Sustainability Goal Summary This report provides a summary of energy, environment and sustainability goals to support the 2013 EEC work plan item to integrate City environmental sustainability goals into City operations. Mission and Vision The Edina 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan includes concepts of "a livable environment," in which clean drinking water is called out, "effective and valued city services," that change as the needs of our customers change, "a sound public infrastructure" that forms a stable foundation of our City, "a balance of land uses," with an extensive network of parks and open spaces with transit friendly development, and "innovation," such as forming partnerships with schools and community organizations and seeking innovative ways to improve quality of life. The vision statement itself contains no specific mention of sustainability, energy efficiency or the natural environment and concepts such as pollution prevention, conservation and waste reduction are absent and air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat and other environmental services and are not mentioned. The vision statement: • Edina will be the preeminent place for living learning, raising families and doing business as distinguished by: 1) A livable environment 2) Effective and valued city services, 3) A sound public infrastructure, 4) Balance of land uses, and 5) Innovation The mission statement of the City recognizes land redevelopment's role in sustaining quality of life. • Our mission is to provide effective and valued public services, maintain a sound public infrastructure, offer premier public facilities and guide the development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and improves the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses Comprehensive Plan chapter 2 Vision, Goals and Objections, details examples of innovation and the nation leading land use examples of the Country Club, 50th and France, Southdale Center and Centennial Lake and Edinborough mixed uses. Objectives articulated in the 2020 Vision that tangentially relate to energy, environment or sustainability, include accommodating the efficient movement of people and goods in and around Edina and efficiently employing technological advancements to provide city services. Goals and PolicX Specific City Council resolutions, City ordinance and the comprehensive plan were reviewed. The following is a summary of types of environmental services mentioned, and specific goals articulated in each of the documents. 1. 2007-05 City Code Section 1502.03 and formation of the EEC a. No specific goals set. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-8%16-0371 9 Pax 952-826-0392 2. 2007-20 Endorsing US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement a. Preamble contains mentions of IPCC study, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, climate change, adaptation, planning for natural disasters, and the Kyoto Protocol. b. RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the U.S Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. c. RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments for sustainability or other appropriate organization for track progress and implementation of the U.S. Mayors Climate Agreement. (The wording of the ordinance seems to simply proclaim the work of the US Mayor group) 3. 2007-119 Joining ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Campaign a. Preamble assumes 2007-20 authorized city signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and that the City has committed to take a variety of actions including: i. Urging Federal policy and programs to meet Kyoto protocol goals ii. Promote land use and transportation policies that reduce GHG iii. Increase use of renewable energy and energy efficiency iv. Adopt purchasing and building construction and operations practices that reduce GHG v. Increase recycling rates and urban forest cover vi. Support education efforts to reduce GHG in the community b. RESOLVED, City will join ICLEI Cities Climate Protection Campaign and take a leadership role in reducing GHG in the community and promote public awareness about impacts of climate change. 4. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10 Energy and Environment a. Section 10.1 Introduction and History: This section describes a history of environmental action in Edina and the formation of the EEC. b. Section 10.2 Climate Change and Global Warming: includes trends and challenges, background describing ICLEI and Mayor Climate Protection resolutions, and 2007 State GHG goal are included. This section includes the following goals and policies: i. Conduct 2007 Baseline GHG emissions assessment ii. GHG reduction goal.- 15% reduction by 2015, 25% reduction by 2025, 80% reduction by 2050 iii. Develop a local action plan iv. Implement policies and measures in the local action plan v. Monitor and verify results of implementation c. Section 10.3 Energy: Describes environmental costs of current mix of energy generation, and states importance of developing local and renewable sources of electric power. Topics of biofuels and fuel use reduction are covered. This section includes the following goals and policies: i. Lead by example in conserving energy and developing renewable energy for city buildings, fleets and operations. ii. Promote community and business energy conservation including policies or incentives for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and reduction in GHG iii. Adopt purchasing guidelines for Edina that include renewable energy sources such as wind sourced electric or biofuels. iv. Promote educational programs to inform residents and businesses about energy v. Obtains grants for adoption of renewable energy sources and work to make these projects self-sustaining. d. Section 10.4 Solar Protection: Discusses potential for ordinances for solar protection and details 4 considerations and specific actions to develop further policy in this area. This section includes the following goals and policies: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-06-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392 i. Continue to enforce setback, building height and lot coverage ordinance that can serve as protection to solar access ii. Consider access to solar when reviewing variance applications iii. Promote use of passive solar in building design iv. Establish policies to restrict development for the purpose of protection solar access e. Section 10.5 Residential Energy Consumption: The section details the three major components of residential energy use; electric, heat and transportation and discusses energy trends and the Energy Star label. This section includes the following goals and policies: i. Inform residents on energy efficiency ciency ii. Create incentives to reduce residential energy use W. Promote LEED certification for new construction iv. Encourage green materials and tree planting to reduce heating and cooling needs v. Inform homebuilders and remodelers of energy efficiency f. 10.6 Commercial and Industrial Energy Consumption: This section discusses potential opportunity for efficiency in the commercial and industrial sector, as well as challenges. This section includes the following goals and policies: i. Promote renewable energy g. 10.7 City Energy Consumption: Describes the ability of the city to play a leadership role by reducing its own energy in buildings (56%), water and sanitary operations (337o), Fleet (5%), Street lights (2%) and employee commute (4%). This section includes the following goals and policies: i. Create benchmarks for current energy use in all public facilities and reduce to GHG reduction goal. ii. Establish policy for annual build energy use report and goals for reduction. h. Section 10.8 Waste: This section discusses the history of recycling in Edina, and describes the state of the industry and an increasing amount of waste generated. Trends in waste types and options for handling are discussed such as sources separated organic composting and electronic waste. This section includes the following goals and policies: i. Continue to operate a household recycling program encouraging reduction, reuse and recycling ii. Encourage backyard home composting of organic material iii. Support citywide collection of source separate organics iv. Encourage businesses to participate in MN chamber waste wise program v. Encourage proper disposal of household hazardous waste A Educate consumers to buy green vii. Recommend changes to City purchasing policy viii. Expand range of plastics that can be recycled ix. Encourage greater recycling among businesses x. Identify an Edina site that would produce renewable energy from City waste, such as an anaerobic digester. L Section 10.10.1 Air: This section describes coal burning and automobile traffic as major causes of impairment to generally good air quality and also details potential indoor air quality issues. This section includes the following goals and policies: i. Cooperate with statewide and regional air quality efforts ii. Encourage mechanical ventilation systems in new homes iii. Provide incentives for building practices that improve indoor air quality iv. Encourage tree planting to reduce noise and absorb carbon v. Consider vehicle idling ordinance, and promote `no idling' near school and public parking lots A Promote the use of renewable energy sources to reduce coal particulate in regional air ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-&-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392 5. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Related Chapters a. Chapter 4 — Land Use L Chapter 4.2 details natural features, landforms, water resources around which the built - environment is situated. The land use example of Southdale explains a context of using a massive heat pump, the largest in the world at the time, to "make our own weather at Southdale." ii. Chapter 4.3 details issues around zoning, mixed uses, and connectivity of transportation networks. iii. Chapter 4.4 includes goals to increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connects, and reduce dependence on the car, as well incorporating principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation, and long-term operation of new and existing development. This chapter also talks about the fundamental link between land use and transportation. b. Chapter 7 — Transportation L Goals include; Minimizing the impacts of the transportation system on Edina's , reducing the overall dependence on and use of single -occupant vehicles, Provide multiple travel options for transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists, and rideshare users, managing parking and encourage join and shared use of facilities, ride share, bicycle parking, and increased transit use, and providing efficient movement of goods. ii. Policies include; Use economic and environmentally sound management techniques for snow and ice removal, a variety of pedestrian and bicycle recommendations. c. Chapter 8 — Water Resource Management L This section covers the three major utilities that provide clean water service to Edina; Sanitary Sewer, Domestic Water, and Storm Sewer. Descriptions of the capacity of trunk sewers indicate that total water and sanitary use are a critical factor in the ultimate development density of the City. The storm sewer services of clean surface water and flood protection are described in detail and reference the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, Nondegradation of Waters Report, local watershed plans, individual lake studies, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. ii. Goals include; Eliminating inflow and infiltration of clean water into the sanitary system and protecting the health safety and welfare of citizens, modifying permitting and enforcement processes for construction activities, clean water education, providing clean, safe and high quality potable water, provide for sustainability of water supply through promotion of water conservation. iii. Policies include; Eliminating points of inflow and infiltration to the sanitary system, restricting discharge of clean water into the sanitary system, implementation of the various surface water and pollution prevention plans for clean water and flood protection and implementation of the Water Supply Plan to encourage a reduction in water demand. d. Chapter 9 — Parks Open Space, and Natural Resources L This section details links to surface water quality and parks operations, the restoration of natural resources, links to community health, active living goals and recreation places and space opportunities and regional amenities and trail networks. A variety of natural areas are catalogued, and environmental trends listed. ii. This section includes a "Natural Resource Conservation and Management" part that details water resources and natural areas, and a "Wildlife Management Plan" that details habitat for birds and wildlife, and conservation and restoration of natural areas. iii. Natural resource and wildlife goals include; Establishing a natural resource conservation and management plan for restoration and protection of natural resources. Ensure development ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov 9 952-8%-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392 includes provisions for protection of shorelines, creeks and lakes. Identify a master landscape planting plan for all Edina parks. Conserve and replace Edina urban forest. Maintain existing wildlife sanctuaries. Continue to improve shoreline fishing opportunities. iv. Natural resource and wildlife policies include; conducting a natural resource inventory of prairies, woods, wetlands, establishing a natural resource conservation and management plan, managing deer, goose and beaver population, and provide fishing opportunities. 6. 2011-37 Joining Greenstep Cities a. No specific goals or policy set; implementation actions intended to help City meet its sustainability goals. Challenge, competition, recognitions and ideas -network functions served as well. b. Preamble describes GHG reduction goals in 2007 Next Generation Act goals. c. Appoints the EEC to serve as the GreenStep coordinator. 7. Ordinance section 1502 — Energy and Environment Commission a. No specific goals or policies set; duties section gets into specific detail on actions to take. b. The Council, recognizing the need to support and advance environmental protection, conservation efforts including energy conservation, and waste reduction, and to improve thereby the overall welfare of the citizens of the City, does hereby establish the Energy and Environment Commission. c. Duties; The Commission shall: i. Examine and recommend best practices for energy conservation for Edina's citizens and businesses, including a `green" building code, use of Energy Star appliances, and other energy reduction targets. ii. Examine and recommend changes in City Government purchasing and operations to conserve energy. iii. Evaluate and monitor the provision of a residential recycling program. iv. Evaluate and monitor the provision of a privately provided solid waste program, as well as a reduction in municipal solid waste produced by Edina residents and businesses. v. Evaluate and encourage improvements in air and water quality. A Promote the establishment of targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the City's buildings, equipment and operations. vii. Educate the public about energy issues, reduction, conservation, reuse, recycling and environmental protection. viii. Examine and promote renewable energy options for transportation, heating, and cooling, and other energy uses. Attachments: Link to Vision and Strategic Plan Link to Comprehensive Plan Resolution 2007-20 Resolution 2007-119 Resolution 2011-37 Section 1502 Energy and Environment Commission ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-8K-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-20 v of ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYOR'S CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities, communities and federal government to take actions to reduce global warming pollution; and WHEREAS, the Inter -Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international community's most respected assemblage of scientists, has found that climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of global warming pollution; and WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate disruption include average global sea level increases of four to eight inches during the 20th century; an 40 percent decline in Arctic sea -ice thickness; and nine of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the past decade; and WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now predicted by the scientific community will cause extremely costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the world including: increased risk of floods or droughts; sea -level rises that interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of smog; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to address climate disruption, went into effect in the 141 countries that have ratified it to date; 38 of those countries are now legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than five percent of the world's population, is responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of the world's global warming pollutants; and WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and WHEREAS, many leading U.S. companies that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction programs to demonstrate corporate social responsibility have also publicly expressed preference for the U.S. to adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means by which to remain competitive in the international marketplace, to mitigate financial risk and to promote sound investment decisions; and City Hall 952-927-8861 4f301 WEST SOTH STREET 5fi FAX 952-£126-0390 TTY 952-1126-0379 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com WHEREAS state and local governments throughout the United States are adopting emission reduction targets and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan, coming from Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike; and WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large and small, are reducing global warming pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as reduced energy bills, green space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced traffic congestion, improved transportation choices, and economic development and ob creation through energy conservation and new energy teclulologies; and WHEREAS, mayors from around the nation have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as amended at the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, reads: The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement A. We urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States' dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels; B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes '1) clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries; and C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and communities such as: 1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan; 2. Adopt and enforce land -use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities; 3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit; 4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in "green tags" advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology; 5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money; 6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City us; 2 57 7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program or a similar system; 8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti - idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio -diesel; 9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy consumption; 10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community; 11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and 12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting and urges mayors from around the nation to join this effort. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the U.S. Conference of Mayors will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments for sustainability and other appropriate organization for track progress and implementation of the U.S. Mayorsli a Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayor's meetin*/l ATTEST: City Clerk r L� Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of February 6, 2007, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20. City Clerk 3 58 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-119 CITY OF EDINA o E t JOINING ICLEI CITIES FOR U, CLIMATE PROJECTION CAMPAIGN or I (.1' (-)I 1'.ci 111.1 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the City's best interests to take action to stop global warming; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2007-20 concerning the Cities for Climate Protection and the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The City Council approved signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and also requested that the new Energy and Environment Commission review the requirements of the ICLEI Cities for Climate Projection program and present a recommendation to the Council on whether to join ICLEI; and WHEREAS, in joining 28 other Minnesota cities and over 700 U.S. cities in signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, Edina has committed to take actions including the following: (1) Urging the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; (2) Promoting land use and transportation policies that result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions; (3) Increasing the use of clean, renewable energy and making energy efficiency a priority; (4) Adopting purchasing and building construction and operation practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; (5) Increase recycling rates and urban forest cover; and (6) Support education efforts about how to take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. WHEREAS, ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign assists cities to adopt policies and implement quantifiable measures to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and enhance urban livability and sustainability. The campaign is based around five milestones that local governments commit to undertake. The milestones allow local governments to understand how municipal decisions affect energy use and how these decisions can be used to mitigate global climate change while improving community quality of life. Edina would join more than 800 local governments participate in the CCP, integrating climate change mitigation into their decision-making processes WHEREAS, the Energy and Environment Commission passed a motion unanimously recommending that the City join ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Campaign at its meeting in September 2007. The Commission stated that ICLEI membership will enable the City to access the tools and technical assistance offered by ICLEI and learn from the experience of other member cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Edina City Council that the City of Edina join ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Campaign as a full member and, through its Energy and Environment Commission, take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the community and in promoting public awareness about the causes and impacts of climate change. ADOPTED this 51h day of November, 2007. i fir-( c _ 1 City Hall L 952-927-8861 4801 WEST 501H STREET FAX 952-1126-0390 59 lTY 952-826.0379 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55.124-1394 www.cityofedina.com RESOLUTION NO. 2007-119 Page Two STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of November 5, 2007, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this r ` c�ay of .=' 20_` Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk 60 4rfrli, RESOLUTION NO 2011-87 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EDINA o TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM o� Cly or EdIlM The GreenStep Cities program aims to provide Minnesota cities a clear pathway to greater sustainability based upon implementing best practices specific to Minnesota cities of differing sizes and capabilities. Due to the multiple environmental, economic and social dimensions of the best practices, leadership from a city's council is needed to oversee their implementation and coordination/integration with other city and community activities and with other governmental jurisdictions (such as surrounding townships) as appropriate. WHEREAS, uncertainty in energy prices and the transition away from fossil fuel energy sources present new challenges and. opportunities to both the City of Edina and to the economic health of its citizens and businesses; and WHEREAS, climate changes have been observed in.Minnesota and have the potential to negatively impact local, regional and state economies; infrastructure development; habitat; ecological communities, including native fish and wildlife populations; spread invasive species and exotic diseases; reduce drinking water supplies and recreational opportunities; and pose health threats to our citizens; and WHEREAS, local governments have the unique opportunity to achieve both energy use and climate change gas reductions through building and facilities management; land use and transportation planning; environmental management; and through economic and community development; and WHEREAS, efforts to address energy and climate issues provide an opportunity to move toward energy self-reliance and greater community resiliency; provide environmentally healthy and cheaper -to -operate public buildings; encourage new economic development and local jobs; and support local food and renewable energy production; and WHEREAS, the City of Edina has completed their Carbon Emissions Benchmark for the year 2007 and submitted the results to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Session Laws 2008, Chapter 356, Section 13 directed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") and Office of Energy Security in the Department of Commerce ("Office of Energy Security"), in collaboration with Clears Energy Resource Teams ("CERTs"), to recommend municipal actions and policies that work toward meeting the State's greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals; and WHEREAS, the Next Generation Act of 2007, Minnesota Session Laws 2007 - Chapter 136: (1) sets State greenhouse gas ernissions reduction goals of cutting emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2015, 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050; (2) sets a State energy conservation goal of achieving annual energy savings equal to 1.5 percent of annual retail energy sales of electricity and natural gas; (3) establishes an energy policy goal that the per capita use of fossil fuel as an energy input be reduced by 15 percent by the year 2015, through increased reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives; (4) establishes an energy policy goal that 25 percent of the electricity used in the state be derived from renewable energy resources by the year 2025; and City Hall 952-927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH sTri?EE'r FAX 952-826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 W4vW.Cily0ftIlna.Co111 TTY 952-826-0379 WHEREAS, a broad coalition of public and private stakeholders including the League of Minnesota Cities, the MPCA, Office of Energy Security and CERTs responded to the 2008 legislation by establishing the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program to provide a series of sustainable development best practices focusing on local government opportunities to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program assists in facilitating technical assistance for the Implementation of these sustainable development best practices; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program provides cost-effective sustainable development best practices in the following five categories: (1) Buildings and Lighting; (2) Transportation; (3) Land Use; (4) Environmental Management; and (5) Economic and Community Development; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Edina does hereby authorize the City of Edina (the "City') to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program. Be it further resolved that the City: 1. Appoints the Edina Energy and Environment Commission to serve as the city's GreenStep coordinator to facilitate best practice implementation; and 2. Will facilitate the involvement of community members, civic, business and educational organizations, and other units of government as appropriate, the Edina City Council, the Edina Energy and Environment Commission, the Edina Planning Commission, the Edina Transportation Commission, the Bike Edina Task Force, the Edina Community Health Committee and the Edina Park and Recreation Board, as well as Edina city staff In the planning, in the promoting and implementing of GreenStep Cities best practices; and 3. Plans to take actions to implement the following best practices: 41 Public Buildings & Lighting, H2 Efficient Private Existing Buildings & Lighting, 06 Comprehensive Plan, #11 Complete Streets, 912 Mobility Options, 415 Purchasing, 416 Urban Forests, H17 Efficient Stormwater Management, H18 Green Infrastructure, 019 Surface Water Quality, 922 Solid Waste, 1123 Local Air Quality, #24 Benchmanrs & Community Engagement (counts as two best practices), H25 Green Business Development, and 926 Renewable Energy, and 4. Will claim credit for having implemented and will implement in total a least 16 required and optional GreenStep best practices that will result in energy use reduction, ec l omic savings and reduction in the community's greenhouse gas footprint. A summary of the city's itlementation of best practices will be posted on the Minnesota GreenStep Cities web site. r l lt� ADOPTED this 181h day of January, 2011. Attest: J�&. 0i` Debra A. Mangen, ity I r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN its CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CLERK James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 18, 2011, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. ,0\ WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 20 4"__ -0 - *---- it Clark 62 City of Edina Boards and Commissions 1502.03 Section 1502 - Energy and Environment Commission 1502.01 Policy and Establishment. The Council, recognizing the need to support and advance environmental protection, conservation efforts including energy conservation, and waste reduction, and to improve thereby the overall welfare of the citizens of the City, does hereby establish the Energy and Environment Commission (the "Commission"). 1502.02 Duties. The Commission shall: A. Examine and recommend best practices for energy conservation for Edina's citizens and businesses, including a "green" building code, use of Energy Star appliances, and other energy reduction targets. B. Examine and recommend changes in City Government purchasing and operations to conserve energy. C. Evaluate and monitor the provision of a residential recycling program. D. Evaluate and monitor the provision of a privately provided solid waste program, as well as a reduction in municipal solid waste produced by Edina residents and businesses. E. Evaluate and encourage improvements in air and water quality. F. Promote the establishment of targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the City's buildings, equipment and operations. G. Educate the public about energy issues, reduction, conservation, reuse, recycling and environmental protection. H. Examine and promote renewable energy options for transportation, heating, and cooling, and other energy uses. 1502.03 Membership. The Commission shall consist of ten regular and two student members. History: Ord 2007-05 Adopted 04-03-07; Ord 2009-04, 03-17-09; Ord 2010-04, 03-02-10; Ord 2011- 02 deleted Section 146 replaced by Section 1502 Cross Reference: Section 1500 1502-1 Supplement 2011-01 63 REGIONAL INDICATORS INITIATIVE Measuring City -Wide Performance An inventory of Energy, Potable Water, Travel, Waste, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs for Twenty Minnesota Cities from 2008-2011 � III ENERGY WATER TRAVEL WASTE GHG EMISSIONS BRITISH THERMAL UNITS GALLONS VEHICLE AMLES TRAVELED POUNDS CARBON DIOADE EQUIVALENTS 2010 Prepared by: LHB Inc. with Orange Environmental Consulting February 2013 460RANGE DMIRONWIWAL DRIVEN 0MN. 64 ®Urban Land Inslilule Mimosa Acknowledgements Completion of this report and the accompanying spreadsheets required the gathering of over 4,200 data points from over 80 different sources to populate the 480 tables and charts contained in over 360 spreadsheets that included over 11,300 calculations. In addition to J. Michael Orange of ORANGE Environmental, LLC, who had primary responsibility for the reports, the following people helped make this possible: Cities: Steve Gatlin and Matt Fulton, Matt Stemwedel, City of Coon Rapids DyAnne Andybur, Joe Miller, Tari Rayala, City of Duluth Juli Seydell Johnson and Cherryl Mesko, City of Eagan Jackie Schwerin, City of Eden Prairie Ross Bintner, City of Edina Bart Fischer, City of Falcon Heights Steve Stadler, City of Hopkins Dean Zuleger, City of Lake Elmo Shann Finwall, City of Maplewood Brendon Slotterback, City of Minneapolis Julie Wischnack and Jeff Thomson, City of Minnetonka Jennifer Hassebroek, City of Oakdale Steve Devich, Pam Dmytrenko, and Robert Hintgen, City of Richfield Phil Wheeler, City of Rochester Anne Hunt and Jim Giebel, City of St. Paul Jessica Schaum, City of Shoreview Mark Casey, Jay Hartman, City of Saint Anthony Kathy Larson, Jim Vaughan City of St. Louis Park Ellen Richter, City of White Bear Lake Jennifer McLoughlin and Dan Hansen, City of Woodbury State and local government: Peter Ciborowski, Sig Scheurle, Chun Yi Wu, and Phil Muessig, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Gene Hicks, Minnesota Department of Transportation Larry Koshire, Chet Welle, and Craig Diekvoss, Rochester Public Utility Lorilee Blais, Western Lake Superior Sanitation District Tony Hainault, Hennepin County Linda Henning, Mark Filipi, and Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Brian A. Grzanek, Olmsted County Waste to Energy Facility Eric Schlacks and Jerry Pelofske, Duluth Comfort Systems and the Duluth Steam Plant Roy Fuhrmann, Metropolitan Airports Commission Kurt G. Claussen, Rochester International Airport Jim Sharrow, Duluth Port Authority Abby Finis, Minnesota Department of Commerce 65 Private Utilities: Jennifer Abbott, R. Scott Getty, Bob Torres, Michelle Swanson, Michael Anderson, Colette Jurek, Xcel Energy Timothy Doherty, Dakota Electric Association Mark Strohfus, Great River Energy William Traylor, Steven Guhanik, Thomas Dolan, Luke Litteken, and Robin Prow, CenterPoint Energy Jason Risdall, Minnesota Power Jeff Larson, Minnesota Energy Resources Timothy Johnston, NRG Energy Tom Keller, Connexus Suzanne Hansen, Macalester College Other: Rick Carter, Elizabeth Turner, Michael Petesch, Becky Alexander, and Molly Eagen, LHB Inc. Amy Malick and Alex Ramel, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Shane Stennes, University of Minnesota Nina Axelson, St. Paul District Energy Dan Voss, Anoka Municipal Utility 66 Table of Contents Page ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................1 1.0. Introduction ......................................................................................................................4 1.1. Project Overview......................................................................................................4 1.2. Purpose.....................................................................................................................4 1.3. Background..............................................................................................................5 1.4. Partners....................................................................................................................6 1.5. Participating Cities ........................................... 2.0. Greenhouse Gas Assessment...............................................................................................6 2.1. Sources and Activities..............................................................................................7 2.2. Required and Optional Emission Sources and Activities........................................7 2.2.1. Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities (Required Sources)................8 2.2.2. Additional Community Emission Sources and Activities (Optional Sources and Activities): ............................................................................... 9 2.3. The De Minimis Emission Threshold....................................................................10 2.4. Shared Sources and the Risk of Double Counting.................................................11 3.0. Purpose, Definitions, and Data Sources for the Greenhouse Gas Assessment..................12 3.1. Overall Purpose......................................................................................................12 3.2. Greenhouse Gas Definitions..................................................................................12 3.3. Data Sources, Methodologies, and Disclosure......................................................12 3.4. Sensitivity Analysis...............................................................................................13 4.0. Spreadsheet Descriptions...................................................................................................14 4.1. Initiative Summary.................................................................................................14 4.2. Detailed GHG Summary........................................................................................14 4.3. Costs....................................................................................................................14 4.4. Sector Shares..........................................................................................................15 4.5. Energy....................................................................................................................15 4.6. Electricity...............................................................................................................15 4.6.1. Definitions: ................................................................................................ 15 4.6.2. Xcel Energy's "15/15 Rule"......................................................................16 4.7. Natural Gas............................................................................................................17 4.8. Conversion Factors................................................................................................17 4.8.1. Conversion Factors for Utilities.................................................................17 4.8.2. Conversion Factors for Other Fuels...........................................................17 4.8.3. Energy Equivalents of Vehicle Miles Traveled.........................................17 4.8.4. Conversion Factors for the Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste .......... 18 4.9. Cost Factors...........................................................................................................18 4.10. Seasonal Cooling and Heating Degree Days.........................................................18 4.11. On -Road Transportation........................................................................................19 4.12. Vehicle Miles Traveled Charts..............................................................................19 4.13. Airports..................................................................................................................20 4.13.1. Community Share of the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Emissions...............................................................................................................20 4.13.2. Duluth and Rochester International Airports.............................................20 4.13.3. Reliever Airports........................................................................................20 iv 67 4.14. Waste and Wastewater Treatment.........................................................................21 Duluth 4.14.1. Emissions and Byproducts from Solid Waste Incineration .......................21 Eagan 4.14.2. Emissions and Byproducts from Refuse Derived Fuel Combustion .........22 Eden Prairie 4.14.3. Emissions from Landfilling, Recycling, ad Composting ...........................23 Edina 4.14.4. Wastewater Treatment...............................................................................23 4.15. Waste Composition................................................................................................23 4.16. Demographics........................................................................................................24 4.17. Precipitation and Potable Water.............................................................................24 4.18. Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Minneapolis Emissionsand Energy............................................................................................24 Tables: 1. Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Costs, and Forecasts........................................................25 2. Sensitivity Analysis...............................................................................................31 Participating Cities Coon Rapids Minnetonka Duluth Oakdale Eagan Richfield Eden Prairie Rochester Edina Shoreview Falcon Heights St. Anthony Hopkins St. Louis Park Lake Elmo St. Paul Maplewood White Bear Lake Minneapolis Woodbury v 68 Executive Summary Project Overview: The Regional Indicators Initiative (Initiative) measures annual performance metrics for approximately 20 Minnesota cities that are committed to increasing their overall efficiency and level of sustainability. The Initiative addresses two crucial components of planning for sustainability --carbon baseline assessments and annual indicators. The project collects the following four primary indicators for the four study years of 2008 to 2011 generated through the activities of the people who live, work, learn, travel, visit, and recreate within each city's geographical boundaries: • Energy: Total energy consumed for electricity production and the stationary combustion of natural gas and other fuels (coal, fuel oil, diesel, gasoline, propane) primarily for space heating. • Water: Potable water consumed. • Waste: Municipal solid waste managed via recycling, composting, combustion, and landfilling. • Travel: On -road vehicle miles traveled. Most of the indicators are expressed not only as annual totals, but are also broken down into residential and commercial/industrial uses, and are "normalized" in terms of per -capita, per - household, and per job calculations that enable them to be compared over time with the data from peer cities. The carbon baseline assessment (Assessment) prepared for each participating city measures the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with each of the above indicators as well as each city's share of airport -related GHG emissions, emissions associated with wastewater treatment, the associated energy consumption, and cost estimates (except airport share). The Initiative correlates these metrics with strategies to achieve savings in energy, water, vehicle miles traveled, and waste, and to reduce GHG emissions. Starting in Section 2 of this report, the focus is on the carbon baseline assessment portion of the Initiative. A description of the other aspects of this project can be found on the website that has been developed to communicate the findings of the Initiative, along with other written reports. Purpose: As described by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book, Reinventing Government (1992), "If you don't measure results, you can't tell success from failure. If you can't see success, you can't reward it. If you can't see failure, you can't correct it." Baseline assessments and indicators are useful. Planners need them, elected officials want them, and the future may see their development as a basic requirement of State and federal funding. Measuring the energy aspects of human activities and the associated GHG emissions offers a unique way to compare the effectiveness of various energy and sustainability best management practices. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy serve as common denominators for the comparison of kilowatts of electricity, natural gas therms, and gallons of liquid fuels consumed; as well as vehicle miles traveled, tons of waste processed, and gallons of potable water treated and distributed. 69 The Initiative supports planning for sustainability by defining a baseline, tracking a trajectory, and measuring outcomes of sustainable strategies at a citywide scale. By producing annually comparable indicators for twenty Minnesota cities – including 27% of the state's population – the success of the State's GreenSteps Cities Program can be measured. Additionally, the Initiative will indicate progress toward meeting the State's energy efficiency and GHG reduction goals, as defined by the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act of 2007. Background: The Initiative is an outgrowth of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's GreenStep Cities Program. To achieve GreenStep certification, a city must meet minimum requirements and choose from 28 best management practices designed to improve the city's sustainability. While the program tracks which practices cities have adopted, it does not currently have a method of tracking how effective these strategies have been at "moving the needle" towards sustainability. The project began with a pilot study that proved that the above four indicators of city sustainability can be measured, gathered, and analyzed annually in a reasonable period of time and at a relatively low cost. The Initiative was launched to continue this study at a larger scale, opening up the possibility to compare data across a range of Minnesota cities. Partners: The Initiative is a collaborative project managed by LHB and ULI Minnesota. The carbon baseline portion of the Initiative is primarily the work of ORANGE Environmental, LLC. Funding for the Initiative comes from several sources—grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; pro bono services from LHB and ULI Minnesota; and a $2,500 fee paid by each participating city. Participating cities: To date, the 20 following cities are participating in the Initiative (listed in order of population density within each category): • Central/stand-alone cities: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, Duluth • Inner -ring suburbs: Richfield, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, St. Anthony, Edina, Falcon Heights, Maplewood • Outer -ring suburbs: White Bear Lake, Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Shoreview, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Woodbury, Lake Elmo The ICLEI Community Protocol: This report focuses on the GHG Assessment portion of the Initiative. The has been prepared consistent with the most applicable and current guides available; namely, the U.S. ICLEI Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012 (ICLEI Community Protocol), and the Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Version 1. 1, May 2010 (Governmental Operations Protocol). Both of these documents were prepared by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), a United Nation's agency with a long and highly respected reputation for the development of such GHG assessment protocols. The ICLEI Community Protocol addresses the important questions of what to measure (called Activities and Sources) and how to measure it. To address small Sources and Activities and allow their exclusion, it sets a minimum size threshold, called de minimis. The Protocol also 70 describes methods to avoid double counting emissions for facilities that are shared among multiple communities. Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities and Sources: Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the Assessments include data regarding the following required Activities and Sources: • Use of purchased electricity • Use of fuel in stationary applications • Use of on -road motor vehicles • Use of energy in the production and distribution of potable water and wastewater treatment • Solid waste disposal These Activities and Sources are required because 1) cities are the level of government that has the greatest authority and responsibility over the emissions -generating activity; 2) the data needed to estimate emissions are reasonably available; 3) the emissions associated with the Activity tend to be significant in magnitude; and 4) the Activity is important and common across U.S. communities. Greenhouse Gas Terms: The greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N20), and methane (CHO are aggregated and reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which is a commonly used unit that combines greenhouse gases of differing impact on the Earth's climate into one weighted unit. Greenhouse gas emissions are referred to herein as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) or used interchangeably as simply greenhouse gases (GHG). Spreadsheets: The Assessment for each individual city includes 17 or more spreadsheets that disclose the data and data sources, conversion factors, and trend analyses particular to each city. The Table of Contents provides the list of spreadsheets and Section 4 of this report describes each one. 71 1.0. Introduction 1.1. Project Overview: The Regional Indicators Initiative (Initiative) measures annual performance metrics for approximately 20 Minnesota cities that are committed to increasing their overall efficiency and level of sustainability. The Initiative addresses two crucial components of planning for sustainability—carbon baseline assessments and annual indicators. The project collects the following four primary indicators for the four study years of 2008 to 2011 generated through the activities of the people who live, work, learn, travel, visit, and recreate within each city's geographical boundaries: • Energy: Total energy consumed for electricity production and the stationary combustion of natural gas and other fuels (coal, fuel oil, diesel, gasoline, propane) primarily for space heating. • Water: Potable water consumed. • Waste: Municipal solid waste managed via recycling, composting, combustion, and landfilling. • Travel: On -road vehicle miles traveled. Most of the indicators are expressed not only as annual totals, but are also broken down into residential and commercial/industrial uses, and are "normalized" in terms of per -capita, per -household, and per job calculations that enable them to be compared over time with the data from peer cities. The carbon baseline assessment (Assessment) prepared for each participating city measures the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with each of the above indicators as well as each city's share of airport -related GHG emissions, emissions associated with wastewater treatment, the associated energy consumption, and cost estimates (except airport share). The Initiative correlates these metrics with strategies to achieve savings in energy, water, vehicle miles traveled, and waste, and to reduce GHG emissions. Starting at Section 2.0, the remaining sections of this report. focus on the carbon baseline assessment portion of the Initiative. A description of the other aspects of this project can be found on the website that has been developed to communicate the findings of the Initiative, along with other written reports. 1.2. Purpose: As described by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book, Reinventing Government (1992), "If you don't measure results, you can't tell success from failure. If you can't see success, you can't reward it. If you can't see failure, you can't correct it." Baseline assessments and indicators are useful. Planners need them, elected officials want them, and the future may see their development as a basic requirement of State and federal funding. Measuring the energy aspects of human activities and the associated greenhouse gas emissions offers a unique way to compare the effectiveness of various energy and sustainability best management practices. Greenhouse gas emissions and 4 72 energy (expressed as kBtus) serve as common denominators for the comparison of kilowatts of electricity, natural gas therms, and gallons of liquid fuels consumed; as well as vehicle miles traveled, tons of waste processed, and gallons of potable water distributed. Recording these performance metrics is essential to promoting efficiency and sustainable change. The Initiative supports planning for sustainability by defining a baseline, tracking a trajectory, and measuring outcomes of sustainable strategies at a citywide scale. By producing annually comparable indicators for twenty Minnesota cities — including 27% of the state's population — the success of the State's GreenSteps Cities Program can be measured. Additionally, the Initiative will indicate progress toward meeting the State's energy efficiency and GHG reduction goals, as defined by the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act of 2007.1 Along with providing statewide benefits, the Initiative is valuable to participating cities. Taking inventory of the resources consumed at the community level will: • Highlight opportunities to save resources and money. • Provide a baseline for estimating the effectiveness of sustainability measures. • Enable comparison with future inventories and peer cities. • Inform subsequent analyses, plans, and policy decisions by the cities and others. • Improve the cities' competitiveness for federal and state funding opportunities that are targeted to cities that have taken steps to measure and improve their energy efficiency and reduce their carbon footprints. • Assist in promoting public understanding of the cities' effects on climate change. • Serve as a model for other regions. 1.3. Background: The Initiative is an outgrowth of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's GreenStep Cities Program. To achieve GreenStep certification, a city must meet minimum requirements and choose from 28 best management practices designed to improve the city's sustainability. While the program tracks which practices cities have adopted, it does not currently have a method of tracking how effective these strategies have been at "moving the needle" towards sustainability. ' In 2007, Minnesota approved one of the nation's most environmentally progressive energy laws. The Next Generation Energy Act required electric utilities to produce at least 25% of their total energy from new, renewable sources—wind, solar, hydro, biomass—by the year 2025. The law required Xcel Energy, the state's largest utility, to reach 30% by 2020. Currently, about 5% of the state's power comes from renewable sources. The act established nationally aggressive statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals (using 2005 as a baseline) of 15% by 2015, 30% by 2025, and 80% by 2050. 73 The desire to measure the impacts of sustainable practices led to a collaborative project, managed by LHB for ULI Minnesota.2 This team developed a pilot to determine what citywide data can be collected annually to effectively measure progress towards sustainability. Three cities – St. Louis Park, Falcon Heights, and Edina – volunteered to release their performance data for the period of 2008- 2010. The pilot study proved that the following four indicators of city sustainability can be measured, gathered, and analyzed annually in a reasonable period of time and at a relatively low cost: energy, water, vehicle miles travelled, and solid waste. The Regional Indicators Initiative was developed to continue this study at a larger scale, opening up the possibility to compare data across a range of Minnesota cities. 1.4. Partners: The Initiative is a collaborative project managed by LHB and ULI Minnesota. The carbon baseline portion of Initiative is primarily the work of ORANGE Environmental, LLC. Funding for the Initiative comes from several sources—grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; pro bono services from LHB and ULI Minnesota; and a $2,500 fee paid by each participating city. 1.5. Participating cities: To date, the 20 following cities are participating in the Initiative (listed in order of population density within each category): • Central/stand-alone cities: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, Duluth • Inner -ring suburbs: Richfield, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, St. Anthony, Edina, Falcon Heights, Maplewood • Outer -ring suburbs: White Bear Lake, Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Shoreview, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Woodbury, Lake Elmo 2.0. Greenhouse Gas Assessment: The remainder of this report focuses on the GHG Assessment portion of the Initiative. The carbon baseline assessments prepared for each participating city have been prepared consistent with the most applicable and current guides available; namely, the U.S. ICLEI Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012 (ICLEI Community Protocol), and the Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Version 1. 1, May 2010 (Governmental 2 From the LHB website "LHB is a multi -disciplinary engineering and architectural firm with 200 employees and offices throughout the Midwest. Founded in 1966, we serve a broad range of market sectors including Public Works and Structures, Pipeline, Industrial, Housing, Healthcare, Government, Education, and Commercial. LHB is dedicated to being environmentally responsible, reducing long term operating costs, and improving the quality of life for our clients." From the ULI Minnesota website: "ULI Minnesota is a District Council of the Urban Land Institute, a 501(c) (3) nonprofit research and education organization supported by its members and sponsors. Founded in 1936, ULI has more than 30,000 members worldwide representing the full spectrum of land use and real estate development disciplines, including developers, builders, investors, architects, public officials, planners, real estate brokers, attorneys, engineers, financiers, academics and students. As the preeminent, multidisciplinary real estate forum, ULI facilitates the open exchange of ideas, information and experience among local, national and international industry leaders and policy makers dedicated to creating better places." 6 74 Operations Protocol). Both of these documents were prepared by ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), a United Nation's agency with a long and highly respected reputation for the development of such assessment protocols.3 The ICLEI Community Protocol addresses the important questions of what to measure and how to measure it. These are no small matters. It has taken more than two decades of international collaboration to derive the best methods. The Protocol begins by clarifying the terms Sources and Activities and then divides emission sources and activities into two main categories, Required and Optional. To address small sources and allow their exclusion, the Protocol sets a minimum size threshold, called de minimis sources and activities. The ICLEI Community Protocol also describes methods to avoid double - counting emissions for facilities that are shared among multiple communities. Some carbon baseline assessments also include estimates of what is called upstream emissions or life -cycle emissions, which account for the embodied energy in materials. However, this potential source of emissions analysis has yet to be widely accepted for inclusion in GHG assessments because current methodologies result in questions regarding the double counting of emissions. Since it is not a Required Source or Activity according to the ICLEI Community Protocol, it is not included in the Initiative's assessments. 2.1. Sources and Activities: The following are the definitions of Sources and Activities from the ICLEI Community Protocol (p. 11): A Source is "Any physical process inside the jurisdictional boundary that releases GHG emissions into the atmosphere (e.g., combustion of gasoline in transportation; combustion of natural gas in electricity generation; methane emissions from a landfill)." An Activity is "The use of energy, materials, and/or services by members of the community that result in the creation of GHG emissions either directly (e.g., use of household furnaces and vehicles with internal combustion engines) or indirectly (e.g., use of electricity created through combustion of fossil fuels at a power plant, consumption of goods and services whose production, transport and/or disposal resulted in creation of GHG emissions)." While Sources are bound by the geography (the community boundary), Activities are not. 2.2. Required and Optional Emission Sources and Activities: The ICLEI Community Protocol divides the realm of possible emission Sources and Activities into two major groups: Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities (Required Activities), and Additional Community Emission Sources and Activities (Optional Sources and Activities). Section 4 below describes the 3 ICLEI, along with its several international partner agencies, is considered the international leader in carbon baseline assessment protocols for local governments. According to its website, ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability is "an international association of almost 1,000 local governments worldwide and more than 250 in the US that have made commitments to sustainable development and climate protection. ICLEI, founded in 1990 as the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives and now known officially as ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability, strives to advance solutions to global climate change through cumulative local action. ICLEI provides technical and policy assistance, software training, climate expertise, information services and peer networking to help members build capacity, share knowledge and implement sustainable development and climate protection at the local level." 75 various spreadsheets in the Assessments prepared for each city and identifies whether each emission category is a Required or an Optional Activity or Source. 2.2.1. Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities (Required Activities): To be consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the following activities must be included in a communitywide assessment (Required Activities). These Activities are required at the city scale because 1) cities are the level of government with the greatest authority and responsibility over the emissions -generating activity;4 2) the data needed to estimate emissions are reasonably available; 3) the emissions associated with the Activity tend to be significant in magnitude; and 4) the Activity is important and common across U.S. communities. The following descriptions are adapted from the ICLEI Community Protocol: • Use of purchased electricity: The Protocol requires the inclusion of power plant emissions associated with generating electricity used within the jurisdictional boundary of the community regardless of the location of the electricity generation facility. Local governments can often influence electricity use in local buildings through local building codes, financial incentives, minimum regulatory requirements, technical assistance, and other programs. The Assessments include all emissions from the consumption of electricity. • Use of fuel in stationary applications: Each Assessment must include the combustion emissions associated with fuels used in stationary applications (e.g., natural gas and fuel oil used in furnaces and boilers) within the jurisdictional boundary of the community. Local governments can often influence use of fuels in stationary combustion applications through the same tools listed above for purchased electricity. All Assessments include emissions associated with natural gas combustion and major fuel oil and coal users. • Use of on -road motor vehicles: Transportation fuels used by on - road motor vehicles comprise a major source of emissions. Local 4 Numerous best practices are available to help cities both mitigate and adapt to climate change and conserve energy, for example: • Adopt model sustainability plans, climate action plans, and peak oil action plans. • Adopt model ordinances. • Implement new urbanism, smart growth and smart shrinkage practices; implement transit -oriented development, complete streets programs, and travel demand management plans; and encourage traditional neighborhood design, mixed-use districts, and projects that meet the criteria of LEED for Neighborhood Development. • Require high-performance building design, benchmarking, and building recommissioning, especially for public buildings. • Encourage green power including renewable fuels, co -generation, district energy, and distributed generation. • Green fleets. • Require high-performance urban infrastructure. • Foster sustainable urban forests and biodiversity corridors. 76 governments can influence transportation emissions by developing bicycle, pedestrian and public transit infrastructure, and by focusing new development along transit corridors, among other strategies. The Assessments include emissions associated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT). • Use of energy in the production and distribution of potable water and wastewater treatment: The Protocol requires the collection of energy-related emissions associated with wastewater treatment and the production and delivery of potable water, regardless of the location of the water delivery and treatment infrastructure. Local governments can influence community water use through local building codes, promoting or providing incentives to foster conservation and efficiency, and through other programs and services. • Potable water: The Assessments include the amounts of potable water consumed within each city. While the electricity and natural gas consumed within each city to produce and distribute potable water are included in the citywide electricity and natural gas totals, they are not disaggregated for this analysis. A sampling analysis concluded that the emissions associated with these activities equal less than one percent of a community's total emissions, a level far below the de minimis threshold. • Wastewater treatment: The Assessments include each city's share of emissions associated with the treatment of its wastewater. Solid waste disposal: Although this Activity usually comprises a very small portion of a community's total emissions (generally less than 3%), the Protocol requires its inclusion because local governments can influence the amount of solid waste generated and sent to various disposal methods through their administration of garbage, recycling, and composting services. The Assessments account for end -of -life emissions (e.g., projected future methane emissions from landfills) associated with the disposal of waste generated by members of the community during the analysis year, regardless of disposal location or method (e.g., landfill, combustion, or biogenic treatment). 2.2.2. Additional Community Emission Sources and Activities (Optional Sources and Activities): The ICLEI Community Protocol recommends the inclusion of numerous optional emission sources and activities (Optional Sources and Activities) such as those associated with local rail travel, marine activities, and airplane travel. Expanding GHG inventory reporting to include Optional emission Sources and Activities is purely voluntary and is not required for a GHG emissions inventory report to be considered compliant with the Community Protocol. However, by 77 including a broader set of emission -generating Activities and Sources in their reporting, a local government can provide a more complete picture of how the community contributes to GHG emissions. The Assessments include one such Optional Activity—airplane travel— because for the 18 participating cities in the Twin Cities area, each city's share of the emissions from the Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport exceeds the 5% de minimis threshold described below. To be consistent for all participating cities, the Assessments for the cities of Rochester and Duluth also include their shares of airport emissions (Rochester International and Duluth International airports), and the Assessments for the host cities of the Reliever Airports include these Sources (St. Paul for the St. Paul Downtown Airport, Lake Elmo for the Lake Elmo Airport, and Eden Prairie for the Flying Cloud Airport). The Initiative does not include the optional activities associated with upstream emissions or embodied energy in materials, due to the previously mentioned risk of double counting. 2.3. De Minimis Emission Threshold: The ICLEI Community Protocol defines de minimis emissions as "a quantity of GHG emissions from any combination of sources and/or gases, which, when summed, equal less than five percent (5%) of community GHG emissions that are required to be included in the community GHG emissions report. These emission sources must be identified and described in the community GHG emissions report, but need not be quantified." This Assessment excludes several de minimis emission sources that are sometimes included in other assessments, such as emissions associated with marine and railroad operations, refrigerant and fire suppressants leakage, agricultural and livestock operations, and minor combustors of liquid fuels (e.g. fuel oil, propane, and diesel -powered heaters).5° 6 Other assessments for Minnesota cities have shown that these excluded emission sources are not likely to exceed the de minimis threshold. Other assessments also estimate emissions associated with large sources of CO2 such as the local production of concrete and fugitive emissions (primarily methane) associated with agricultural activities. There are no other known large sources of GHG emissions within the Project cities that are not already included. 2.4. Shared Sources and the Risk of Double Counting: Normally, all of the major emission Sources located within a community should be included in a GHG 5 The Assessment does include major fuel oil users and portside emissions from the Port of Duluth. The GHG assessment prepared for Duluth in 2008 estimated the GHG emissions for rail and marine operations and both were de minimis sources: Rail (1% of total), marine (0.3% of total). Source: City of Duluth Emissions Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast 2008, by Wenck Associates, Inc, March 2011. 6 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency provided 2001 data for liquid fuel and waste wood combustion for the 17 cities in the Initiative for which the MPCA had data. Only the data for Duluth was included in the Assessments. The GHG emissions associated with consumption levels for the other 16 cities were a fraction of 1% and therefore de minimis amounts. 10 78 assessment. However, certain Sources serve more than one community; for example, wastewater treatment plants, power plants, garbage processing plants, landfills, seaports, and airports. For these kinds of Sources, the Protocol provides methodologies to allocate the emissions among each community that uses the facility and to avoid double counting emissions. This issue can be confusing. At its heart is geography. For emissions from shared facilities that are included in an assessment, the location of the facility is not a factor. For example, the assessment will include the emissions on a per-MWh- consumed basis from the electricity utility regardless of the location of the power plant. The same is true for emissions on a per -ton -incinerated basis for garbage incineration, a per -gallon -treated basis for wastewater treatment, and the prorated share of airport -based emissions (which are based on each city's share of residential on -road trips to the regional airport). However, geography does come into play for the host city of a shared facility and, therefore, the issue of double counting becomes a factor. Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the Assessments avoid double -counting emissions for the following "shared" Sources: • Power plants: Because the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption within Minneapolis already account for the natural gas consumption required to generate the city's share of electricity production at Xcel Energy's Riverside Generating Station, which is located within the city, total natural gas consumption at the plant is subtracted from the Minneapolis citywide total.' The same is true for Rochester Public Utility's two natural gas-fired power plants that are located within the City of Rochester (Cascade Creek and Silver Lake), and Minnesota Power's Hibbard steam and power plant located in Duluth. • Processing municipal solid waste: The ICLEI Protocol describes methods to account for the GHG emission associated with processing municipal solid waste (MSW) in waste -to -energy garbage incinerators including the Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERC) located in downtown Minneapolis and the Olmsted County Waste -to -Energy Facility (OWEF) in Rochester. Section 4.12. provides detail regarding this matter. • Wastewater treatment plants: The Assessments account for each city's share of emissions associated with wastewater treatment. The Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro Plant), located in St. Paul, treats sanitary sewer discharges from communities throughout the region. Since it is a "shared" facility, the natural gas and electricity consumed by the Metro Plant are subtracted from the citywide totals for St. Paul to avoid double counting. The same is true in the cases of Rochester and Duluth, which also host wastewater treatment plants. • Landfills: Since the ICLEI Community Protocol classifies landfills as Required Sources, the Assessments account for the GHG emissions ' Although Xcel Energy's High Bridge Generating Station is located within the City of St. Paul, Xcel staff stated that the citywide natural gas consumption data the utility provided for the city does not include gas consumption at the High Bridge plant. Therefore, there is no double counting. 11 79 associated with the landfilling of municipal solid waste (MSW) on a per - ton basis for each city.8 • District energy facilities: There are 9 district energy systems that serve four of the participating cities in the Initiative. None of these systems serve multiple cities so they are not "shared" facilities. The Assessments account for all of the fossil fuels consumed by these facilities (natural gas, electricity, fuel oil, diesel, gasoline, and coal). Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the city totals do not count GHG emissions associated with biomass fuels ( i.e. the waste wood burned by St. Paul District Energy, the University of Minnesota's Southeast Steam Plant, and plants in Duluth) because combustion only releases carbon that was sequestered during the growth of the plant matter so the net GHG effect is zero. Airport share: The Minneapolis St. Paul International (MSP) Airport serves an area far larger than the Twin Cities. Through the GHG inventory completed for the airport and trip share analyses prepared by the Metropolitan Council, the GHG emissions associated with aircraft operations and ground operations at the MSP Airport can be attributed to the cities in the region, as described in more detail below in Section 4.13. 3.0. Purpose, Definitions, and Data Sources for the Greenhouse Gas Assessment 3.1. Overall Purpose: The goal of the carbon baseline Assessment prepared for each city is to estimate the GHG emissions associated with the activities of the people who live, work, learn, travel, visit, and recreate within each city's geographical boundaries. Each is a citywide assessment that includes all pertinent and available data for the study years 2008 to 2011. Each Assessment must be transparent and able to be replicated, updated, and compared with other similar baseline assessments. None includes a separate accounting for emissions associated with specific city governmental operations; however, these emissions are included in the citywide data. 3.2. Greenhouse Gas Definitions: The greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N20), and methane (CH4) are aggregated and reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which is a commonly used unit that combines greenhouse gases of differing impact on the Earth's climate into one weighted unit. Greenhouse gas emissions are referred to herein as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) or interchangeably as simply greenhouse gases (GHG). They are expressed in metric tons (tonnes), which equal 1,000 kilograms, or 2,204.6 pounds. The use of the term CO2 only refers to the individual greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. 8 Olmsted County owns and operates the Kalamar sanitary landfill located outside the City of Rochester. The landfill does not utilize any form of methane capture. According to Rochester city staff, the landfill partly functions as an ash landfill and to accept overflow waste when the Olmsted County OWEF incinerator, which is located in the City, is not accepting waste. Currently, with three burners and enough solid waste to feed two of them, the County is excavating trash buried in previous years and burning it at its garbage incinerator. 12 80 3.3. Data Sources, Methodologies, and Disclosure: All of the sources of data for the Assessment are transparent, fully identified, verifiable, and reliable. They consist of city and county records and staff reports; utility records and reports to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; internationally recognized methodologies and published scientific papers regarding the calculation of GHG emissions; data from federal and State agencies (US Department of Transportation, US Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities); and other peer-reviewed, published sources. The following Section 4.0. and each of the spreadsheets contain information regarding the methodology used to estimate GHG emissions. The attached table, "Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy," provides a summary listing of this information. To meet the requirements that the Assessments have full -disclosure and be replicable, all of the data used to estimate the GHG emissions and their energy equivalents are included in the spreadsheets. 3.4. Sensitivity Analysis: Virtually all of the data used to develop the Assessments were specific to each city or to the State of Minnesota, which helps to ensure their reliability and accuracy. However, there are a few important exceptions: Vehicle miles traveled: To derive the GHG emissions from vehicle use, the Assessment relies on the recent carbon baseline assessment prepared for the City of Minneapolis, the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Assessment, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12 (Minneapolis GHG Inventory). This analysis relies on scientifically determined GHG emission factors and Minnesota data (refer to Section 4.8.3. for additional information). However, to derive an annual ratio of GHG emissions per vehicle mile traveled, the analysis relies on the national driving characteristics used in the US Department of Transportation's Mobile 5 computer model as well as other national data. This is necessary because comparable State data is not available. The use of national data as opposed to State data may introduce error. Other minor sources: The Assessments include estimates of GHG emissions from minor sources with varying degrees of accuracy. Solid waste management is the primary category because, as described in Section 4.8.4. below, municipal estimates were based on the best available data, which is only at the county level. Some of the data for other minor sources such as stationary combustion of stationary fuels were not available for all study years so it was assumed in some cases that the figures were relatively stable over all study years. Since these minor sources represent less than two percent of total emissions, it is reasonable to assume that the Assessments would retain a statistically acceptable degree of accuracy. 13 81 To test this accuracy, a sensitivity analysis was prepared for the Initiative (refer to Table 2 at the end of this report) that estimates the margin of error in the Assessments. It approaches the matter from two directions: Worst-case scenario: Since the GHG-per-VMT ratio accounts for a significant part of the total community -wide GHG calculation (about 27% overall in 2010), the sensitivity analysis first incorporated very high margins of error for all of the other major data sources in the Assessments to determine the maximum allowable margin of error for the GHG-per- VMT ratio. The attachment's fourth column shows these figures. The conclusion was X15%. In other words, even if all of the other major data sources are off the mark by very large margins, the GHG-per-VMT ratio could still be off by up to f 15% and still yield a final GHG estimate that was within an acceptable f10% of the actual number. The attachment's fifth column derives these figures. A margin of error greater than f 10% would be unacceptable. • Most likely case: It is highly unlikely that all of the primary data sources have margins of error as calculated in the worst-case scenario. Rather, the data sources are reasonably reliable and the variation between the national fleet mix and the local fleet mix will probably not be substantial. This more reasonable case yields a likely margin of error that is about ±4%, a number well within the range of acceptability. The attachment's last column derives these figures. 4.0. Spreadsheet Descriptions: The following provides a brief description of the spreadsheets that comprise the Assessments for each individual city: 4.1. Initiative Summary: This spreadsheet is a brief stand-alone summary that includes all of the key citywide metrics along with demographic and weather information, costs, and comparisons of residential versus commercial/industrial consumption on per -capita, per -household and per job bases. It also presents both the total GHG emissions, as described in Section 2.0. as well as a subtotal of GHG emissions from the four key metrics. 4.2. Detailed GHG Summary: This spreadsheet is a more detailed complement to the Initiative Summary. It brings together all of the major components of the GHG Assessment. All of the data come from the other spreadsheets, so sources for the data can be found in the source spreadsheets. It shows the percent changes from year to year to facilitate trend analysis. It also lists key indicators; namely, city population change and per -capita emissions, the change in electric utility CO2 emission rate for electricity production (which is often a major factor in the change in electricity -related CO2e emissions), and heating and cooling degree days (which are factors that affect building energy consumption for cooling and heating). It also includes building energy data normalized for weather. 14 82 4.3. Costs: Protocols for carbon baseline assessments do not include the estimate of costs associated with the sources and activities included in the assessment; however, this cost data has been calculated for this Initiative. Cost estimates focus on the retail costs of energy to the consumer. In the case of electricity, natural gas, and other stationary fuels, the estimates include the average retail costs for all of the consumption costs and related fees. For vehicle miles traveled, the Assessments include the average statewide costs for the fuel only, not the full costs of driving.9 For waste management, the costs are statewide averages of the total retail service costs and fees for the various waste management methods. 10 For potable water production and distribution, only the energy costs are included (electricity and natural gas).The specific cost factors can be found in the Cost Factors spreadsheet for each city. 4.4. Sector Shares: The pie charts and bar charts provide snapshots of the relative share of GHG emissions, energy consumption, and costs in 2010 associated with the main sectors: electricity and natural gas consumption, vehicle miles traveled, airport share, and solid waste management. The bar chart compares the 2010 shares of GHG emissions, energy, and costs for the primary sectors of electricity, natural gas, and vehicle miles traveled; and the line charts illustrate change over time for this information. 4.5. Energy: This spreadsheet summarizes the GHG emissions associated with consumption of electricity, natural gas, major users of other fuels (fuel oil, coal, diesel, etc.) and shows the changes over time. These are Required Emission Sources. The spreadsheet also includes per -capita emission rates and energy consumption normalized for variable weather conditions. The Minneapolis GHG Inventory includes an additional spreadsheet that estimates the energy equivalents for the University of Minnesota's Southeast Steam Plant and major users of back- up fuels. The Duluth Assessment includes several additional sheets that estimate energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with the combustion of the various fuels used primarily to provide space heating (for both residential and commercial/industrial) in on-site furnaces and boilers and at the Duluth Steam Plant. 4.6. Electricity: Utility consumption data for all electricity customers within each city's borders are shown on this spreadsheet. Data are in two primary use categories: Residential and Commercial/Industrial. 4.6.1. Definitions: The following is the definition of a "residential customer" from Xcel Energy (other utilities use similar definitions): "A residential 9 The average statewide fuel costs for 2008 to 2011 range from 13 to 20 cents per mile. This is in contrast to the estimates of the US Internal Revenue Service, which also take into account costs of maintenance, depreciation, insurance, and repair, and total about 55 cents per mile. 10 Excluded are costs associated with household hazardous waste and problem materials ($225 per ton), source - separated organics ($220 per ton), and re -use and reduction efforts (which are assumed to be cost neutral). 15 83 customer is one using electric service for domestic purposes in space occupied as living quarters such as single private residences, duplex units, townhouse units, condominium units, apartment units, mobile homes, fraternity houses, sorority houses, and rooming houses. Domestic purposes or uses are domestic lighting, heating, cooking, and power service." Other consumption is in the Commercial/Industrial category and the small Public Street and Highway Lighting category. 11, 12 4.6.2. Xcel Energy's "15/15 Rule:" In September 2012, it was learned that Xcel Energy had instituted a new policy in Minnesota called the "15/15 Rule" that applies when the company responds to a request for consumption data. According to Xcel, the "15/15 Rule" has been adopted by Xcel and several utilities across the country to help protect customers' data privacy when it comes to aggregated reports going to a third party. The "15/15 Rule" has two main aspects. It prevents the utility from disclosing consumption data to a third party for any customer group with less than 15 customers. For example, if there are only 14 Commercial & Industrial (C&I) customers in a group, the utility cannot release the aggregate consumption data to a third party. The Rule also prevents the utility from releasing data for a group where an individual customer's data makes up more than 15% of the aggregated group total. For example, if there were 100 C&I customers on the report with an aggregate total consumption of 1,000 kWh and one of those customer's total was 150 kWh, the utility must remove that customer's data from the report. The utility must then repeat the process to determine if there is a customer with consumption at 127.5 kWh or more (15% of the remaining 850 kWh). Xcel stated that the consumption data for the following 11 of the project's 20 participating cities have data excluded because of the application of the 15/15 Rule (the four cities with excluded electricity and natural gas data are underlined for emphasis): • Coon Rapids: Commercial/Industrial wind • Ems: Commercial/Industrial gas and electric • Eden Prairie: Commercial/Industrial wind Edina: Commercial/Industrial wind 11 There can be a lot of "cross-over" between the residential and the commercial classifications in a single building. Consider this further clarification of Xcel Energy's methods of classification: "Apartment buildings often have individual electric meters for each unit, which are served on a residential rate and are included in the electric Residential class of service. They usually have another electric meter for laundry rooms and for common area lighting and cooling, served on a commercial electric rate and included in the Commercial class. These same apartment buildings often have one gas meter connected to a boiler and a water heater providing heat and hot water to all of the individual units. These meters are served on a commercial gas rate and are included in the gas Commercial class. However, if each unit has an individual gas meter serving only that unit's individual furnace and/or water heater, then it is served on a residential gas rate and included in the gas Residential class." 12 In the case of the Duluth Steam Utility, this district energy system provides approximately 12% of its steam energy to buildings with multifamily units and mixed commercial/residential uses. The rest goes to non-residential uses. The spreadsheet file for the City of Duluth allocates the related emissions, energy, and costs accordingly. 16 84 • Falcon Heights: Commercial/Industrial wind and electric • Maplewood: Commercial/Industrial gas and electric • Minnetonka: Commercial/Industrial wind • Oakdale — Residential wind and Commercial/Industrial wind and gas • Richfield: Commercial/Industrial wind • Shoreview: Residential and Commercial/Industrial wind • St. Louis Park: Commercial/Industrial wind • White Bear Lake: Residential and Commercial/Industrial wind The excluded wind -based consumption is not likely to comprise a significant portion of overall consumption (probably less than 1%) and its exclusion has no effect on GHG emissions. The Assessments for these cities disclose the facts of this missing data. For the four cities where Xcel has withheld data for natural gas or non -wind -generated electricity due to the "15/15 Rule," the extent to which the disclosed data undercounts the actual data and for which years the rule was applied is not known. As such, the validity of this reported data is questionable. 4.7. Natural Gas: This spreadsheet includes the consumption data provided by natural gas suppliers. Consumption is categorized for Residential and for Commercial/Industrial uses using similar definitions as defined above for electricity. Refer to the above list of cities for which Xcel Energy has excluded gas consumption data per the 15/15 rule. 4.8. Conversion Factors: There are several components to the Conversion Factors spreadsheet: 4.8.1. Conversion Factors for Utilities: Table 1 provides the GHG emission factors and their references for electricity, natural gas, and other stationary fuel consumption. The conversion factors for electricity depend on the fuel mix used by each electricity supplier (i.e. the shares of coal, natural gas, biomass, wind, geothermal, and hydro) and the fuel mix for purchased electricity. The factors vary over time according to the particular power company. The electricity utilities provided annual emission factors for CO2. Unlike electricity, the CO2 emission factor for natural gas is relatively stable over time and among all suppliers. The table uses the conversion factors for the other primary greenhouse gases, N20 and CH4, to calculate the total CO2 equivalent emission factor (CO2e). 4.8.2. Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources and Conversion Factors for Other Fuels: Tables 2 and 3 work together to provide emission factors for a variety of fuels, their energy equivalents (in kBtu), and the tonnes of greenhouses gases per kBtu. 17 85 4.8.3. Energy Equivalents of Vehicle Miles Traveled: Table 4 relies on the recent carbon baseline assessment prepared for the City of Minneapolis, the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Assessment, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12 (Minneapolis GHG Inventory). The Minneapolis GHG Inventory includes an analysis of the fuel consumption by type of fuel using the national fleet average fuel economy assumptions from the Energy Information Administration's 2012 Annual Energy Outlook and the national vehicle fleet mix from the Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software from ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability. 13 The national fuel consumption estimates were modified to account for Minnesota's requirement that all gasoline and diesel fuels sold in the State since 2006 include 10% and 5% ethanol respectively, and from 2001-2005 to account for the use of 10% ethanol in gasoline only (135 diesel was introduced State-wide in late 2005). This information enabled the estimation of the amount of energy associated with vehicle miles traveled in Minnesota. 4.8.4. Conversion Factors for the Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste: This final table, Table 5, addresses the two primary methods for processing municipal solid waste (MSW) via combustion. The Minneapolis GHG Inventory is the source of the data: • Mass burn incineration: The table includes the total MSW processed at the Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERC) and the associated GHG emissions. These data yield conversion factors to calculate GHG emissions on a per -ton basis for MSW processed at the facility. As described above, the table also includes the GHG emissions associated with the electricity and steam that are produced as valuable byproducts of the incineration. The same is true for the Olmsted County Waste to Energy Facility (OWEF) located in Rochester. Refuse derived fuel: The other major combustion method is to process MSW into refuse derived fuel (RDF) pellets that are burned in certified Xcel Energy power plants in Minnesota. Section 4.14 provides additional detail regarding RDF processing. 4.9. Cost Factors: As described above, the Project includes estimates of retail costs to the consumer of energy (electricity, natural gas, and other fuels), the costs of transportation fuels, the statewide average costs for the various waste management methodologies, and the energy costs (electricity and natural gas) associated with the production and distribution of potable water and each city's share of wastewater treatment. This spreadsheet provides the conversion factors for these cost estimates and the sources for the data. 13 Refer to: http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/tools/cacp-software. 18 86 4.10. Seasonal Cooling and Heating Degree Days: Because temperature has an effect on building energy consumption, this spreadsheet includes the normalization of the data pertaining to building energy consumption to better assess year-to-year changes and trends and allow peer -city comparisons. The `Base" figures, which are the 118 -year averages of seasonal Heating Degree Days and Cooling Degree Days (HDD/CDD) for the Twin Cities, serve as the bases for calculating the "Normalizing Factor" for all cities participating in the Project. For example, if the actual seasonal cooling degree day is 10% higher than the Base, the portion of electricity consumption attributable to air conditioning is decreased by 10% to be normalized. It is assumed that 25% of all electricity consumption is for air conditioning. The remaining 75% is unaffected. Similarly for heating, if the seasonal CDD figure is 10% higher than the Base, the portion of total natural gas consumption associated with heating (which is assumed to be 80%) is reduced by 10% for normalization. 4.11. On -Road Transportation: The ICLEI Community Protocol defines on -road transportation as a Required Emission activity, and describes two recommended methods to estimate emissions: the "Demand Method" and the "Polygon Method." 14 The latter method is used in this Assessment. • Translating Vehicle Miles Traveled into GHG Emissions: The first step is to measure the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within each city's boundaries. Fortunately, this is the easy step because the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) compiles accurate data regarding VMT on all of the roads in the State and aggregates them by cities and counties. 15 16 The Minneapolis GHG Inventory includes annual fuel consumption by fuel type, which permitted the estimation of a GHG emission rate that accounted for the Minnesota fleet mix and the State's biofuel concentrations, which are higher than the national average. This analysis yields a reasonably accurate estimate of the GHG emissions associated with vehicular travel. • Translating Vehicle Miles Traveled into Energy: The Minneapolis GHG Inventory's inclusion of annual fuel consumption by fuel type also permitted the estimation of an annual rate of energy consumed per 100 14 Compared to Demand Method, the Polygon Method will somewhat over -predict VMT for communities with a disproportionately large amount of through traffic on major roads and under -predict for the opposite case. The Demand Method has similar drawbacks. The authors of the Minneapolis Assessment compared both approaches and chose to use the Polygon Method. " Refer to: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/reports/vmt.html 16 MNDOT traffic engineers use a variety of devices to collect traffic data including permanently installed loop detectors every half mile on metro area freeways, Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) permanently installed in key locations throughout the state, and tube counts. The biggest share of the statewide counts comes from road tubes that are placed on the roadway for a 48-hour period. These counts are then adjusted to annual average daily traffic (AADT) by using factors that are derived from continuous counting sites. Historically, MNDOT has collected traffic data on all state roads on a two-year cycle, and on all county state aid roads, county roads, and municipal state aid streets on a two or four-year cycle. Once MNDOT engineers obtain the AADT for each segment of roadway, they can compute VMT by multiplying the AADT by the segment length. To get an AADT estimate for a year that a road was not counted, engineers use growth factors that are derived from ATRs and from other roads that are counted that year. For lower level roads that are not counted, engineers estimate the traffic volume. 19 87 million VMT as detailed above in the description of Table 4 of the Conversion Factors spreadsheet (Section 4.8.3.). 4.12. Vehicle Miles Traveled Charts: This spreadsheet includes three charts that help describe long-term changes in roadway transportation: total VMT, per -capita VMT, and per -capita GHG emissions associated with VMT. 4.13. Airports: How an airport is addressed depends on whether it is located within the community and how large it is. 4.13.1. Community Share of the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Emissions: The Minneapolis Saint Paul International (MSP) Airport is a major hub airport that serves an area larger than the Twin Cities region. It is contiguous to Minneapolis, St. Paul and the suburban cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Richfield. 17 According to the ICLEI Community Protocol, it is classified as an Optional Activity, which means on this basis alone, it could be excluded from this Assessment. However, the MSP Airport emissions are included because, for the 18 participating cities in the region, each city's share of these emissions exceeds the de minimis threshold of 5%. In other words, when allocating the MSP Airport's emissions to a city in the region, the amount is greater than 5% of that city's total emissions. If it were less than 5%, the city's share of the Airport's emissions could be excluded from its Assessment. However, to retain a consistent methodology, airport share is included for all participating cities. The Metropolitan Airport Commission conducted a GHG baseline assessment for the MSP Airport for the years 2005, 2007, and 2009.18 The Minneapolis GHG Inventory relied on this assessment and used linear regression analysis to estimate GHG emissions for 2006, 2008, and 2010. Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, each city's share of the MSP Airport's total emissions were assumed to be equal to the percent of residential home-based vehicle trips associated with the city that had either an origin or destination at the Airport. The Metropolitan Council calculated the "percent of city resident, home-based trips, as a percent of MSP total home-based trips" for 2010. This percentage was used for all study years because it was assumed that each city's share of vehicle trips would be relatively stable and that whatever variation did exist, it was well within the statistical significance of the Assessment. 4.13.2. Duluth and Rochester International Airports: Two other large airports serve cities participating in the Initiative: Duluth International Airport (DLH) and Rochester International Airport (RST). Data for the cities of 17 For more information: http://www.mspairport.com/directions.aspx 18 Refer to: Greenhouse Gas Report: Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 2010, http://www.mspairport.com/docs/about-msp/sustainability/MSP-2010-GHG-Report-Jan-2011.aspx. 20 88 Rochester and Duluth already capture ground-based emissions related to the operation of the airports including energy (electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil for buildings and facilities), vehicle miles traveled, municipal solid waste, and wastewater treatment. What remains are emissions related to aircraft operations. The Assessments for the cities include estimates that take into account aircraft fleet characteristics, average number of operations for each aircraft type from 2005 to 2011, typical fuel burn rates by aircraft type, estimated time of typical operation, and the GHG emission rate for aviation fuel. According to the ICLEI Community Protocol, these airports would be classified as Optional Sources because their emissions occur within the jurisdictional boundary of the host cities. They are too small for their emissions to be treated as "shared" or "allocated," and the estimates show that emissions are de minimis. However, since the "airport share" emissions for the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport are not de minimis, emissions for these international airports are included in the respective city's assessments to maintain consistency of methodology among all 20 participating cities. 4.13.3. Reliever Airports: The Twin Cities include eight smaller airports with one of their roles being to relieve the MSP Airport of some of the private aircraft and cargo operations. Three of these airports are located within cities participating in the Initiative: The St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field), the Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie, and the Lake Elmo Airport in Lake Elmo. Like the Rochester and Duluth airports, the ICLEI Community Protocol classifies these airports as Optional Sources because their emissions occur within the jurisdictional boundary of the host cities, and they are too small for their emissions to be treated as "shared" or "allocated." Again, since the "airport share" emissions for the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport are not de minimis, emissions for the reliever airports are included in the respective city's assessments to maintain consistency of methodology among all 20 participating cities. 4.14. Waste and Wastewater Treatment: The ICLEI Community Protocol classifies the emissions associated with the processing of solid waste as Required Activities. Although cities often gather selected data regarding city -sponsored residential recycling programs, counties are the primary compilers for comprehensive municipal solid waste (MSW) management data, which they report via Waste Certification Reports to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In order to estimate waste management amounts at the municipal level, it is assumed that on 21 89 a per -capita basis, city waste will be generated and managed at the same rates as those measured for the county. 19 4.14.1. Emissions and Byproducts from Solid Waste Incineration: The Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERO) is a waste -to -energy garbage incinerator located in downtown Minneapolis that processes municipal solid waste from communities throughout the region. Emissions come in two forms: biogenic and non -biogenic (or fossil -based emission).20 Only the non-biogenic/fossil-based emissions are counted for the purposes of carbon baseline assessments per the ICLEI Community Protocol. The fossil -based emissions include all of the CH4 and N20 emissions. To develop conversion factors for incineration that yield GHG tonnes per ton of waste incinerated at the HERC facility, this Assessment relies on the GHG assessment prepared for the City of Minneapolis, which, in turn, relies on the GHG assessment prepared for the HERC facility. HERC is a "shared" facility, so its emissions are allocated on a per -ton basis for all of the cities that send waste to it for processing. A second garbage incinerator, the Olmsted County Waste -to -Energy Facility (OWEF), serves Rochester. The facility produces power and sends the spent steam into the city's downtown district energy system .21 As with the HERC facility, the per -ton GHG emission rates were derived using the measured GHG emissions for the study years. • Natural gas consumption: To avoid double counting, the other fuel consumed at the two garbage incinerators, natural gas, is subtracted from the natural gas consumption totals for Minneapolis and Rochester. • Exported energy: The two incinerators are essentially co- generation power plants that produce two products: electricity that is dispatched to the electrical grid, and steam that is piped into the two downtown district energy systems. To highlight the value of the exported electricity and steam, the waste spreadsheets disclose the equivalent per -ton -incinerated GHG emissions associated for waste generated within each city. Consistent with the ICLEI Protocol, the GHG emissions associated with these byproducts are not treated as "negative" emissions in the calculation of the GHG emission rate. In other words, the Assessments only disclose for 19 The data for the City of Minneapolis is from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Assessment, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. 20 According to the ICLEI Community Protocol (Appendix E, p. 15), "The combustion of MSW components originally manufactured from fossil fuels (e.g., plastics, certain textiles, rubber, liquid solvents, and waste oil) results in fossil based CO2. The CO2 emissions from combusting the biomass portion of MSW (e.g., yard waste, paper products) are biologic in origin and are reported separately." 21 According to Rochester city staff, the chilled water and steam are actually more profitable for the plant than electricity. The steam is now being used to heat and cool the Rochester Community and Technical College campus and the downtown government, library and civic center campus. 22 90 informational purposes the GHG emissions attributable to the electricity and steam generated via the incineration of each city's portion of the waste stream. 4.14.2. Emissions and Byproducts from Refuse Derived Fuel Combustion: Two refuse derived fuel (RDF) facilities accept solid waste from cities within the region and process it into fuel pellets that are burned in certified Xcel Energy power plants in Minnesota (Elk River RDF plant and the Ramsey/Washington County RDF facility in Newport).ZZ According to the EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM), processing MSW into RDF yields a more uniform fuel that has a higher heating value than that used for a mass burn facility (such as HERO). The EPA and ICLEI-USA have yet to derive a GHG emission rate that applies to MSW that has been processed and burned in this manner. As a default until an acceptable rate is available, the GHG emission rate for the HERC facility is used. The per -ton GHG equivalent of the electricity byproduct is assumed to be the same as for exported electricity for the HERC facility. 4.14.3. Emissions from Landfilling, Recycling, and Composting: ICLEI's Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) Software provides estimates of GHG emissions associated with landfilling, which are primarily methane emissions from the anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. The CACP software accounts for this by incorporating the percent of the waste that is in landfills with methane recovery and the rate of recovery. The table in the Solid Waste spreadsheet accounts for that portion of the landfilled waste stream sent to landfills with no methane recovery by using a higher lifecycle -methane -production rate than waste sent to landfills with methane recovery. No GHG emissions are assumed to be directly associated with waste that is recycled or composted. As stated above, the Olmsted County Kalamar Landfill is located within the City of Rochester. The Assessment for the City discloses the landfill's non -biogenic emissions, consistent with the Protocol. 4.14.4. Wastewater Treatment: Consistent with the ICLEI Protocol, the Assessments include each city's share of the GHG emissions from wastewater treatment facilities. The Metropolitan Council provided total emissions for the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul and each participating city's percentage share of these emissions. The Rochester Water Reclamation Plant, located in Rochester, did not prepare a greenhouse gas assessment. Emission estimates for Rochester's wastewater are based upon the emission rate for the Metro Wastewater 22 A fraction of the MSW collected in Dakota County is processed by the municipal incinerator in the City of Red Wing. Since the Assessments assume that a city's waste will be processed at the closest facility, the combusted portion of the City of Eagan's waste is assumed to be sent to the closer RDF facilities rather than the Red wing incinerator. 23 91 Treatment Plant multiplied by the known wastewater flow for the city. The same is true for the Western Lake Superior Wastewater Treatment Plant in Duluth. 4.15. Solid Waste Composition: The CACP software takes into account the composition of the MSW. This spreadsheet includes the results of two waste composition studies for comparison purposes and to confirm the appropriateness of the use of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency study for this analysis. 4.16. Demographics: Many of the spreadsheets rely on per -capita, per -household, and per job calculations. This spreadsheet provides population, household, and employment data for each city; and county and regional populations. 4.17. Precipitation and Potable Water: The Assessments include data regarding annual precipitation and the distribution of potable water within the city. 23 As stated above, the ICLEI Community Protocol requires the collection of emissions associated with energy used in delivery of water used within the jurisdictional boundary of the community, regardless of the location of the water delivery infrastructure. Carbon baseline assessments prepared for the cities of Minneapolis and Burnsville indicate that the energy (electricity and natural gas) needed to treat and distribute potable water constitutes less than 1% of the total GHG emissions for each city (well under the 5% de minimis threshold). While the Assessments do include the electricity and natural gas consumption data associated with the distribution of potable water, the data are not disaggregated from the citywide consumption data for each city. 4.18. Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy: The intent of the following table is to provide a convenient summary that categorizes the various emission sources, lists their classifications per the ICLEI Community Protocol, and identifies the primary data sources. The table also includes the data resources used to calculate the energy value of the various emission sources and their costs. Tables 1. Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Costs, and Forecasts 2. Sensitivity Analysis 23 Each city provided its own potable water distribution data. 24 92 Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Costs, and Forecasts Emission Source, Activity, and Applicability Source Estimation MethodolM Chmi8cation of Data Electricity Consumption Required Activity All cities A, B MWh times conversion factors and energy content Shared Source Host city Minneapolis: Xcel Energy's A C Natural gas consumption subtracted from citywide Riverside Generating Station total to avoid double counting Shared Source Host city St. Paul: Xcel Energy's High Bridge A Natural gas consumption at the plant is not included in Generating Station the citywide totals. No risk of double counting A MW h times conversion factors and ener content Not a shared Source: Virtually 100% Host City Rochester: Rochester Public Utility of consumption within city limits. power plants: Cascade Creek (natural gas) and B Natural gas consumption subtracted from citywide Silver Lake (coal and natural gas) total to avoid double counting. Host city Duluth: Minnesota Powees Hibbard GHG emissions from natural gas and coal Not a shared Source: Virtually 100% steam and power plant provides electricity and A, B consumption subtracted from citywide total to avoid of consumption within city limits. p ri steam to the downtown district energy system double counting. . For coal -based energy, g short tons of coal consumed times conversion factors. Natural Gas Consumption, Required Activity All cities A, B Therms times conversion factors and energy content Fuel Oil Consumption, Optional Activity Cities that host major fuel oil users B, D Gallons times conversion factors and energy content Energy Consumption from District Energy Facilities, Required Activity The Assessment accounts for all fossil fuels consumed by district energy facilities (natural gas, electricity, There are 9 district energy systems that serve 4 of the participating cities. None of A, B, D fuel oil, and coal). these systems serves multiple cities so they are not "shared" facilities. Host city Duluth: Duluth Steam Plant The natural gas consumption is captured in Comfort provides steam to the downtown district A, B Systems data. For coal consumption: Tons of coal energy system. It bums natural gas and coal. times emission factor. For coal -based energy, short tons of coal consumed times conversion factors. E VMT by roadway by city Vehicle Miles Traveled, Required All cities BD, E, Calculation includes VMT, national vehicle fleet mix, Activity , average fuel economy statistics, Minnesota fuel characteristics Airports Emissions, O tional Source 25 26 Minneapolis Saint Paul International H Total MSP Airport emissions in report I Met Council analysis enabled allocation of MSP Airport; Optional Source (but exceeds de minimis threshold that Cities in the Twin Cities would permit exclusion) Airport emissions to each city in region. Rochester Intemational Airport; Host city Rochester Emissions are de minimis but since the "airport share" Optional Source (de minimis) emissions for the Minneapolis St. Paul aP Airport are not B, N, P de minimis, they are included to maintain a consistent Duluth International Airport; Host city Duluth methodology for all participating cities. Methodology: Optional Source (de minimis) Average operations for each aircraft type from 2005 to 2011, times typical fuel bum rates by aircraft type, Host cities: St. Paul (St. Paul Downtown), Twin Cities Reliever Airports; Eden Prairie (Flying Cloud), Lake Elmo (Lake B, Q P times estimated time of typical operation, times GHG Optional Sources (de minimis) Elmo) emission rate for aviation fuel. Rail Operations; Optional Source Duluth; the city with the most intense rail M Emissions are less than 5% de minimis threshold of 4,6 concentration city total; therefore, not included Seaport; Optional Source Host city Duluth: Duluth Port Authority M Emissions are less than 5% de minimis threshold of city total; therefore, not included 4.6 County per -ton, waste management methods apply to Solid Waste Management; Required All cities J each city on a per -capita basis to estimate waste Activit Activity amounts b processing methods combustion, YP g landfillin recycling) Combustion Calculate GHG emission rate (tonnes of GHG per ton Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERC) C of waste) times tons of waste for each city Byproducts of combustion Per -ton GHG value of electricity and steam disclosed users but not counted in emissions totals Shared Source Host city Minneapolis: HERC facility C Subtract 100% natural gas from citywide total to avoid double counting. Combustion Users of Red Wing garbage incinerator C Assume same GHG emission rate as for HERC Byproducts of combustion Combustion ICLEI Community Protocol does not yet have a GHG Users of Washington/Ramsey and Elk River C emission rate for RDF. Assume same GHG emission refuse derived fuel (RDF) facilities rate as for HERC and same electricity production rate Byproducts of combustion per ton of waste as for HERC. Combustion Users of Olmsted Waste to Energy Facility K Calculate GHG emission rate (tonnes of GHG per ton (OWEF) of waste) times tons of waste for city 26 27 Byproducts of combustion Per -ton GHG value of electricity and steam Shared Source Host city Rochester: OWEF Subtract 100% natural gas from citywide total to avoid double counting. Landfilling All cities F CACP software emission rates for landfilled waste times methane recovery rate times tons landfilled. Shared Source Host city Rochester: Olmsted County/Kalamar K, R Disclose non -biogenic emissions. Landfill (no methane recovery) For cities in Twin Cities region, city share of total Wastewater Treatment; Required emissions from the Metro Wastewater Treatment Activity All cities Plant. Since the plants in Rochester and Duluth do not have a GHG assessments, the per -gallon emissions rate for the Metro Plant is a surrogate for both cities. Shared Source Host city St. Paul: Metro Wastewater Subtract electricity and natural gas consumption from Treatment Plant L citywide totals. Electricity production for on-site use onl . Not a shared Sources Host city Duluth: Western Lake Superior A R Subtract consumption of natural gas and fuel oil from Sanitary District Duluth plant citywide totals. Disclose electricity production. Not a shared Source. More than 99% Subtract electricity and natural gas consumption from of users are within the city. Host City Rochester: Rochester Public Utility A, R citywide totals. Electricity production for on-site use only. The Minnesota GHG data was used to generate a base case scenario for 2005 for each city and then project Greenhouse Gas Emission Forecasts' All Q business -as -usual forecasts and a target forecasts for 2020 and 2030 for energy, VMT, and municipal solid waste. Cost estimations: s All cities Electricity S Electricity consumption by customer class times the average cost per MWh. Natural gas S Natural gas consumption by customer class times the average cost per therm. Average fuel prices by type of fuel for 2008 to 2011 Vehicle miles traveled T times total statewide consumption by fuel type, divided by total VMT yielded an average fuel cost per VMT per year. 27 28 Solid waste management U Statewide average per-ton costs per waste management method times tons managed. Potable Water Production and V Gallons of water times the energy cost factor Distribution (electricity and natural gas) The State forecasts include 2 future GHG emission scenarios for energy, travel, and waste: Business as Forecasts: All cities W, X usual and a reduction target based on the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act. These statewide forecast methods are applied to each city Excluded emission sources (de minimis)' 4 Back-up energy and on-site home heating: Minor users of fuel oil, diesel for back-up generators, propane, compressed natural gas, etc. Rail and marine vessel operations: The baseline assessment prepared for Minneapolis (Source C) calculated the GHG emissions associated with rail and marine operations within Minneapolis to equal less than 1% of total emissions. The same is true for Duluth per source M. Upstream emissions and imbedded energy in materials: This potential source of emissions analysis has yet to be widely accepted for inclusion in GHG assessments and it is not a Required Source according to the ICLEI Community Protocol. Current methodologies result in questions regarding the double counting of emissions. Information Sources: A Utility data International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol, Version 1. 1, May 2010, ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability, et B al. C City ofMinneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. Fuel oil consumption data for major users, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the USEPA's GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule: D http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgdata/index.html E Minnesota Department of Transportation F Clean Air Climate Protection software from ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability, et al. G Federal Energy Information Administration's 2012 Annual Energy Outlook. H Greenhouse Gas Report: Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 2010. The Metropolitan Council calculated the "percent of city resident, home-based trips, as a percent of MSP total home-based trips" for 2010. Each city's I share of vehicle trips was assumed to be relatively stable and therefore used for all study years. J MPCA SCORE Reports and county Waste Certification reports K U.S. EPA's Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (MRR): http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do L Metropolitan Council Environmental Services data for the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant. M City of Duluth Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast 2008, Wencke Associates, Inc, March 2011. N US Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS); ATADS Report - http://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/opsnet-server-x.asp 28 O Activity Forecasts Technical Report, Appendix A, HNTB Corporation. http://metroairports.org/MAC/appdocs/meetings/pde/agenda/pdq_a_1151 /Appendix_A_AviationActivityForecast_072712.pdf P Numerous sources were used to estimate the average fuel -bum rates by aircraft type for a typical operation. Q Final Minnesota Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2025, Center for Climate Strategies, March 2008 R U.S. ICLEI Community Protocol or Accounting andReporting o Greenhouse Gas Emissions October 2012 Xcel Energy provided average costs for NSP Minnesota customers for 2008 to 2011 for electricity and natural gas. For utilities other than NSP Minnesota, S average cost per customer for electricity and natural gas in Minnesota from 2008 to 2011 is from the US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum dcu smn a.htm. Fuel consumption by type of fuel and by year came from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12 (Source Q. Average fuel prices are from the following sources: Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices, Minnesota (all grades). T Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.ei&gov/dnav/peVpet_pri_gnd_dcus_smn_a.htm. Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, US Department of Energy, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/publications/search/keyword/?q=altemative%20fuel%20price%20report. Midwest #2 Diesel Retail Prices: Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emd_epd2d_pte_r20_dpg&tea U The source for statewide average per -ton costs by waste management method (recycling, combustion, and landfilling) is from "2008 Payments and Spending for Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) in Minnesota," Sig Scheurle, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Cost estimates for the production and distribution of potable water include the energy costs. The electrical consumption rate is based on the collective V experience of numerous US cities as reported in the Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant, by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA, "Low maintenance landscaping" model. Baseline analyses for other cities indicate that natural gas consumption costs related to the production and distribution of potable water constitute about 8% of total costs. Therefore, the electricity costs are divided by 0.92 to account for the natural gas costs. W j Final Minnesota Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2025, Center for Climate Strategies, March 2008 X IResidential water consumption targets based on the water saving strategies in: Vickers, Amy. 2002. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. WaterPlow Press. Amherst MA.). Notes: Consistent with the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012, ICLEI—Local Governments for I Sustainability USA (ICLEI Community Protocol), the emissions from certain facilities with region -wide user bases (e.g. power plants, solid waste and wastewater treatment facilities, and airports) are considered shared facilities and their emissions are allocated among the users of the facilities. To avoid double counting, utility -based energy (electricity and natural gas) for these facilities are subtracted from the totals of the host cities. 2 Per the ICLEI Community Protocol, the city totals do not count GHG emissions associated with biomass fuels, i.e. the waste wood burned by St. Paul District Energy and the University of Minnesota's Southeast Steam Plant. The Duluth and Rochester international airports are located within their respective cities. They are not considered shared facilities that have significant 3 region -wide user bases for this analysis for the following reasons: 1) The majority of the airport users have a direct economic and geographic relationship to their respective host cities. 2) They are small compared to the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport. 3) Emission estimates are de minimis for their respective host cities. This same argument holds for the Twin Cities reliever airports. 29 30 98 According to the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012, ICLEI—Local Governments for 4 Sustainability USA, de minimis emissions are "a quantity of GHG emissions from any combination of sources and/or gases, which, when summed, equal less than five percent (5%) of community GHG emissions that are required to be included in the community GHG emissions report." De minimis emissions are not required to be reported. The Western Lake Superior Sanitation District operates a wastewater treatment plant in Duluth. It currently treats wastewater from only one subdivision 5 outside the City limits, Chester Heights with about 90 households (about 0.2% of total City households). 6 The GHG assessment prepared for Duluth in 2008 (Source M) estimated the GHG emissions for rail and marine operations and both were de minimis sources: Rail (1% of total), marine (0.3% of total). The Minnesota data includes actual GHG emissions by major categories (energy, travel, and waste) for the State and 2 future scenarios: Business as usual 7 and a reduction target based on the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act, which established statewide goals of 15% by 2015, 30% by 2025, and 80% by 2050. It is assumed that each city forecast matches the State's percentage reduction projections. Cost estimations focus on the costs of energy to the consumer. In the case of electricity and natural gas, the estimates include the average retail costs for all of the consumption costs and related fees. For vehicle miles traveled, it includes the average statewide costs for the fuel only, not the full costs of driving. 8 For waste management, the costs are statewide averages of the total retail service costs and fees for the various waste management methods. Excluded are costs associated with household hazardous waste and problem materials ($225 per ton), source -separated organics ($220 per ton), and re -use and reduction efforts (which are assumed to be cost neutral). For potable water production and distribution and wastewater treatment, only the energy costs are included (electricity and natural gas). 30 98 Sensitivity Analysis I Tnd.-A- 1/7/11 99 Maximow Assessment Masimum Range Component Range of Components Data Sources Reliability of Component. Percentof Inventory Accuracy (*%) Tota[ GEIG Accuracy Energy consumption from utilities E#remely accurate data via individual meters. Electricity and natural gas 5% 65% 3.3% GHG emission factors from utilities Required by law to measure and report accurate Global warming potentials of GHG emissions E#remely accurate data via scientific measurements. Other fuels (fuel MN Pollution Control Agency, University of Ditm-ely accurate data via individual meters as reported to the oil, diesel, coal, Minnesota MPCA and provided by the U of M. n/a n/a negligible MNDOT measured and estimated VMT State -verified data dating back more than 2 decades. 5% 1.3% USDOT Mobile 5 computer model, MN Relies on national driving characteristics and fleet mixand the GHGfrom VMT 27%Department of Transportation, and scientifically determined GHGemission factors Minnesota fuel mix 15% 3.91/6 GHG from share of Airport data from multiple sources (refer to Reasonable estimates based on actual measurements, airport emissions IMethodology Summary) eaarapolation, and reasonable assumptions. 20% 6% 1 t 99 Regional Indicators Initiative Project: City of Edina Updated 2/18/13 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Residents Jobs Households Res 48,169 49,202 21,285 1 49,491 11 47,006 21,357 47,941 47,676 20,672 48,262 49,018 20,848 48,446 49,883 22,242 Po . Density (Res/sq. Mi.)Z 15.45 3,118 3,203 11 3,103 3,124 3,136 Energy''" Total 28,557,128 0 Total 119,577,756 143, 564,344 Cooling Degree Days° 109,094,041 859 774 1,088 1,129 0 Electricity (MWh) Res 200,029 195,768 204,219 205,232 0 Total Energy (kBtu/person/day) Com/Ind 406 497 391,663 400,521 392,499 0 497,839 Total 606,526 587,431 604,740 597,731 0 Heating Degree Days° F� 8,264 7,778 7,170 7,357 0 Therms Res 20,511,175 19,953,060 18,209,218 19,152,383 0 Com/Ind 18,249,768 17,815,739 16,804,837 17,804,060 0 Total 38,760,943 37,768,799 35,014,055 36,956,443 0 Total Energy (MMBtu) Res 2,517,717 2,615,489 0 3,211,945 3,117,927 3,047,062 Com/Ind 0 5,945,561 5,781,193 5,564,779 5,735,101 0 Total 28,557,128 0 Total 119,577,756 143, 564,344 Res. Energy(kBtu/household/day) 109,094,041 352 342 334 344 0 Com/Ind Energy (kBtu/job/day) 32 1T9 182 175 174 ' 0 Total Energy (kBtu/person/day) Cost($/person/year) Vehicle Miles Traveled 508,313,244 529,694 2,733,617 2,663,266 2,517,717 2,615,489 0 3,211,945 3,117,927 3,047,062 3,119,612 0 5,945,561 5,781,193 5,564,779 5,735,101 0 Precipitation (inches) 24.5 26.7 35.6 28.1 Potable Water (gallons) Res 529,013,678 541,999,198 0 2,366,627,816 2,449,963,912 Com/Ind 2,227,927,083 0 63,739,180 28,557,128 0 Total 119,577,756 143, 564,344 139,969,125 109,094,041 Res. Water (gal./household/day) 230 239 219 222 Com/Ind Water (gal./job/day) 32 34 30 30 Total Water al./ erson/da ► s (CO2e tonnes)8 0 Cost($/person/year) Vehicle Miles Traveled 508,313,244 529,694 497,839 518,991 506,846,665 498,974,345 498,974,345 Travel (VMT/Person/day) 229,828 .. .'.. �.. F� : 'i ,. �.a't. "-. ,; 0.0 1,789,110,326 1,860,343,660 1,651,793,579 1,685,927,885 0 577,517,490 589,620,252 529,013,678 541,999,198 0 2,366,627,816 2,449,963,912 2,180,807,257 2,227,927,083 0 0 0 0 Recycled 49,190,471 48,521,191 46,939,145 46,801,831 0 Combusted 40,161,825 36,329,293 29,290,800 33,735,082 0 Landfill 30,225,460 58,713,860 63,739,180 28,557,128 0 Total 119,577,756 143, 564,344 139,969,125 109,094,041 0 Waste(pounds/person/day) 9,886,696 11,559,869 11,173,863 9,000,367 of Primary Sources Greenhouse Gas Total 193,295,616 156,493,713 167,206,085 s (CO2e tonnes)8 0 Cost($/person/year) Energy 564,984 529,694 497,839 518,991 0 VMT 241,703 237,204 229,828 229,528 0 Waste 14,338 15,569 13,249 10,088 0 Total 821025 782,467 740,916 758,608 0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions tonnes)' Total 1 875,110 1829,4871 783,126 1799,905 C Costs Energy 90,482,396 77,810,250 78,377,690 80,841,342 0 Water 528,504 583,464 521,853 556,013 0 VMT 92,398,021 66,540,129 77,132,679 98,174,546 0 Waste 9,886,696 11,559,869 11,173,863 9,000,367 0 Total 193,295,616 156,493,713 167,206,085 188,572,268 0 Cost($/person/year) 100 Regional Indicators Initiative Project: City of Edina Updated 2/18/13 Keyed Notes on Sources: 1. Resident and household data from Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/data_download/DD_start.aspx; Job data from North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Quarterly Census of Employment Wages (QCEW), http://www. positivelym i nnesota.com/apps/I m i/qcew/Res u Its Disp. as px 2. Land area (first cell to right) from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.htmi 3. Sum of total energy consumed in city. Source: Xcel Energy for electricity and CenterPoint Energy for natural gas. 4. Heating and Cooling Degree Days from Degree Days.net, Station ID: KMSP, http://www.degreedays.net S. Precipitation from Minnesota Climatology Working Group, State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Zip code: 55436. http://climate.umn.edu/wetland/wetiand.asp. Potable water data from city. 6. Vehicle miles traveled from Minnesota Department of Transportation, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/reports/vmt.html. Vehicle fuel consumption by fuel type and GHG emissions rates for Minnesota from City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: AGeographk Inventory, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. 7. Per -capita amounts by waste management method for the county are used to estimate per -capita amounts for the city. Waste amounts from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency SCORE reports (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/data/score/recycling-and-solid-waste-data.htmi) and county Waste Certification reports. Waste composition from: Final Report Statewide MSW Composition Study: A Study of Discards in the State of Minnesota , Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 2000. 8. Subtotal of Primary Sources include greenhouse gas emissions from energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and solid waste management in units of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Primary sources for these estimates are as follows: a) CO2 emission factors for electricity and natural gas from the utility companies. Emission factors for other greenhouse gases from the International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol, Version 1.1, May 2010, produced by the United Nations, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability and The Climate Registry. b) Calculation of emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) involve four primary data sources and calculations that include VMT, national vehicle fleet mix, average fuel economy statistics, and Minnesota fuel characteristics. Data sources include the federal and State departments of transportation, the USEPA, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software, 2009, developed by ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability, and the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: AGeographk Inventory, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. c) Calculations of solid waste emissions from landfilling are based on the waste -in-place estimates from the Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software, 2009, developed by ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability. d) Calculations of emissions from the combustion of solid waste are from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. 9. In order to comply with the reporting requirements of the U.S. ICLEI Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions , October 2012, "Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions" also include the city's share of emissions from the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and from the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant. MSP Airport emissions are from: Greenhouse Gas Report. Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 2010. http://www.mspairport.com/docs/about-msp/sustainability/MSP-2010-GHG-Report-Jan-2011.aspx. The city's share of MSP emissions are from the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities. Source for the city's share of wastewater treatment emissions is the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. 10. Total costs include costs associated with the retail cost of delivered energy, the fuel costs for vehicle miles traveled; statewide average costs of solid waste management for combustion (incineration and RDF processing), recycling, and landfilling; and electricity and natural gas costs of producing and distributing potable water. Primary sources not already listed above include the following: a) Energy costs (electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, coal): Xcel Energy; the US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_smn_a.htm; and State Electricity Profiles 2030, January 2012, U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/pdf/sep2010.pdf; "Residual Fuel Oil Prices by Sales Type" Source: US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PRI_RESID_DCU_R20_M.htm. Prices for sub -bituminous coal from "Table 7.9 Coal Prices, 1949-2011." Source: US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/coal/data.cfm#prices b) Vehicle miles traveled costs: Total fuel costs are derived in Table 4b in the Conversion Factors spreadsheet. Primary sources: Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices, Minnesota (all grades). Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd—dcus—smn—a.htm; Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, US Department of Energy, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/publications/search/keyword/?q=alternative%20fuel%2Oprice%20report; Midwest #2 Diesel Retail Prices: Source: US Energy Information A¢encv. htto://www.eia.eov/dnav/oet/hist/LeafHandier.ashx?n=oet&s=emd eod2d ote r20 doe&f=a c) Solid waste management costs: Source: "2008 Payments and Spending for Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) in Minnesota," Sig Scheurle, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. d) Potable water costs: Energy consumption rate per gallon is based on the collective experience of numerous US cities as reported in the Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant, by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA, "Low maintenance landscaping" model. Cost per gallon based on the statewide average, commercial/industrial electricity rate (cited above). 11. In September 2012, it was learned that Xcel Energy had instituted a new policy called the "15/15 Rule." The new rule applies when there are less than 15 premises (customers) in a particular batch of information (i.e. Windsource customers) or if the usage for any one particular customer is more than 15% of the sample. In order to protect the data privacy of those customers, that data is excluded. The rule applies to the wind -based electricial consumption data for the Commercial and Industrial sector in the case of the City. The extent of the excluded data and for which years the rule was applied is not known. However, the wind -based consumption is not likely to comprise a significant portion of Commercial and Industrial consumption (probably less than 1%) and its exclusion has no effect on GHG emissions. 101 Sector Shares of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Solid Waste, City Share of _ Sector Share Airport Share, 13,249,2% Wastewater 50% 46% GAG, Energy, & Costs, 37,735,5% Treatment, 0 % __ 45% +� 2010 , 38% 1 Per -Capita Costs 40% _ 35%0 Percent of Total GHG V4,474 v 30% ■ Percent of Total MMBtu k It _ V ■ Percent of Total Costs 25% 20 Energy (MMBtu) 15% 10% y 18 5% ° % Sector Share of Greenhouse Electricity Natural Gas Vehicle Miles Gas Emissions, 2010 (tonnes) Traveled 102 Per -Capita 250P� Per -Capita $4,500 Per -Capita Costs z0 Greenhouse Gas Energy (MMBtu) $4,000 —Total 18 Emissions (tonnes) 200 $3,500 16 14 Total -Total $3,000 ��-Residential Energy Residential150 12 -Residential $2,500 -CommerciaU Ind. Energy 10 -CommerciaU Ind. 100 -Commercial/In d. $2+000 - VMT Fuels 8 $1,500 6 -Vehicle Miles ,�...,.,.�.. .>» .. ,..... -air(incl. airpport)ort) 50 -.. _. ...._ Traveled $1>000 Solid Waste 4 Solid Waste $500 Management 2 -Water & Wastewater 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 Ener 102 Vehicle Miles Traveled Charts Updated 8/14/12 12,000 560.0 550.0 540.0 530.0 M 520.0 11,500 510.0 _ 1 e 500.0 s 490.0 5.2 480.0 470.0 460.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (millions of miles) (dashed trend line) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 12,000 5.6 11,500 5.2 11,000 _ M _ _ s 4.6 e Per -Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions (dashed trend line) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 10,500 S 10,000 Per -Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (dashed trend line) 9,500 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 T 0 n 5.0 _ n e 4.8 _ _ s 4.6 4.4 4.2 Per -Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions (dashed trend line) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 103 ft, Minnesota Pollution Attachment A: Application Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North for Local Government Air Pollutant St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Emissions Reduction Projects Instructions on how to complete the application are located on the last page of this application form. Please read the Request for Proposals (RFP) before submitting this application. Part I Applicant / Project Information Applicant name (city, township, county): Project title: of Edina Electric Vehicle Purchase Project summary (limited to 1000 characters): The City of Edina has taken a leadership role in energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction in City operations. This grant will enable the City to upgrade the purchase of a standard pool vehicle to an electric vehicle. City vehicles are highly visible in the community and this will be the first on -the -road electric vehicle in the City fleet. The vehicle will be styled to draw attention to the alternative fuel source using a partial vinyl wrap to better serve as a demonstration of technology through its presence in the community. Community engagement and education will be enhanced and through reporting operating and maintenance costs on the City website. Experience from this grant will inform future city fleet purchase decisions. Project type ❑ A. Installation of electric vehicle charging station(s) for fleet or public use. ® B. Purchase of a plug-in electric vehicle or plug-in gas/electric hybrid vehicle for fleet use. ❑ C. Implementation or enhancement of route optimization software for snowplows, street sweepers or other vehicles. ❑ D. Development of a fleet plan for increasing the average fuel economy. ❑ E. Education of employees, including developing a performance tracking system for efficient driving habits, including idling reduction. Part 2 Experience and Qualifications 2a. Applicant's experience/qualifications: Purchase of a new vehicle, tracking ongoing maintenance and operation expense and sharing results on the City of Edina website are routine functions of City staff and not proposed as grant reimbursable expenses or match. 2b. If applicable, significant participant(s)/partners experience/qualifications: Part 3 Project Work Plan 3a. Attach a project work plan (use format provided in Instructions, below) and Budget (Attachment B). 3b. Attach a projected environmental outcomes table (use format provided in Instructions, below). 104 Part 3 Project Work Plan Task 1: Purchase Electric Vehicle (EV) Description: City fleet manager will purchase new Nissan Leaf and commission a stylized partial vinyl wrap that draws attention to the Edina EV web presence. Timeframe: June 2013 Person(s) Responsible: Fleet Manager Task 2: Track 3 -year Cost of Operation Description: City fleet manager will track total cost of operation and maintenance Timeframe: June 2013 — June 2016 Person(s) Responsible: Fleet Manager Task 3: Web Presence Description: Restyle www.edinagogreen.org or new domain with EV content and progress report on this grant with links to other City sustainability initiatives such as the Home Energy Squad and Edina Emerald Energy Program. Timeframe: June 2013 — June 2016 Person(s) Responsible: Environmental Engineer Task 4: Evaluate and Report Description: Report ongoing cost of operation, environmental benefit and ability of car to meet user needs on City website. Produce final report to grant authority that includes metrics on cost/benefit and environmental services as well as narrative describing user and community feedback received during the course of the 3 year reporting period. Timeframe: June 2016 Person(s) Responsible: Environmental Engineer Projected Environmental Outcomes Project type Estimated fuel reduction (gal. of gasper r.) Estimated GHG reduction (lb of CO2 uiv/ r.) Estimated economic savings (total dollars •5 year Electric Vehicle 535.7 5,583 $6371 Track and share results via website - - - Estimate summary attached; "Alternative Vehicle Decision Tool." Part 3b Project Budget Summary — See Attachment B for detail. Task 1: Purchase Electric Vehicle GRANT: $5000 MATCH: $26,745.20 + $700.00 Task 2: Track 3 -year Cost of Operation GRANT: $0 MATCH: $0 ADUL IN-KIND: 8 hrs/year Task 3: Track 3 -year Cost of Operation GRANT: $0 MATCH: $0 ADUL IN-KIND: 16 hrs/year Task 4: Evaluate and Report GRANT: $0 MATCH: $0 ADUL IN-KIND: 8 hrs/year in first 2 years, 16hrs in year 3. 105 Enter appropriate values in the yellow, cells. As you enter your data, note on the graph which type of vehicle has low accumulated discount costs in a particular year of operation (the lower line means cheaper). This spreadsheet Is designed for sensitivity analysis—changing variables to determine the effects of these changes. Try different values in the yellow cells, such as purchase price of the vehicle and how many miles you expect to drive per year, and see what effect they have on cost and greenhouse gas (G HG) emissions. This tool downloaded from the University of Minnesota Extension publication, Should I buy an alternative vehicle?, at extension.umn.edu/energy/vehicle. Accumulated discounted costs of ownership and operation of conventional, CargmdPwOornlurrsear hybrid, electric, and extended range electric vehicles by year P. Negotlated purd-, prim (pWs charging dation) 4 Down payment (ifOnanmd) or ental pursAase prim S Months of mr loan - Interest rrte on mr loan Income 1. credits for hyb,W, eleark and charging station EaL Ronp EMmk Cost of battery servim assumed In years $ 1535 Miles per gallon of gasoline Mlles per kilowatt-hour of e1—k ty S Expected miles per year 15'alo Annual miles from grid A—idty ilea or equal to above figure) 3S6.A GrdMWWoolfdrypdot /Ndsmaa go ISHO ondullownow mWdh Gmollne(H.) price for life of mr $5.75 Addalonal cost of premium gasoline per gallon $US Electricity orice (andi oer kWh for life of car $0.1150 Ga engine malntenanm per 3000 mike "a." personal dla Mrrte appil.d to mm 3.5016 GHG emissions Der Myyh of electkity (tons) 17814 MDohlymrlo,rol a(Nf{namxd) Mo,ft oppoduney cost ddown parm4M or Nmhme Avxme mammtAMpaane lsayrnanh Avxop monthly mSlm and—.—cosh Average_Mhly aWNkal payments Mem mycam(ownwsNp,fend,.n0mmanmskdammarNal Anmml Smoane-6.(1.1.) Aomori Nedddty loop from Sold (kWh) Mmol GKG emhabm from SmoanaoW (lb. of Cot eq.W.) MmolGNG emlobootekorkit vxi (Ib.of CA2NuN.) tool Mnad GNG amlasbM (w. a mz equwaknq Mnwl GNG rductbn In matmktonnm pnypr HhctNe COZ ten dnnedto sexbv ownkM r0arndhwvehWe $ z4,aoD S 31,7m S S - iaD 360 4.5036 •50x S - $ 4AN 25 ao Imtraaa Affects fuel cost of only) 'our. perMWh (see EIMriWNG tel S 111.80 4 !Saes S S - S 157.41 EaL Ronp EMmk $- $ 1535 '�S!■ ala�Mal�E. 516, 19 S- S 55.55 S 11537 $ 3S6.A Annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Ib.) S 735 ENptrk a IlalafO I/a/11651 ■11 6,630 535.7 ttybde - �2. Cor-nebnal ;750 1;263 - 2'oo0 4,000 61000 6,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 SAN ' 12AU on - z.53z 106 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 33,230 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 Ywnofop—d- Accumulated discounted costs of ownership and operation In year 15 EaL Ronp EMmk $- EkMrk '�S!■ ala�Mal�E. 516, 19 S- Convantbml $33,230 $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,0110 Annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Ib.) Ext. Mop Ehelk ENptrk a IlalafO I/a/11651 ■11 6,630 ttybde - �2. Cor-nebnal - 2'oo0 4,000 61000 6,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 .M., Minnesota Pollution Unit Control Agency 11. Match amount (Cash) 520 Lafayette Road North ($5,000 maximum St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 GRANT REQUEST Attachment B: Budget for Local Government Air Pollutant Emissions Reduction Projects Amount requested Qty Unit I. Grant Funds 11. Match amount (Cash) III. Match amount (In-kind) ($5,000 maximum Task 1: Purchase Nissan Leaf 1 Each $5000.00 $26745.20 $31745.20 or 75% of total cost, 1 + Matching funds/value of In-kind $ Task 2-4: $ whichever is less) $ 5000 1 (25% minimum match required) 27,445.20 1 = Total project cost: 32,445.00 SUMMARIZED BUDGET BY COST CATEGORY Add rows as necessaryfor each Task provided in the Work Plan from Attachment A —Application Qty Unit I. Grant Funds 11. Match amount (Cash) III. Match amount (In-kind) IV. Total Budget Task 1: Purchase Nissan Leaf 1 Each $5000.00 $26745.20 $31745.20 Partial Vinyl Wrap and Artwork 1 Each $700.00 $700.00 Task 2-4: • Labor— Environmental Engineer 80 Hours 80 hours • Labor - Fleet Manager 32 Hours 32 hours Grand Total $5000.00 $27,445.20 112 hours $32,445.20 MATCH INFORMATION Nature of Match (cash or In -Kind) Description: For In -Kind, describe For Cash, list source(s) Amount/Value Secured? (Y or N) Cash — Purchase Engineering Equipment Budget $26,745.20 Y Cash — Purchase Engineering Equipment Budget $700.00 Y Staff Time Public Work Personnel Budget Add'I in-kind Y 1. Applicant is the sole source of matching funds for the proposed project? ® Yes [—]No If no, do the application materials identify secured matching funds? ❑ Yes ❑ No 107 CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION March 2013 — February 2014 Term DRAFT SCHEDULE Item Workplan WP1 City building energy project WP2 Energy efficiency community outreach WP3 Promote EEEP WP4 Integrate comp plan Ch 10 into city operations WP5 Surface water quality policy WP6 Update recycling license ordinance WP7 Greenstep reporting WP8 Purchasing policy February 14, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: Presentations: Philipp Muessig March 14, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: WP2 Outreach around April 18 Edina Forum Presentations: City of Edina Communications Staff April 11, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: W136 Recommendations for residential and commercial recycling, review goals and methods, and education and outreach report. May 9, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: WP1, WP3 Results and decisions around contract methods, planning, scope and budget for building energy. Presentations: CEE, Xcel, Centerpoint June 13, 2013 Meeting CANCEL June 18, 2013 JOINT EEC / CC Worksession July 11, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: WP4 and WP8 Presentations: St. Cloud / Burnsville / Minneapolis examples of organization? City of Edina Staff August 8, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: W133, WP2 Review program implementation, education and outreach coordination, review proposal to expand to residential application of PACE finance tool. Presentations: Applied Energy Innovations, PACE stakeholders, CEE/Port Authority? Edina Staff September 12, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: Presentations: October 10, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: WP5 108 Presentations: Local watershed districts, UMN Academic, Staff November 14, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: Create 2014 Workplan December 12, 2013 Meeting Item of focus: WP7 Prepare and review annual reports, awards, recognition. LIST OF OTHER MEETING IDEAS / PRESENTATION City of Eagan composting example Edina website revisions / communications Purchasing policy implementation ETC/EEC Joint meeting/ Green streets Urban ecology, nutrient flows, water quality Pollution prevention / swppp / whpp /noaa atlas 14 MCES sanitary service and environmental goals and implementation CIP/Budget 109 From: Sent: To: Subject: Ross, Here are some stats for those pages from Jan. 1 to Feb. 28: Page Title Page Views Unique Page Views Average time on site EEC Main 140 119 2:00 Edina Energy Challenge 10 10 2:46 Energy Events 11 11 0:30 EEC Meetings (listing) 111 91 0:33 EEC Working Groups 21 17 0:53 Go Green Edina 89 75 1:45 Green Business 159 123 1:20 Green City Hall 23 23 2:25 Park Your Car 9 9 0:25 Protect Our Water 8 6 0:52 Environmental Engineering Main 53 46 0:28 Water Resource Management Plan 43 38 6:20 Flooding Resources 29 21 1:42 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 28 26 1:44 Health Main 210 173 1:13 Recycling & Solid Waste Main 90 57 1:13 Recycling 782 696 2:33 Solid Waste 375 304 1:52 Forestry Main 21 21 0:54 Buckthorn 23 19 2:08 Care of Trees Along City Streets 13 12 2:27 Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt 11 11 2:30 Emerald Ash Borer 12 11 2:33 Tree Trimming 8 8 7:08 Jordan Gilgenbach, Communications Coordinator 952-826-0396 1 Fax 952-826-0389 1 Cell 612-363-3564 jgilgenbach@EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov „•,� ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business 1 110 From: Ross Bintner Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:30 PM To: Jordan Gilgenbach Subject: RE: January 2013 Website Report Jordan, Can you summarize a few environment related pages for me with this type of data? I am hoping to present it at the March 14 EEC. • EEC • Energy Events • Edina Go Green • Environmental Engineering and 3 subpages • Health and recycling pages • Forestry section of parks Ross Bintner, PE, Environmental Engineer 952-903-57131 Fax 952-826-0392 RBintner(dEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families 6z Doing Business From: Jordan Gilgenbach Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:49 PM To: ED Everyone Subject: January 2013 Website Report Good afternoon! We use Google Analytics to monitor activity on our website. Activity on the City of Edina website reflected the following activity during the month of January 2013: Total visits: 67,385 Number of unique visitors: 48,016 Average time of each visit: 2 minutes, 25 seconds Total page views: 184,535 About 61 percent of visitors came just one time. Nearly 39 percent visited more often. Besides the home page, the most visited page was the Edinborough Park home page with 14,601 page views. Other top pages included the following (with number of page views): Edinborough Park General Info — 8,598 Edinborough Park Adventure Peak — 7,758 Centennial Lakes Park Ice Skating — 7,659 Centennial Lakes Park -6,830 Police Chief Jeff Long's blog post "Why We Leave Our Squad Cars Running" — 6,001 Edinborough Park Virtual Tour — 3,398 Edinborough Park Adventure Peak Birthdays — 3,096 Braemar Arena — 2,734 Braemar Golf Courses — 2,652 The most frequently accessed PDF among visitors was the Oct. 17, 2010 Crime Activity Report. Other frequently downloaded files included the following: 2 111 Dan Patch Study Application for Appointment Planning Commission Variance Traffic Complaint Form 2007 Edina Bike Plan Planning Bike Plan Report Aug. 5, 2012 Crime Activity Report Community Street Map 2012-2016 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Engineering and Public Works Petition Form The most popular blog category was Police Chief Jeff Long's blog, followed by the Parks & Recreation blog and City Manager Scott Neal's blog. The most popular blog posts were "Why We Leave Our Squad Cars Running," "Wow! A Lot Of Gun Permits" and "Friendly Rivals" The most searched for words or phrases were "jobs," "dog license," "employment," "wedding," "ice skating," "recycling," "zoning map," "permits" "search" and "zoning." Speak Up, Edina Activity on the "Speak Up, Edina" website reflected the following activity during the month of January 2013: Total visits: 919 Number of unique visitors: 572 Average time of each visit: 3 minutes, 52 seconds Total page views: 3,958 More than 52 percent of visitors came just one time. About 47 percent visited more often. Nearly one third of the site's activity was centered around the residential redevelopment discussion. The Name Your Neighborhood discussion accounted for about almost 20 percent of the site's traffic. Ecommerce Besides the building permits sold through LOGIS applications, ecommerce on our site totaled more than $37,583 in January. Top sales were Braemar Arena program registrations, $10,609; Art Center program registrations, $6,801; dog licenses, $6,200; building e -permits, $6,177; and Adventure Peak birthday parties, $5,620. Webstreaming We have been streaming video on our website through Granicus for several years. In January, there were 589 views through Granicus. The most requested videos on Granicus in January were the Jan. 22 City Council meeting, 86; Dec. 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, 55; Jan. 9 Planning Commission meeting, 43; Jan. 8 City Council meeting, 36; January episode of "Beyond the Badge," 36; Jan. 17 Transportation Commission meeting, 30; Jan. 23 Planning Commission meeting, 23; April 17, 2012 City Council meeting, 22; Dec. 11, 2012 City Council meeting, 18; and Dec. 18, 2012 City Council meeting, 18. We have been streaming all programming on YouTube since January 2011. In January 2013, there were 3,450 views on the City's YouTube channel. The most requested videos on YouTube in January were the late January "Agenda: Edina" segment on the Hornets Nest opening, 611; early January "Agenda: Edina" segment on the Edina Nordic Ski team, 202; Braemar Golf Dome commercials, 167; November 2012 "Beyond the Badge" segment on the grandparent scam, 157; late January "Agenda: Edina" episode, 138; late January "Agenda: Edina" segment on the Mayor visiting a 5th grade class, 124; Braemar Golf Dome commercial No. 1, 101; Edina boards and commissions video, 77; underage drinking public service announcement, 77; and Braemar Gold Dome commercial No. 2, 52. Suggestions, Comments Please continue to review our new website and think about ways to improve it. If you have suggestions or questions, contact Communications & Technology Services Director Jennifer Bennerotte, 952-833-9520. If you have things that need to be fixed, please write to helodesk@EdinaMN.sov 3 112 MEMO Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371 w9j A1f,� Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com O Is r r` t., 0 Date: March 5, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Re: Turf Establishment in Reconstruction Projects Summary: Staff is recommending the use of hydro -seed for the 2013 projects with a revised contractor maintenance period of 90 -days. Staff feels hydro -seed will better meet the long term needs of the property owners for turf establishment and at the same time reduce special assessment amounts. Background Information: Lawns disturbed by roadway construction have typically been restored with the use of sod. The contractor was responsible for the establishment of sod for a period of 6 weeks (42 days) from the date of installation. After the 6 week maintenance period the property owner is then responsible for the sod. During 2012, residents and staff noticed portions of the sod installed during the 2011 construction season were not healthy. 2012 saw drought conditions for most of the year. Most of the new sod areas were brown and dormant and/or dead. This reflects badly on the construction project even though continued maintenance of the sod is the responsibility of the homeowner. Staff hosted a "Construction Contractor Think Tank" meeting. The goal of this meeting was to determine the advantages and disadvantage of sod and hydro -seeding. We wanted a turf product that property owners could perform the proper maintenance on to establish long lasting turf. Staff invited industry experts for this meeting held on January 7, 2013 at the Public Works and Park Maintenance Facility. Attendees included turf experts, contractors, and consultants familiar with City of Edina practices and clients. Topics discussed included watering, maintenance periods, proper long term care, turf color, installation techniques, drought, fertilizer, chemical treatments, equipment, installation dates and foot traffic. The 2013 bid documents require the Contractor to place 6 -inches of topsoil in a level and smooth manner free of stones or other debris that are over 1.5 -inches in diameter. Seed, fertilizer, and soil stabilizer is placed in a uniform manner. The Contractor is responsible for mowing the new turf during the maintenance period. The quality of the turf establishment is reviewed after the maintenance period. If the maintenance period does not end by Nov. 1, the remaining balance of the maintenance will carry over and begin on April 15 of the following year. Any turf areas' deemed unacceptable at the end of the maintenance period will be re -hydro -seeded at no cost to the City. Staff realizes that resident education and communications is a key component in the establishment of turf using either method; sod or hydro -seed. Construction update letters and City Extra e-mails will 113 MEMO be used to educate the residents on proper maintenance procedures. Turf maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner after the 90 -day turf maintenance period. Table I. Comparison of Sod and Hydro -Seed Item Sod Hydro -Seed Cost $5.00 - $6.00 / SY 25-50% less than sod Water Equal Equal Drought Resistance Less than seed Tolerant of dry conditions Maintenance Identified by Property Owner Appears complete, less realization of maintenance needs Maintenance needs are apparent Color Some issues, defined line between new and existing turf Tends to blend with existing turf Appearance Appears instant Established over time Installation Labor intensive Simple Installation Dates Not recommended during July / early August but can be accomplished Not recommended from June I until July 20 but can be accomplished Installation Maintenance Period 90 days recommended 90 days recommended Foot Traffic Not an issue As little as possible until germination Repairs — Cost $5.00 - $6.00 / SY 25-50% less than sod Repairs — Installation Labor intensive Simple Repairs — Disturbance Some Minimal Environmental Footprint Sod is planted off-site, harvested, transported, and replanted. Hydro -seed is planted on-site and remains on-site. Based on a research with other communities that use hydro -seed and experience on the West 44th Street project and on information learned from the "Think Tank" session, staff is recommending the use of hydro -seed on the 2013 projects with a revised maintenance period of 90 -days. Staff feels hydro -seed will better meet the long term turf needs of the property owners. \\Ed-nt8%engpubwks1PMCENTRAL SVCS%ENG DIVV1R0JECTS\C0NTRACTS\2013\ENG 13-1 Mendelssohn A\ADMIN\MIS0Sod_Seed Mtg\20130227 WH Memo Turf Est in Recon Proj.do" 114 Energy and Environment Commission 2013 Annual Work Plan 2013 New Initiative Target Completion Date December 2014. Budget Required Staff time in Staff Support Required Council Approval Significant: Comprehensive City Building Energy Efficiency Project. 2013 and Capital Building Services Manager, Follow on success of 2011-2012 energy efficiency Improvement Environmental Engineer. retrofit project by exploring more in-depth building Project in 2014 Moderate: Legal Review. efficiency projects. Apx. $1-2M • 2013: Investigate various contracting Depending on methods including State Guaranteed selected Energy Savings Program (GESP) contract, contracting select preferred contracting method, method, this commission investment grade audit, choose project can be scope of project, and set budget for 2014. made cash flow • 2014: Contract for Energy efficiency positive using retrofits on various city buildings. financing paid by energy savings. Progress Report: 115 116 Plans will include budget significant recommendations for future operations. Progress Report: Update Recycling Ucensing Ordinance Provide detailed review and recommendations to City Council to promote year round organics recycling, earlier yard waste pickup and identify any inconsistencies in how customers are being charged for services, fees and surcharges, the notice for billing rate changes and fees for discontinuing service. Recommend ordinance language and/or program related to commercial Progress Report: December 2013 Staff time. Significant: Community Health staff 117 Green Steps Reporting — review ongoing activities in GreenSteps program. Purchasing Policy — Review policy implementation 118 1\LLr1l! I T IA & L p� �j,�`. EDINA HIGH SCHOOL FICK AUDITORIUM - 6754 VALLEY VIEW RD b-7 RM. RESOURCE FAIR 7 - 8:30 P.M. PRESENTATION featuring PAUL DOUGLAS METEOROLOGIST & ENTREPRENUER FIND OUT... Is this normal weather or is something else going on? What is climate science telling us? What are the "fingerprints" of climate change? LEARN... How to reduce our carbon footprint Actions we can take that make a difference WIN... Drawings throughout the evening for Home Energy Squad visits. and J. DRAKE HAMILTON SCIENCE POLICY DIRECTOR, FRESH ENERGY sponsored by EDINA ENERGY & ENVIROMENT COMMISSION IC COMMUNICATIONS & TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOOLS TO ASSIST BOARDS & COMMISSIONS About Town About Town is a quarterly publication of the City of Edina produced to keep Edina residents informed of new activities and programs that are important to them. Articles of interest about citizens and community history are included as well. The magazine is distributed to all households in the City and most businesses, with a total circulation of 25,000. The next deadline is April 19, for the summer (July 1) issue. Videos The news program "Agenda: Edina" airs daily at 2:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and covers items that have been on the agendas of the City Council, as well as its advisory boards and commissions, during the weeks. The program is hosted by Dorothea Martti, a former CBS affiliate anchor. The show is typically taped the Thursday following each City Council meeting. The Communications & Technology Services Department's video production staff is able to produce public service announcements and promotional videos upon request and as time allows. City Extra City Extra is an email notification service available through the City's website. There is a list of subscribers for news about "Advisory Boards, Commissions and Committees" with 646 subscribers. There is no limit to the number of messages that can be sent. Social Media The City uses Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Four Square. The City has general Facebook and Twitter accounts for its departments and boards and commissions. All messages are posted by the City's Communications & Technology Services Department staff. Website The City of Edina's website, www.EdinaMN.gov, is its primary online communications tool. Content is generated by individual departments, facilities and groups, but is edited and posted by the City's Communications & Technology Services Department staff. Boards and commissions are required to post the names of members, agendas and meeting minutes. Staff reports should also be posted for each meeting. Generally, agendas and staff reports are to be posted the Friday before a meeting. The City currently has seven blogs. Additional blogs can be added as there is interest and available staff time to write them. The City has a new civic engagement site, "Speak Up, Edina." CITY OF EDINA COMMUNICATIONS & TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2013 PROJECT DEADLINES About Town Jan. 18 for Spring/April 1 issue April 19 for Summer/July 1 issue July 19 for Autumn/Oct. 1 issue Oct. 18 for Winter 2013/Jan. 1 issue City Slick Feb. 1 for February issue Feb. 25 for March issue April 8 for April issue May 6 for May issue June 3 for June issue July 1 for July issue July 29 for August issue Sept. 9 for September issue Oct. 7 for October issue Nov. 4 for November issue Dec. 2 for December issue Edina Liquor Uncorked Jan. 4 for Feb. 1 issue March 1 for April 1 issue May 3 for June 1 issue July 5 for Aug. 1 issue Sept. 6 for Oct. 1 issue Nov. 1 for Dec. 1 issue "Agenda: Edina" Scripts are generally prepared by the 1St and 15th of every month. Story ideas and calendar listings should be turned in before then. "Beyond the Badge" Scripts are generally prepared by the 15th of every month. Story ideas should be turned in before then. "Enterprise Edina" Scripts are generally prepared by the 15th of every month. Story ideas should be turned in before then. giving my services ror tree to whrclt clear.y nad taken a month enterpi,sing reporting wan ex- wntinue to cosy: nwiiey. w+.: r e".. for-profit media outlets so they to write." posing corruption in Cambodia. to find ways of paying for it. Have a Green CarsDirty Dirt Little Secret -'l%l3 Little Bjorn_Lomborg gas -powered car accounts for 17% the average speed is close; to six Those 8.7 tons may sound liken of its lifetime carbon -dioxide emis- miles per hour—a bit faster than considerable amount, but it's not. cars are promoted as sions. When an electric car rolls your average jogger. The current best estimate of the Electric the chic harbinger of an off the production line, it has To make matters worse, the global warming damage of an ex - environmentally benign already been responsible for batteries in electric cars fade tra ton of carbon -dioxide is about future. Ads assure us - of "zero 30,000 pounds of carbon -dioxide with time, just as they do in a $5. This means an optimistic as - emissions," and President Obama emission. The amount for making cellphone. Nissan estimates that sessment of the avoided carbon - has promised a- million on the a conventional car. 14,000 pounds. after five years, the less effective dioxide associated with an electric road by 2015. With sales for 2012 batteries in a typical Leaf bring car will allow the owner to spare coming in at about 50,000, that million -car figure is a pipe dream. Producing and Charging the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emis- Consumers remain wary of the electric cars means heavy cautioned last year: "Don't Drive sions market, credit for 8.7 tons of cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery= carbon -dioxide emissions Your Nissan Leaf Too Much." If a typical electric car is driven carbon -dioxide costs $48. Yet the U.S. federal government charging. But for those who do 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the essentially subsidizes electric -car own an electric car, at least there huge initial emissions from its buyers with up to $7,500. In is the consolation that it's truly While electric -car owners may manufacture means the car will addition, more than $5.5 billion in green, right? Not really. cruise around feeling virtuous, actually have put more carbon- federal grants and loans go For proponents such as the - they still recharge using electricity dioxide in the atmosphere than a directly to battery and electric -car actor and activistLeonardo overwhelmingly produced with similar -size gasoline -powered car manufacturers like- California- DiCaprio, the main argument is fossil fuels. Thus, the life -cycle driven the same number of miles. based Fisker Automotive and Tesla that their electric cars—whether analysis shows that for every mile Similarly, if the energy used to Motors. This is a very poor deal it's a,$100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. driven, the average electric car recharge the electric car, comes for taxpayers. m DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 indirectly emits about six ounces mostly from coal-fired power The electric car might be great Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to of carbon -dioxide. This is still a lot plants, it will be responsible for in a couple of decades but as a ` global warming. And, sure, better than a similar -size con- the emission of almost 15 ounces way to tackle global warming now electric cars don't emit carbon- ventional car, which emits about of carbon -dioxide for everyone of it does virtually nothing. The real dioxide on the road. But the en- 12 ounces per mile. But remem- the 50,000 miles it is driven— challenge is to get green energy ergy used for their manufacture ber, the production of the electric three ounces more than a similar that is cheaper than fossil fuels. and 'continual battery charges car has already resulted in size- gas -powered car. That requires heavy investment in certainly does—far more than able emissions --the equivalent of Even if the electric car is green research and development. most people realize. 80,000 miles of travel in the driven for 90,000 miles and the Spending instead on subsidizing A 2012 comprehensive life -cycle vehicle. owner stays away from coal- electric cars is putting the cart analysis in Journal of Industrial So unless the electric car is powered electricity, the car will before the horse, and an intone- Ecology shows that almost half driven a lot, it will never get cause just 24% less carbon- nient and expensive cart at that. the lifetime carbon -dioxide emis- ahead environmentally. And that dioxide emission than its gas- sions from an electric car come turns out to be a challenge. Con- powered cousin. This is a far cry Mr. Lomborg, director of the i from the energy used to produce sider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a from "zero emissions!' Over its Copenhagen Consensus Center in r the car, especially the battery. The 73 -mile range per charge. Drivers entire lifetime, the electric car Washington, D.C., is the author of mining of lithium, for instance, is attempting long road trips, as in will be responsible for 8.7 tons of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" a less than green activity. By one BBC test drive, have reported' carbon dioxide less than the (Cambridge Pnen 2001) and "Cool contrast, the manufacture of a that recharging takes so long that average conventional car. It" (Knopf, 2007). L