HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-13 EEC Meeting PacketAgenda
Energy and Environment Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
City Hall Community Room
Thursday, September 13, 2018
7:00 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission August 8, 2018
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Welcome new EEC Commissioner
B.State of the Infrastructure, Ross Bintner
C.Street Sweeping Report
VI.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues
or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the
number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items
that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment.
Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their
comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for
consideration at a future meeting.
VII.Reports/Recommendations
A.Energy and Environment Comprehensive Plan
B.2019 Work Plan Discussion
VIII.Correspondence And Petitions
A.Working Group Minutes
IX.Chair And Member Comments
X.Sta1 Comments
A.Open Streets and EV Ride and Drive
XI.Calendar Of Events
A.EEC Meeting Schedule and Roster List
XII.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public
process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli4cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Casey Casella, City Management Fellow
Item Activity:
Subject:Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission
August 8, 2018
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the August 8, 2018 Minutes for the Energy and Environment Commission.
INTRODUCTION:
Receive the Energy and Environment Commission Minutes of August 8, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Minutes of Aug 8, 2018
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Energy and Environment Commission
Edina City Hall Community Room
Thursday, Aug 9, 2018, 7:00 PM
I. Call To Order
Chair Jackson called the meeting to order at 6:59p.m.
II. Roll Call
Answering Roll Call were Chair Jackson, Commissioners Horan, Hussian, Manser, Seeley, Lanzas,
Glahn and Fernands
Late: Hoffman, Satterlee
Absent: Kostuch
Staff Present: Liaison Brown, Casey Casella
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Seely made a motion to approve the August 9, 2018 meeting agenda. Horan seconded. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A. Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission July 12, 2018
Motion made by Horan to approve the July 12, 2018 minutes. Motion seconded by Glahn. All vote aye.
Motion carried.
V. Special Recognitions and Presentations
B. Energy Benchmarking, Leah Hiniker
Leah Hiniker from Hennepin County gave a presentation about the County’s Building Energy
Benchmarking Collaborative. The County runs the program for cities in Hennepin County to provide
resources for building benchmarking.
The presentation included an explanation of building benchmarking, current work of Hennepin County,
and benefits of energy benchmarking. Ms. Hiniker also presented data on Edina’s building data and
estimates for potential savings if benchmarking was implemented. Ms. Hiniker stated the primary goal for
the city is to pass an ordinance for building benchmarking. Ms. Hiniker also provided a handout on the
County Collaborative.
Commissioner Satterlee arrived late at 7:06PM
Commissioner Hoffman arrived late at 7:30PM
VI. Community Comment
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Jim Hornson, resident. Introduced himself and expressed his interested in the commission and energy in
general. The Commission welcomed him.
VII. Reports/Recommendation
A. Partners in Energy Closeout Report
Staff Liaison Brown presented a draft of the Advisory Communication Report to the City Council about
the Partners in Energy (PiE) closeout. The Commission provided feedback and on the report and
accompanying presentation.
There was discussion on whether the facilities benchmarking should be in energy usage or GHG
emissions. It was decided to use both. The Commission agreed to update the recommendation of the
City’s goals to include both GHG and electricity (gas and electricity, not water) usage.
B. Business Recognition Advisory Communication
Commissioner Horan introduced her recommendation to implement a Business Recognition Program.
Staff Liaison Brown advised the Commission that Commissioner Horan’s report and an accompanying staff
report will go to Council as an Advisory Communication.
C. 2019 Work Plan Discussion
The Commission brainstormed ideas for their 2019 work plan. Items that were discussed were:
• Set a timeline and parameters for the Climate Action Plan
o It was noted these plans take 6-9 months and a significant budget piece
o Commission discussed pushing this goal to next year to complete the plan
• Discussed staff driven actions, such as street sweeping and tree ordinance
• Green building policy
• Business recognition program
• Organics
• Education and outreach event
One topic that was not on the list was water optimization. It was mentioned this was a larger outreach
project that the commission may not have the capacity to complete. The topics of pollinator ordinance
and EV charging station plan were removed from the proposed Commission’s 2019 work plan.
The Commission completed a draft of their 2019 work plan. The Commission will approve the final draft
at the September EEC meeting.
VIII. Correspondence And Petitions
A. Working Group Minutes
• Minutes received from the City Energy and Efficiency & Conservation Sub-Committee
Working Group July 10, 2018 meeting.
• Minutes received from the Education and Outreach Working Group June 7, 2018
meeting.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
IX. Chair And Member Comments
A. Residential Organics Recycling
Commissioner Seely provided a report out of her presentation to City Council on Residential Organics
Recycling last month. Commissioner Manser mentioned there was an article in the Sun Current about the
report, featuring EEC Commissioners.
Commissioners will send their ideas for the RFP of Organics Recycling to Tara by the end of August.
B. Working Group and Subcommittee Review
Commissioners reviewed the Working Group list.
Commissioner Glahn made a motion to disband the Water Quality Working Group and transition them
into a volunteer group. Manser seconds. All voted aye. Motion carries.
Motion made by Seeley to remove Joanna and Commissioner Satterlee from the Recycling Solid Working
Group. Horan seconded. All voted aye. Motion carries.
X. Staff Comments
A. Drinking Water is Safe
Staff Liaison Brown stated the Commissioners should read their email regarding communication about
drinking water in Edina. The communication states the drinking water is safe.
B. Eco Fair at State Fair
Commissioner Lanzas, Seeley, and Chair Jackson volunteered to represent the EEC at the State Fair’s eco booth
on August 30, 2018.
C. Open Streets and EV ride and Drive
Staff Liaison Brown provided an overview of the Open streets event on September 23, 2018.
D. CEF Solar on Public Works Installation
Staff Liaison Brown announced the Public Works Solar Garden will have a ribbon cutting event on October 1,
2018.
E. Green Fleet Final Report
Staff Liaison Brown provided a summary of the Green Fleet Report written by Green Corps member Mehjabeen
Rahman. The report was presented to the City Council in August.
F. EV Report from U of M Grad Students
Staff Liaison Brown previewed a report provided to the City of Edina by Humphrey School of Public Affairs
graduate students regarding Electric Vehicles.
XII. Adjournment
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Motion made by Glahn to adjourn the August 9, 2018 meeting at 9:02 p.m. Motion seconded by Manser. Motion
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Casey Casella
City Management Fellow
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: V.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
From:Carolyn Jackson, Chair
Item Activity:
Subject:Welcome new EEC Commissioner
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
Chloe Maynor is the new student commissioner joining the EEC. P lease welcome her.
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: V.B.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
From:Ross Bintner, Engineering Services Manager
Item Activity:
Subject:State of the Infrastructure, Ross Bintner
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
Engineering Services Manager, Ross Bintner, will share the annual state of the infrastructure report.
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: V.C.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:
Item Activity:
Subject:Street Sweeping Report Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is the street sweeping report Ross Bintner presented in 2015. He will not re-present the report due to
length of the agenda and time. But, he will answer questions the EEC has.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2015 Street Sweeping presentation to EEC
Edina Street Sweeping Plan
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
w a t e r I e c o l o g y I c o m m u n i t y
City of Edina, MN
EEC Meeting, July 9, 2015
City of Edina, MN
Street Sweeping
Management Plan
Prepared by Emmons and Olivier
Resources, Inc.,
July 2015
Historic Street Sweeping Plan
Why Street Sweeping?
Source Control Makes Sense
Can Street Sweeping Make a
Difference?
The Influence of Vegetation on Solids and
Nutrients Recovered from Streets
LOW Canopy MEDIUM Canopy HIGH Canopy
1 X, 2X,4X/month 1 X, 2X,4X/month 1 X, 2X,4X/month
Can Street Sweeping Make a
Difference?
(Prior Lake background)
Sweeping Management Plan Overview
Methods: Estimating
Pollutant Recovery
1) Identify priority waters
Sweeping Management Plan Overview
Methods: Estimating Pollutant Recovery
Current Practices
Estimated Recovery in Minnehaha Creek Drainage Area: 56 lb-TP/yr
Estimated Recovery in Ninemile Creek Drainage Area:129 lb-TP/yr
1) Identify priority waters
2) Identify streets that drain to
each priority water
3) Use the U of MN planning
calculator tool to estimate solids
and phosphorus recovery for
different sweeping scenarios:
a)Baseline (2 X per year)
b)Monthly (7 sweeps/yr)
c)Bi-weekly (14 sweeps/yr)
4) Apply discounts for sweeper type
Sweeping Management Plan Overview
Methods: Estimating Pollutant Reductions
Current Practices
Estimated TP Reduction to Minnehaha Creek: 48 lb-TP/yr
Estimated TP Reduction to Ninemile Creek: 66 lb-TP/yr
Sweeping Management Plan Overview
Methods: Cost Benefit Analysis
Category Cost Basis
Sweeper
Mechanical Broom
$18,200 -vehicle depreciation
$3,700 -vehicle maintenance
Higher Efficiency
$23,700 -vehicle depreciation
$4,800 -vehicle maintenance
Labor (wages + benefits)$75/hr
Diesel Fuel $3/gal
Sweeper Type
Cost ($/Curb-mile)
Baseline Monthly +
Mechanical Broom $56.50 $34
Higher Efficiency $66 $37
Cost-Efficiency ($/lb) =
(Miles swept x $ per mile)
Total Phosphorus Recovered
Sweeping Management Plan Overview
Load Recovery Estimates
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
LakePamelaMelodyLakeArrowheadLakeLakeCorneliaHawkesLakeHighlandLakeIndianheadLakeLake EdinaMirrorLakeMud LakePhosphorus Recovery (lb/year)Baseline Monthly
Monthly, Sweeper Upgrade Bi-weekly, Sweeper Upgrade
Sweeper Upgrade = +29% to + 47%
Monthly, Upgrade = +186% to + 226% (over baseline)
Bi-weekly, Upgrade = +323% to + 445%
Sweeping Management Plan Overview
Load Reduction Estimates
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Lake PamelaMelody LakeArrowheadLakeLake CorneliaHawkes LakeHighlandLakeIndianheadLakeLake EdinaMirror LakeMud LakePhosphorus Reduction (lb/year)Baseline
Monthly
Monthly, Sweeper Upgrade
Bi-weekly, Sweeper Upgrade
(Load Recovery)
Few/No BMPs
intercept stormwater
Sweeping Management Plan Overview
Cost Efficiency Results
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000Cost Efficiency ($/lb-P)Total Cost ($)
Higher Efficiency Regenerative Air
Sweeping Management Plan Overview
Recommendations
•Upgrade street sweeper to high-efficiency type.
➢24% Greater cost-efficiency
➢Increase pollutant recovery by 25% -50%.
•Increase sweeping frequency to monthly (snow-free season).
➢Increase pollutant recovery 200% for TP, 250% for TS.
➢Utilize lowered from about $59/curb-mile to about $35/curb-mile
➢Optimize Cost-efficiency of pollutant recovery:
$152/lb-P compared to baseline:
$179/lb-P (high efficiency) or $205/lb-P (mechanical)
•Consider additional sweeping in high priority watersheds.
➢Key for priority waters with few/no BMPs intercepting stormwater.
➢Relatively inexpensive compared to structural BMPs.
Questions?
Kevin Biehn, ASLA, CPESC, LEED AP
6 5 1 . 7 7 0 . 8 4 4 8 / w w w . e o r i n c . c o m
Thank you
Edina Street Sweeping Management Plan
July, 2014
i
[Page intentionally left blank]
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iv
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. v
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Water Resources ................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1. City of Edina Lake and Pond Amendment to the Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan (CWRMP) .................................................................................................................... 4
3.2. Impaired Waters and TMDLs ........................................................................................................ 6
4. Stormwater Management Goals ........................................................................................................... 7
4.1. Non‐degradation Policies .............................................................................................................. 7
4.2. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) ........................................................................ 7
4.3. Good Housekeeping/Maintenance ............................................................................................. 7
5. Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 8
5.1. Identification of Sweeping Zones .................................................................................................. 8
5.2. Methods for Estimating Load Recovery and Load Reductions ................................................... 10
5.2.1. Tree Canopy Assessment .................................................................................................... 10
5.2.1. Spatial Analysis of Edina Roads ........................................................................................... 11
5.2.2. Solids Recovery Rates ......................................................................................................... 12
5.2.3. Load Reduction Estimates ................................................................................................... 12
5.2.4. Estimating Load Recovery for Different Sweeper Types ..................................................... 13
6. Load Recovery and Load Reduction Estimates ................................................................................... 14
6.1. Baseline Street Sweeping ............................................................................................................ 14
6.1.1. Load Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 14
6.1.2. Load Reductions .................................................................................................................. 14
6.2. Enhanced Sweeping Scenario 1 – Monthly Street Sweeping...................................................... 16
6.2.1. Load Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 16
6.2.2. Load Reductions .................................................................................................................. 16
6.3. Enhanced Sweeping Scenario 2 – Bi‐Weekly Street Sweeping ................................................... 18
iii
6.3.1. Load Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 18
6.3.2. Load Reductions .................................................................................................................. 18
6.4. Costs Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................................. 20
6.4.1. Cost Effectiveness of Baseline Sweeping ............................................................................ 21
6.4.2. Cost Effectiveness of Monthly Sweeping ............................................................................ 21
6.4.3. Cost Effectiveness of Bi‐weekly Sweeping .......................................................................... 22
7. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 26
8. References .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................................. 49
iv
Table of Tables
Table 1. Summary of priority waterbodies by HUC 12 with associated service level and land cover
characteristics. Street sweeping was evaluated within the drainage areas of waterbodies shown in
bold font. ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Impaired waters located within the City of Edina jurisdiction. ................................................. 6
Table 3. Tree Canopy Rating Scheme ....................................................................................................... 10
Table 4. Summary of sweeping zone characteristics including service level of the waterbody, average
over‐street tree canopy cover, and total curb‐miles of street (length of street x 2). ................................ 11
Table 5. Estimated load recovery rates (lb/curb‐mile/yr) for total solids and total phosphorus for
the three levels of efforts described in section for sweeping with a regenerative air (or comparable)
sweeper. ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Table 6. Discounts applied to load recovery predictions to estimate recoverable loads for mechanical
broom sweepers. ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Table 7. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for baseline
sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. .......................................... 15
Table 8. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for monthly
sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. ..................................... 17
Table 9. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for bi‐weekly
sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. ..................................... 19
Table 10. Cost and cost‐efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) at the
baseline effort by major subwatershed. ..................................................................................................... 21
Table 11. Cost and cost‐efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) for
monthly sweeping by major subwatershed. ............................................................................................... 22
Table 12. Cost and cost‐efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) for bi‐
weekly sweeping by major subwatershed. ................................................................................................. 22
Table 13. Summary of estimated costs and cost‐efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within direct
drainage areas for each waterbody (see 5.1) for baseline, monthly, and bi‐weekly sweeping scenarios. 23
Table 14. Summary of estimated costs and cost‐efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within direct
drainage areas for each waterbody (see 5.1) for baseline, monthly, and bi‐weekly sweeping scenarios. 24
Table 15. Summary of estimated costs and cost‐efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within the TOTAL
drainage area for each waterbody for baseline, monthly, and bi‐weekly sweeping scenarios. ................ 25
Table 16. Comparison of overall pick‐up efficiencies for different sweeping technologies and
loading intensities (Sutherland, 1995). Efficiencies are based on pick up of street dirt simulant,
NURP particle size distribution 13% fine (d < 63 m), 40% medium (250 m d 2000 m), and
47% coarse (d ≥ 2000 m). ...................................................................................................................... 47
Table 17. Ratio of fine (< 2mm) to coarse organic (>2mm) solids by month for different tree canopy
cover ratings. (Kalinosky, et. al, 2014). Medium canopy is taken to represent ‘average’ ratios. ....... 47
Table 18. Summary of P8 ponds by priority water. Priority waters modeling in P8 are shown in bold font.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 49
v
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Combined direct drainage areas for priority waters (as defined for street sweeping goals)
in the City of Edina, MN. .............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2 . Direct drainage area for Arrowhead Lake includes upstream catchments of non‐priority
ponds. The service level for Arrowhead Lake is ‘high’. ......................................................................... 28
Figure 3. Direct drainage area for Cornelia Lake North (includes upstream catchments of non‐
priority ponds). The service level for Cornelia Lake North is ‘high’. .................................................... 29
Figure 4. Direct drainage area for Cornelia Lake South (includes upstream catchments of non‐
priority ponds). The service level for Cornelia Lake South is ‘high’. .................................................... 30
Figure 5. Direct drainage area for Harvey Lake. The service level for Highlands Lake is ‘low’. ......... 31
Figure 6. Direct drainage area for Hawkes Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority
ponds). The service level for Hawkes Lake is ‘low’. ............................................................................... 32
Figure 7. Direct drainage area for Highland Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority
ponds). The service level for Highland Lake is ‘low’. ............................................................................. 33
Figure 8. Direct drainage area for Indianhead Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority
ponds). The service level for Indianhead is ‘medium’. .......................................................................... 34
Figure 9. Direct drainage area for Lake Edina. The service level for Lake Edina is ‘high’. ................. 35
Figure 10. Direct drainage area for Melody Lake. The service level for Melody Lake is ‘high’. ......... 36
Figure 11. Direct drainage area for Mirror Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority
ponds). The service level for Mirror Lake is ‘low’. ................................................................................. 37
Figure 12. Direct drainage area for Mud Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority
ponds). The service level for Mud Lake is ‘low’. ..................................................................................... 38
Figure 13. Direct drainage area for Minnehaha Creek (does not include drainage areas for upstream
priority waters or landlocked subbasins). Water quality goals include the Lake Hiawatha TMDLs
for excess nutrients and Minnehaha Creek 303d listings (see Section 3.2). ........................................ 39
Figure 14. Direct drainage area for Ninemile Creek (does not include drainage areas for upstream
priority waters or landlocked subbasins). Water quality goals include impairments for aquatic life
and aquatic recreation for Ninemile Creek (see Section 3.2). ............................................................... 40
Figure 15. Comparison of removal efficiencies, mechanical broom and vacuum sweeper
technologies, fine and coarse particle size ranges as reported in MNDOT, 2008. ............................... 46
Figure 16. Seasonal pattern in the partitioning of solids and nutrients between the fine and coarse
fractions of sweeper waste. ...................................................................................................................... 48
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 1
Executive Summary
Street sweeping practices were evaluated for streets located within the drainage areas of Edina’s
priority waters. Priority waters were identified based on review of the Edina Comprehensive
Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) including the recent Lake & Pond Management Policy
Amendment. Total solids (TS) and total phosphorus (TP) recovery for street sweeping within the
drainage of individual priority waters were estimated using a street sweeping planning calculator
tool developed by the University of Minnesota. Load recovery was estimated for sweeping with a
mechanical broom sweeper and for sweeping with a regenerative air sweeper at each defined level
of effort. Load reductions (total solids, total phosphorus) to priority waters were estimated using
pollutant removal efficiencies for stormwater catchments estimated by Barr (2011) through P8
modeling. A simple cost‐benefit analysis was also completed for each level of effort/sweeper type
evaluated. Costs were estimated based on the cost of current practices, manufacturer’s literature,
and through comparison with a recent university of MN study, Quantifying Nutrient Removal
through Street Sweeping.
Pollutant load recovery and load reductions were estimated for three levels of effort: baseline
sweeping (current practice) which consists of one sweeping each in the spring and fall using a
mechanical broom sweeper; monthly sweeping, which was approximated as 7 sweeping per year
(Apr‐Oct); and bi‐weekly sweeping, which was approximated as 14 sweepings per year (Apr‐Oct).
Differences in load recovery for the two sweeper types (mechanical broom, regenerative air) were
based on review of manufacturer’s literature, street sweeper pick‐up efficiency studies, and solids
loading patterns observed in University of MN study. Current sweeping practice is estimated to
recover about 196,494 lb solids and 177.3 lb phosphorus each year within the drainage area of
priority waters. Within the Minnehaha watershed area of the City of Edina are expected to reduce
phosphorus loads to Minnehaha Creek by about 56 lb. Enhanced sweeping is expected to increase
load recovery by the following amounts:
Sweeping with a regenerative air sweeper (or similar technology) would increase load
recovery by about 50% for TS and 38% for TP to 295,249 lb solids per year and 245 lb
phosphorus per year for baseline sweeping.
Within the Minnehaha Creek watershed area, sweeping with a regenerative air (or similar
high‐efficiency sweeper) is expected increase the load reduction achieved by current
practices to 75 lb/yr. This practice achieves the target load reduction (67 lb/yr) required
by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Management Plan.
Sweeping monthly with a regenerative air sweeper would increase load recovery by about
250% for TS and 200% for TP over baseline to 696,583 lb solids per year and 538 lb
phosphorus per year.
Sweeping bi‐weekly with a regenerative air sweeper would increase load recovery by
almost 400% for TS and about 330% over baseline to 1,068,831 lb solids per year and 834
lb phosphorus per year.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 2
Although the vehicle cost is greater, sweeping with a high‐efficiency sweeper is more cost effective
than sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper due to the increased load recovery that is
possible with this vehicle type. Monthly sweeping with a high‐efficiency sweeper was found to be
the most cost‐effective option with an average cost of $177/lb for phosphorus recovery compared
to the baseline cost‐efficiency of $237/lb. Given the advantage in load recovery and cost‐
effectiveness when a higher efficiency sweeping is used, it is recommended that mechanical broom
sweepers be replaced, or supplemented with a higher efficiency sweeper. It is also recommended
that sweeping frequency be increase to about monthly sweeping (or greater) during the snow‐free
season.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 3
1. Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to estimate the water quality benefits, defined as the total
solids and total phosphorus load reductions to priority waters, of current street sweeping practices
in the City of Edina and the projected benefits of enhanced street sweeping. A simple cost‐benefit
analysis was completed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of different sweeping practices and to
identify the optimal practice from a cost‐effectiveness standpoint.
2. Background
Most cities do some amount of street sweeping each year to improve road safety and appearance,
but when considering BMPs for water quality, street sweeping is often overlooked. Pollutants
removed from the street are not available for transport to the storm sewer network. In agreement
with this, several recent studies, which make use of newer sweeping technologies and advances in
stormwater management, have reported that street sweeping offers a very cost‐effective and
efficient means to reduce pollutant loads to storm sewer infrastructure and to downstream waters
(Beretta et. al (2011), SPU (2009), Kalinosky et. al (2013), others). Additional benefits of street
sweeping include reduced clogging and flooding of storm drains, reduced maintenance to
downstream stormwater infrastructure, improved safety for pedestrians, and even reduced
presence of pests.
Under the current MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP, reissue date August 1,
2013), the City of Edina has established street sweeping as a BMP with the following measureable
goal and timeframe:
The City will brush of vacuum sweep street a minimum of twice annual in an effort to
reduce the amount of sediment, trash, and organic material from reaching the storm
sewer system and water resources.
Street sweeping efforts in Edina have increased since the previous SWPPP authorization in 2006.
At that time, the measureable goals included sweeping once annually and the pollution
prevention/good housekeeping BMP under item MCM 6.0 included the following language on
street sweeping:
The City will continue with the current street sweeping program, identify
improvements, and implement changes to reduce storm water pollutants.
This investigation is consistent with the goal to identify improvements as stated above.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 4
3. Water Resources
There are over two hundred water bodies, ranging in size from lakes to small stormwater detention
basins within the city limits of Edina. Most of these waterbodies are part of larger flow networks
that drain to Minnehaha Creek (HUC 070102060605) or Ninemile Creek (HUC 070200121108),
both of which flow through the City of Edina. Many of Edina’s lakes and ponds are integral to the
stormwater system. This means that they provide water management services such as flood
protection and pollutant capture which protects downstream waters. It also means that they are
vulnerable to degradation if the stormwater they receive carries excessive pollution. Source control
Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as street sweeping, limit the amount of pollution that is
transferred to from urban landscapes to Edina’s waterbodies through the stormwater system.
The City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) was reviewed to
identify water quality goals and priorities that can be addressed through enhanced street sweeping.
Identified priorities and stormwater management goals described in sections 3.1‐3.2 and section 4.
Priorities include nutrient management/aquatic vegetation management; pollutant load reductions
required by regional TMDLs; and adherence to non‐degradation policies.
3.1. City of Edina Lake and Pond Amendment to the Comprehensive
Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP)
In 2014, the city of Edina established services levels for aquatic vegetation management of lakes
and ponds in the City of Edina Lake & Pond Management Policy Amendment to the Comprehensive
Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP). Lake and pond management was prioritized and
assigned a service level of ‘none’, ‘low’, ‘medium’, or ‘high’ using a rating scheme that included the
following criteria: waterbody size, water quality, aesthetics and nuisance abatement, shoreline
owner involvement, and public access. The prioritization scheme adopted in the Lake & Pond
Policy Amendment was used to define sweeping zones for evaluation of current sweeping and
enhanced sweeping practices (Table 1). A full description of the prioritization scheme and policy
development is given in the Lake & Pond Management Policy Amendment (City of Edina, 2014).
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 5
Table 1. Summary of priority waterbodies by HUC 12 with associated service level and land cover
characteristics. Street sweeping was evaluated within the drainage areas of waterbodies shown in bold font.
HUC 12 Major Drainage Waterbody
Service
Level Land Use Types
Minnehaha Creek
070102060605
Northwest Minnehaha
Creek*
Harvey Lake Low R
Lake Pamela High R
Melody Lake High R
Minnehaha Creek (all
other) (TMDLs) R (87%), PCD (2%); APD
(1%);
Northeast Minnehaha
Creek* Minnehaha Creek (TMDLs) R (97%), PCD/PID (11%);
MDD (2%)
Southeast Minnehaha
Creek* Minnehaha Creek (TMDLs) R
Ninemile Creek
070200121108
Ninemile Creek ‐ North
Hawkes Lake Low R
Highland Lake Medium R
Mirror Lake Low R
Unnamed nr Schaefer
and Harold Wood l§ Low R
Mud Lake Low R
Unnamed nr
Parkwood & Knoll§ Low R
Other Parkwood
Ponds§ Low/none R
Ninemile Creek ‐ Central Creek Valley Pond Low R
Ninemile Creek ‐ South
Fork
Arrowhead Lake High R
Indianhead Lake Medium R
Southwest Ponds Long Brake Trail Low R
Lake Cornelia/Lake
Edina/Adam's Hill
Cornelia ‐ North High R 95%); POD/PCD (6%)
Cornelia ‐ South High R
Lake Edina High R/PSR (96%); POD/PCD
(4%)
Lake Nancy§ Medium R
Otto Pond§ Low R
Point of France§ Low PCD (71%), R (14%); RMD
(8%); POD (6%); APD (1%);
Swimming Pool Pond§ Medium R (86%), PSR (4%); RMD
(7%); APD (2%); POD (1%)
(West Garrison) (none) R (89%); PCD (11%)
Ninemile Creek
(direct drainage not listed above)
(Future
TMDLs) (not quantified)
* Also part of the drainage area for Lake Hiawatha (Lake Hiawatha Phosphorus TMDL, 2014).
§Included in sweeping zone for a downstream waterbody.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 6
3.2. Impaired Waters and TMDLs
The current 303d list for Minnesota includes four waterbodies that lie within the City of Edina
municipal boundaries, one of which has an approved TMDL (Table 2). In addition to theses, the City
of Edina is included in the categorical wasteload allocation for MS4 stormwater permits in the Lake
Hiawatha total phosphorus TMDL. In the Lake Hiawatha TMDL, the allowable stormwater load for
the City of Edina (424.4 lb/yr) is about half the estimated existing load (841.4 lb/yr for 2001‐2011,
Tetra Tech 2013). As additional TMDLs are approved and implementation plans are developed, the
City of Edina may need to provide documentation of pollutant load reductions. TMDLs addressing
nutrient impairments will mostly likely be written for total phosphorus (TP). Excess phosphorus is
also a candidate cause for low dissolved oxygen (DO). Total suspended solids (TSS) is a candidate
cause for fish and macroinvertebrate bioassessment impairments.
Table 2. Impaired waters located within the City of Edina jurisdiction.
Lake Name
(MN DNR LAKE ID) HUC 12 Listing
Year
TMDL Target
Start/Completion Affected Use Pollutant/Stressor
Impaired Waters Located Within the City of Edina
Lake Cornelia (North)
27-0028-01
Nine Mile
Creek
070102061302
2008 2014/2018 Aquatic
Recreation:
Nutrients/Eutrophication
Biological Indicators Lake Edina
27-0029-00 2008 2014/2018
Nine Mile Creek
07020012-518 2004 2024/2028 Aquatic Life Chloride
Fish Bioassessment
Minnehaha Creek
07010206-539
Minnehaha
Creek
070102061108
2008 2020/2024
Aquatic Life
Chloride
2014 2009/2015 Fish Bioassessment
2008 2020/2024 Macroinvertabrate
Bioassessment
2004 2020/2024 Dissolved Oxygen
2010 Approved 2014 Aquatic
Recreation Fecal Coliform
Downstream Impaired Waters
Lake Hiawatha
27-0018-00
Minnehaha
Creek
070102061108
2002 Approved 2014 Aquatic
Recreation
Nutrient/Eutrophication
Biological Indicators
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 7
4. Stormwater Management Goals
4.1. Non-degradation Policies
Two major watershed districts have jurisdictions which lie within the City of Edina municipal
boundaries – the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD). Stormwater management rules for both of these watersheds included
non‐degradation policies that apply to both water quality and volume control. Enhanced street
sweeping may provide assurance for non‐degradation of water quality by reducing pollutant loads,
and may address non‐degradation of stormwater volume by reducing loss rate of storage volume
through siltation/sedimentation of stormwater ponds.
4.2. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
Per the MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan the City of Edina is required to
reduce its annual phosphorus load to Minnehaha Creek by 67 pounds1. This requirement has been
fulfilled with the implementation of capital improvements since 2000, but additional reductions
may be achieved through recent capital improvements and best management practices (BMPs)
including street sweeping. Phosphorus reductions achieved through current sweeping practices
were estimated at 350 lb/yr city‐wide by Barr (2011). The estimated load reductions for current
sweeping practices outlined in section 6.1 are defined instead by major drainage area. Current
sweeping practices in the Minnehaha Watershed area of the City of Edina are expected to reduce
phosphorus loads to Minnehaha Creek by about 56 lb. Sweeping with a regenerative air (or similar
high‐efficiency sweeper) is expected increase the load reduction achieved by current practices to
74.7 lb/yr.
4.3. Good Housekeeping/Maintenance
In addition to water quality benefits, regular street sweeping may reduce needed maintenance on
storm water ponds and infrastructure by reducing sedimentation, siltation and clogging. Increased
dead storage volume is listed as a potential implementation activity for several stormwater ponds
throughout Edina in Section 15, Table 15A of the Edina CWRMP. Enhanced sweeping within
stormwater pond drainage areas may extend the maintenance cycle for these and other ponds.
1 As stated in Section 15.2.1 of the City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 8
5. Methods
5.1. Identification of Sweeping Zones
The sweeping zones (direct drainage areas) for which pollutant load recovery were estimated are
shown in Figure 1 (all areas combined) and Appendix A (individual zones). Sweeping zones were
identified based on the priorities outline in Sections 3 and 4. With a few exceptions, sweeping zones
were defined for all ponds with a priority rating higher than ‘none’ (City of Edina, 2014) and for
Minnehaha Creek and Nine Mile Creek. Sweeping zones include all streets located within the direct
drainage areas of the water body of interest. For the purpose of estimating recoverable loads, the
direct drainage area is defined as any street draining to the water body of interest that cannot be
included in the direct drainage area of another priority water.
The load recovery and load reduction estimates are reported on the scale of the total drainage area
for a given priority water in section 6. Total drainage areas for some water bodies include the direct
drainage areas of another (upstream) priority lake(s) or pond(s). Street located in these areas were
included in the load recovery and load reduction estimates for the downstream priority water (see
also section 5.2.2 and section 5.2.3). Streets located in landlocked basins were not included in load
recovery estimates for priority waters, however, sweeping may be useful in these areas to extend
the life of local stormwater BMPs.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 9
Figure 1. Combined direct drainage areas for priority waters (as defined for street sweeping goals) in the City of Edina, MN.
See Appendix for maps of individual sweeping zones.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 10
5.2. Methods for Estimating Load Recovery and Load Reductions
Pollutant recovery was estimated using a street sweeping planning calculator tool developed by the
University of MN, ‘Estimating Nutrient and Solids Load Recovery through Street Sweeping’
(Kalinosky, et. al, 2014). The tool predicts average solids and nutrient load recovery based on the
timing and frequency of sweeping; and density of tree canopy cover over the street. The tool was
calibrated using street sweeping data from Prior Lake, MN and is intended for use in comparable
settings (climate and geography). In order to calculate estimated solids recovery, it was necessary
to first determine the length of street surfaces located within each drainage area shown in Figure 1
(section 5.2.1); and to estimate the average over‐street tree canopy for these streets (section 5.2.1).
5.2.1. Tree Canopy Assessment
Tree canopy covers were visually inspected using 2013 color FSA aerial photographs of the Edina
area. Areas of street with similar canopy cover were assigned a score of 1‐5 corresponding to the
range of canopy cover densities described in Table 3. Visual examples of tree canopy covers are
included in Appendix B. Using tree canopy cover scores for individual street segments, a weighted
average tree canopy cover was calculated for each street sweeping zone. Weighted average canopy
cover scores were then translated to an over‐street percent canopy cover for the purpose of
estimating recoverable solids loads. Over‐street percent tree canopy covers were assigned based
upon comparison to tree canopies quantified in Prior Lake, MN (Kalinosky, et. al, 2013).
Table 3. Tree Canopy Rating Scheme
Assigned
Score Canopy Description
Over‐Street
Canopy Cover*
0 None None over street, very few or no immature tree in
yards/lots. 0%
1 Very Low Immature trees near street, very little/no over street
canopy, very low tree density in yards/lots. 2%
2 Low Some visible cover over the street, mostly immature
trees, general low density of trees. 5%
3 Medium Visible cover over portions of the street, mix of
immature and mature trees in yards/lots. 10%
4 Medium‐
High
Visible canopy over portions of the street, fairly dense,
uniform canopy across yards, or stands of mature tree
in backyards/common areas.
14%
4.5 High
Visible canopy along the majority of the street,
uniform canopy of mature tree across yards/stands of
mature trees in backyards/common areas.
18%
5 Very
High
Very dense canopy, canopy cover fairly continuous
across lot and street boundaries on aerial photos. 25%
*Based on comparison to quantified tree canopies in Prior Lake, MN (Kalinosky, et. al, 2013).
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 11
5.2.1. Spatial Analysis of Edina Roads
Streets length was summarized by sweeping zone using digital maps of Edina roads and the
sweeping zones defined in Appendix A (GIS). The distance to be swept in each sweeping zone
(number of curb‐miles) was defined as twice the length of polylines representing the roadway, or
approximately one sweeper pass along each curb line of the street. In reality, some roadways have
two or more driving lanes in each direction of traffic. In such cases, load recovery estimates
represent a lower bound for expected load recovery. Additional driving lanes are expected to
increase the recovery of inorganic particulates compared to streets in similar settings with a single
driving lane in each direction. Note that state and federal highways were excluded from sweeping
zone summaries since maintenance responsibilities fall to other jurisdictions.
The assigned service level, curb‐miles of street, average tree canopy cover, and land use
characteristics for sweeping zone are outlined in Table 4. The total curb‐miles of street for which
pollutant load recovery was estimated are 345.0, about 82% of total curb‐miles of street in the City
of Edina. Estimates do not include state and federal highways or streets in areas outside of defined
sweeping zones.
Table 4. Summary of sweeping zone characteristics including service level of the waterbody, average over‐street
tree canopy cover, and total curb‐miles of street (length of street x 2).
Major Drainage
Waterbody/Sweeping
Zone Service Level
Estimated Over‐
street % Canopy
(weighted average)
Curb‐miles of Street in
Direct Drainage Area
Minnehaha Creek
HUC 070102060605
Harvey Lake Low 14% 1.1
Lake Pamela High 13% 14.4
Melody Lake High 9% 11.5
Minnehaha Creek (all other) (TMDLs) 14% 64.5
Ninemile Creek HUC
070200121108
Hawkes Lake Low 13% 15.9
Highland Lake Medium 13% 10.6
Mirror Lake Low 16% 8.9
Mud Lake Low 13% 17.1
Creek Valley Pond Low 13% 6.2
Arrowhead Lake High 12% 5.7
Indianhead Lake Medium 16% 4.8
Long Brake Trail Low 15% 1.0
Cornelia ‐ North High 12% 43.5
Cornelia ‐ South High 12% 3.7
Lake Edina High 12% 20.1
Ninemile Creek (all other) (Future TMDLs) 12.0% 116.0
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 12
5.2.2. Solids Recovery Rates
Total solids and nutrient recovery were estimated for streets located within the direct drainage
areas of priority waters. Pollutant recovery was estimated three levels of effort:
1. Baseline effort – all streets are swept once in the spring and once in the fall.
2. Monthly sweeping – all streets are swept once per month during the snow‐free
season (taken as April – October).
3. Bi‐weekly sweeping – all streets are swept twice per month during the snow‐
free season (April – October).
In the monthly and bi‐weekly sweeping scenarios, a sweeping of season of April through October
was assumed. For the initial sweeping event in each scenario (the first sweeping in April), load
recovery was estimated as the average of predicted recovery for single sweepings in March and
April. Initial sweepings in these two months represent high and low range loading intensities of
winter residuals during spring cleaning operations. Pollutant load recovery estimated using the
calculator tool depends on the density of over‐street tree canopy cover. Total solids and
phosphorus loading rates for each of the three defined levels of effort are outlined for a range of
over‐street tree canopy covers in Table 5.
Table 5. Estimated load recovery rates (lb/curb‐mile/yr) for total solids and total phosphorus for the three
levels of efforts described in section for sweeping with a regenerative air (or comparable) sweeper.
Baseline Sweeping Monthly Sweeping Bi‐weekly Sweeping
Canopy Cover
Description*
Over‐street %
Canopy Cover§ TS TP TS TP TS TP
None 0 522 0.4 1363 1.0 2265 1.6
Very Low 2 616 0.5 1467 1.1 2439 1.8
Low 5 688 0.6 1639 1.2 2725 6.5
Medium 10 827 0.7 1972 1.5 3278 2.5
Medium‐High 14 959 0.8 2286 1.8 3801 3.0
High 18 1112 1.0 2651 2.2 4406 3.5
Very High 25 1440 1.3 3433 16.1 5707 4.8
* See Appendix B for examples.
§Average for the street length under consideration.
5.2.3. Load Reduction Estimates
To estimate pollutant reductions to priority waters (as opposed to pollutant recovery from streets)
it was necessary to take into account pollutant removal through BMPs located along flow paths to
priority waters. Load reductions were estimated by applying removal efficiencies for P8 ponds
(Barr, 2011) to the recovered load estimates for street located within the direct drainage area of
each P8 pond. Individual P8 pond removal efficiencies are summarized by sweeping zone in
Appendix D. Pollutant removal estimates were applied recursively to account for serial removal of
pollutants along flow paths to priority waters. Expected pollutant load reductions to priority
waters are reported as the recovered load minus any expected removal through modeled BMPs (P8
ponds). Load reductions estimates are based on the following assumptions:
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 13
All solids on street surface will be transferred to the stormsewer system and on to
downstream waters over time.
The design efficiency of modeled BMPs can be applied to solids which typically collect
on street surfaces (including organic material).
The design efficiency of modeled BMPs is preserved through regular maintenance.
Pollutant reductions to priority waters are expected to vary somewhat from estimates.. Structural
BMPs and other practices such as curbside rain garden or vegetated swales which were not
included in the P8 model would increase overall pollutant removal and therefore decrease the
overall pollutant reduction through street sweeping. Since the P8 model did not include
subwatersheds located within the Minnehaha Creek watershed, load reduction estimates might be
considered an upper bound for streets the Minnehaha Creek watershed. Factors which decrease
pollutant removal such as decreased efficiency of BMPs between maintenance periods would
increase the pollutant reduction to priority waters through street sweeping. It should be noted that
regular street sweeping is expected to extend the useful life of structural BMPs by reducing solids
loads. This benefit, although not quantified here, should be considered in setting street sweeping
policy.
5.2.4. Estimating Load Recovery for Different Sweeper Types
Because the pick‐up efficiency of street sweepers varies among different makes and models, the
amount of pollutant that can be recovered through street sweeping depends not only on factors
that contribute to pollutant accumulation, but also on the type of sweeper used. Currently, all street
sweeping in the City of Edina is done using mechanical broom sweepers which have been shown to
have lower overall pick‐up efficiency compared to higher efficiency technologies such as
regenerative air and vacuum assist street sweepers. The calculator tool used to estimate pollutant
load recovery, however, is based on results for regenerative air technology. To get a more accurate
estimate of load recovery at the baseline effort, discounts reflecting the lower pickup efficiency of
mechanical broom sweepers (Table 6) were applied to estimates predicted by the calculator tool.
Discounts were also applied at increased levels of effort in order to compare load recovery for
mechanical broom and regenerative air (or similar) technologies. The rationale for the discounts
applied is described in detail in Appendix C.
Table 6. Discounts applied to load recovery predictions to estimate recoverable loads for mechanical broom
sweepers.
Mar‐Apr, Sep‐Nov May‐Aug
TS TP TS TP
32% 26% 38% 35%
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 14
6. Load Recovery and Load Reduction Estimates
6.1. Baseline Street Sweeping
The baseline street sweeping effort consists of one sweeping each in the spring and fall.
6.1.1. Load Recovery
Estimated solids and phosphorus recovery for the baseline sweeping effort in the area of interest is
outlined by priority watershed in Table 7. Current sweeping practices are expected to remove
approximately 56 lb‐TP per year in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area and approximately
121 lb‐TP per year in the Ninemile Creek subwatershed area. Recovery of phosphorus could be
increase by approximately 38% (74.7 lb‐TP/yr, 170 lb‐TP/yr) if a regenerative air (or similar
technology) were used for sweeping.
6.1.2. Load Reductions
In the Ninemile Creek subwatershed overall pollutant loading to priority waters is reduced by from
3% ‐ 94% (median value 39%) by structural BMPs that intercept stormwater. This rate of pollutant
removal is based on design efficiencies for modeled BMPs and actually removal by these structures
may be lowered as sediment storage volume decreases. The estimated overall pollutant reduction
to waterbodies within the Ninemile Creek subwatershed area is about 61 lb TP/year for baseline
sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper. Load reductions could be increased to about 85 lb‐
TP/yr if a higher efficiency sweeper technology were used.
Note that load reductions estimates in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area are set to
recovered loads for priority waters (56 lb‐TP/yr). This is because pollutant removal efficiencies
were not available for pond and other structural BMPs. For this reason, pollutant load reductions
within the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area should be regarded as upper boundaries for load
reduction estimates. If similar overall pollutant removal efficiency is assumed for the two major
watersheds, the estimated total pollutant reduction to priority waters in the Minnehaha Creek
subwatershed area is about 34 lb‐TP/yr, but could be increased to 45 lb‐TP/yr if a higher efficiency
sweeper were used.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 15 Table 7. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for baseline sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. Estimated Watershed Load* Recovery (lb) Reduction to Waterbody through Sweeping (lb) % Increased Recovery Sweeper Upgrade† Mechanical Broom Sweeper Vacuum/Regen Air Sweeper Mechanical Broom Sweeper Vacuum/Regen Air Sweeper HUC 8 Waterbody Curb‐miles Service Level TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP Minnehaha Creek HUC 070102060605 Harvey Lake 1.1 Low 831 0.71,121 0.9831 0.71,121 0.9 ≥47% ≥33% Lake Pamela South 8.1 High 9,573 8.714,073 11.69,573 8.714,073 11.6 Lake Pamela North1 5.8 High 6,835 6.210,047 8.36,835 6.210,047 8.3 Melody Lake 11.5 High 6,603 5.99,707 7.86,603 5.99,707 7.8 Minnehaha Creek (all other*) 64.5 (TMDLs) 44,603 40.965,566 54.444,603 40.965,566 54.4 Minnehaha Creek Subtotal** 61,542 56.290,467 74.761,542 56.290,467 74.7 Ninemile Creek HUC 070200121108 Arrowhead Lake (Landlocked basin) 5.7 High 3,803 3.55,591 4.62,322 2.63,413 3.5 Centennial Lakes 6.7 Low/No 5,960 5.08,761 6.75,140 4.77,556 6.3 Cornelia North 43.5 High 19,733 17.429,008 23.210,416 12.615,311 16.8 Cornelia South2 3.7 High 21,573 19.231,713 25.52,357 8.83,465 11.7 Hawkes Lake3 15.9 Low 16,343 14.924,024 19.86,984 9.710,266 12.9 Highland Lake 10.6 Low 5,755 5.98460 7.95,565 5.48181 7.2 Indianhead Lake (Landlocked basin) 4.8 Medium 2,954 2.84,342 3.72,411 2.43,544 3.2 Lake Edina4 20.1 High 34,782 31.251,129 41.513,707 18.720,150 24.9 Long Brake Trail 3.1 Low 2,301 2.13,382 2.8736 1.21,082 1.6 Mirror Lake 8.9 Low 4,350 4.16,394 5.42,726 3.54,007 4.6 Mud Lake5 17.1 Low 22,357 19.8 34,395 28.5 6,931 6.1 10,663 8.8 Ninemile Creek (all other*) 116.0 (Future TMDL) 71,163 63.9 109,482 92.0 34,870 31.3 53,646 45.1 Ninemile Creek Subtotal** 134,952 121 .1 204,782 170.1 58,970 60.8 89,548 85.0 § Total recoverable watershed load ‐ includes recoverable loads in upstream catchments. §§Load reduction estimate to priority water body based on P8 pond removal efficiencies (Barr, 2011). Removal efficiencies were applied to recoverable loads within the catchment of any modeled P8 pond or priority water and applied in series to determine overall reduction to a given water body. Expected reductions in total solids (TS) are approximated using TSS removal efficiencies although the two constituents are not equivalent. *Direct drainage areas only (does not include the subwatersheds of upstream priority waters). **Subtotals for major drainage areas (HUC12) are not equal to the sum of loads for priority waters + other drainage areas (catchment loads are not double counted), but are based on the total watershed load (not including landlocked basins) or reduced load based on P8 pond linkages. 1 Upstream priority water = Pamela South 2 Upstream priority water = Cornelia North 3 Upstream priority water = Highland Lake 4 Upstream priority water = Cornelia South, Cornelia North 5 Upstream priority water = Hawkes Lake, Highland Lake †Compares watershed load recovery using regenerative air technology to load recovery using mechanical broom.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 16
6.2. Enhanced Sweeping Scenario 1 – Monthly Street Sweeping
The monthly sweeping scenario is defined as 7 sweepings per year‐ one each in the months April –
October.
6.2.1. Load Recovery
Estimated solids and phosphorus recovery for monthly sweeping is outlined by priority watershed
in Table 8. Monthly sweeping practices are expected to remove approximately 115 lb‐TP per year
in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area and approximately 262 lb‐TP per year in the Ninemile
Creek subwatershed area. Recovery of phosphorus could be increase by approximately 43% (164
lb‐TP/yr, 374 lb‐TP/yr) if a higher efficiency sweeper were used, a 113% increase over baseline
sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper.
6.2.2. Load Reductions
The estimated overall pollutant reduction to waterbodies within the Ninemile Creek subwatershed
area is about 130 lb‐TP/year for monthly sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper. Load
reductions could be increased to about 186 lb‐TP/yr if a higher efficiency sweeper technology were
used. If similar overall pollutant removal efficiency is assumed for the two major watersheds, the
estimated total pollutant reduction to priority waters in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area is
about 70 lb‐TP/yr (current practice) and could be increased to about 100 lb‐TP/yr through
technology upgrade. Estimated load reductions represent an increase of almost 200% over baseline
sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 17 Table 8. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for monthly sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. Estimated Watershed Load§ Recovery (lb) Reduction to Waterbody through Sweeping§§ (lb) % Increased Recovery Sweeper Upgrade† % Increased Reduction compared to baseline, mechanical †† Mechanical Broom Sweeper Vacuum/Regen Air Sweeper Mechanical Broom Sweeper Vacuum/Regen Air Sweeper Major Drainage (HUC 12) Waterbody Curb‐miles Service Level TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP Minnehaha Creek* HUC 070102060605 Harvey Lake 1.1 Low 1,705 1.52,6252.11,7051.52,6252.1 54% 43% 249% 197% Lake Pamela South 8.1 High 15,286 12.723,54118.215,28612.723,54118.2 Lake Pamela North1 5.8 High 21,412 17.932,97425.621,41217.932,97425.6 Melody Lake 11.5 High 14,755 12.122,72217.314,75512.122,72217.3 Minnehaha Creek (all other**) 64.5 (TMDLs) 105,879 88.3163,053126.2105,87988.3163,053126.2 Minnehaha Creek Subtotal** 137,624 114.5211,941163.8137,624114.5211,941163.8 Ninemile Creek HUC 070200121108 Arrowhead Lake (Landlocked basin) 5.7 High 8,500 7.113,09010.15,1925.37,9967.6 Centennial Lakes 6.7 Low/No 13,314 9.920,50414.211,4799.417,67813.4 Cornelia North 43.5 High 44,090 35.767,89851.023,28325.935,85637.0 Cornelia South2 3.7 High 48,205 39.074,23655.85,28618.78,14126.7 Hawkes Lake3 15.9 Low 36,547 30.356,28243.415,61919.724,05428.1 Highland Lake 10.6 Low 12,870 11.41982016.312,44811.01917015.8 Indianhead Lake (Landlocked basin) 4.8 Medium 6,603 5.710,1688.15,3905.08,3007.1 Lake Edina4 20.1 High 77,744 63.5119,72690.830,65638.047,21054.3 Long Brake Trail 3.1 Low 5,144 4.37,9226.21,6462.42,5353.4 Mirror Lake 8.9 Low 9,723 8.414,97312.06,0947.19,38510.2 Mud Lake5 17.1 Low 56,601 43.981,00662.716,30613.625,11219.4 Ninemile Creek (all other**) 116.0 (Future TMDL) 169,491 141.5261,015202.383,05069.3127,89899.1 Ninemile Creek Subtotal** 318,703 262.5 484,642 374.0 137,753 130.4 212,139 186.5 § Total recoverable watershed load ‐ includes recoverable loads in upstream catchments. §§Load reduction estimate to priority water body based on P8 pond removal efficiencies (Barr, 2011). Removal efficiencies were applied to recoverable loads within the catchment of any modeled P8 pond or priority water and applied in series to determine overall reduction to a given water body. Expected reductions in total solids (TS) are approximated using TSS removal efficiencies although the two constituents are not equivalent. *Load reduction estimates in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area represent the upper boundary of pollutant reduction estimates (see 6.1.2) **Subtotals for major drainage areas (HUC12) are not equal to the sum of loads for priority waters + other drainage areas (catchment loads are not double counted), but are based on the total watershed load (not including landlocked basins) or reduced load based on P8 pond linkages. 1 Upstream priority water = Pamela South 2 Upstream priority water = Cornelia North 3 Upstream priority water = Highland Lake 4 Upstream priority water = Cornelia South, Cornelia North 5 Upstream priority water = Hawkes Lake, Highland Lake †Compares watershed load recovery using regenerative air technology to load recovery using mechanical broom. ††Compares reduction to waterbody using regenerative air technology to reduction to water body using mechanical broom, median value reported.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 18
6.3. Enhanced Sweeping Scenario 2 – Bi-Weekly Street Sweeping
The bi‐weekly sweeping scenario is defined as 14 sweepings per year‐ two each in the months
April – October.
6.3.1. Load Recovery
Estimated solids and phosphorus recovery for bi‐weekly sweeping is outlined by priority
watershed in Table 9. Bi‐weekly sweeping practices are expected to remove approximately 167 lb‐
TP per year in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area and approximately 412 lb‐TP per year in
the Ninemile Creek subwatershed area. Recovery of phosphorus could be increase by
approximately 44% (241 lb‐TP/yr, 593 lb‐TP/yr) if a higher efficiency sweeper were used, an
increase of 223% over baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper.
6.3.2. Load Reductions
The estimated overall pollutant reduction to waterbodies within the Ninemile Creek subwatershed
area is about 205 lb‐TP/year for bi‐weekly sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper. Load
reductions could be increased to about 295 lb‐TP/yr if a higher efficiency sweeper technology were
used. If similar overall pollutant removal efficiency is assumed for the two major watersheds, the
estimated total pollutant reduction to priority waters in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area is
about 102 lb‐TP/yr (current practice) and could be increased to about 147 lb‐TP/yr through
technology upgrade. Estimated load reductions are more than triple the estimated load reductions
for baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 19 Table 9. Estimated total solids and phosphorus recovery and load reduction estimates for bi‐weekly sweeping effort using mechanical broom and regenerative air technologies. Estimated Watershed Load§ Recovery (lb) Reduction to Waterbody through Sweeping§§ (lb) % Increased Recovery Sweeper Upgrade† % Increased Reduction compared to baseline, mechanical †† Mechanical Broom Sweeper Vacuum/Regen Air Sweeper Mechanical Broom Sweeper Vacuum/Regen Air Sweeper Major Drainage (HUC 12) Waterbody Curb‐miles Service Level TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP TS TP Minnehaha Creek * HUC 070102060605 Harvey Lake 1.1 Low 2,430 2.13,767 3.02,430 2.13,767 3.0 55% 44% 396% 331% Lake Pamela South 8.1 High 21,825 18.633,828 26.821,825 18.633,828 26.8 Lake Pamela North1 5.8 High 30,556 26.147,362 37.630,556 26.147,362 37.6 Melody Lake 11.5 High 21,182 17.632,832 25.321,182 17.632,832 25.3 Minnehaha Creek (all other**) 64.5 (TMDLs) 151,140 129.0234,267 185.7151,140 129.0234,267 185.7 Minnehaha Creek Subtotal** 196,577 167.2304,694 240.8196,577 167.2304,694 240.8 Ninemile Creek HUC 070200121108 Arrowhead Lake (Landlocked basin) 5.7 High 12,159 10.318,847 14.87,408 7.811,482 11.2 Centennial Lakes 6.7 Low/No 18,765 14.729,086 21.214,934 13.923,147 20.0 Cornelia North 43.5 High 63,059 52.097,741 74.933,334 37.751,668 54.3 Cornelia South2 3.7 High 68,945 56.9106,864 82.07,563 26.211,722 37.7 Hawkes Lake3 15.9 Low 52,221 44.480,943 63.922,319 29.434,594 42.3 Highland Lake 10.6 Low 18,355 16.428451 23.617,750 16.127512 23.2 Indianhead Lake (Landlocked basin) 4.8 Medium 9,406 8.314,579 11.97,676 7.311,898 10.5 Lake Edina4 20.1 High 111,178 92.6172,326 133.443,837 55.467,948 79.8 Long Brake Trail 3.1 Low 9,265 6.414,360 9.24,279 3.56,632 5.0 Mirror Lake 8.9 Low 13,844 12.221,458 17.58,674 10.313,444 14.9 Mud Lake5 17.1 Low 79,332 66.8122,050 96.1 24,593 20.737,835 29.8 Ninemile Creek (all other**) 116.0 (Future TMDL) 282,063 234.3433,943 337.2138,211 114.8212,632 165.2 Ninemile Creek Subtotal** 495,682 412 764,137 593 219,594 205 338,492 295 § Total recoverable watershed load ‐ includes recoverable loads in upstream catchments. §§Load reduction estimate to priority water body based on P8 pond removal efficiencies (Barr, 2011). Removal efficiencies were applied to recoverable loads within the catchment of any modeled P8 pond or priority water and applied in series to determine overall reduction to a given water body. Expected reductions in total solids (TS) are approximated using TSS removal efficiencies although the two constituents are not equivalent. *Load reduction estimates in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed area represent the upper boundary of pollutant reduction estimates (see 6.1.2) * *Subtotals for major drainage areas (HUC12) are not equal to the sum of loads for priority waters + other drainage areas (catchment loads are not double counted), but are based on the total watershed load (not including landlocked basins) or reduced load based on P8 pond linkages. 1 Upstream priority water = Pamela South 2 Upstream priority water = Cornelia North 3 Upstream priority water = Highland Lake 4 Upstream priority water = Cornelia South, Cornelia North 5 Upstream priority water = Hawkes Lake, Highland Lake †Compares watershed load recovery using regenerative air technology to load recovery using mechanical broom. ††Compares reduction to waterbody using regenerative air technology to reduction to water body using mechanical broom, median value reported.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 20
6.4. Costs Benefit Analysis
Total costs and cost‐efficiencies ($/lb‐P) were estimated for baseline, monthly and bi‐weekly
sweeping scenarios. The cost‐basis of street sweeping ($/curb‐mile) is not constant and depends
on the sweeper type and financing, and the cost of vehicle maintenance, labor, and fuel. Total costs
for each sweeping scenarios were calculated using the component costs and assumptions outlined
below.
Category Cost Basis
Sweeper $18,200 (vehicle depreciation)*
$3,700 (vehicle maintenance)*
Labor (wages + benefits) $75/hr
Diesel Fuel $3/gal
* City of Edina, Public Works Department
Cost Basis Assumptions:
Sweepers are owned by the City of Edina.
Sweeper operational speed = 4.5 mph
An additional 1.5 hrs of labor is required for every 4 hrs of sweeping time
Total transit miles (brush off) are about 3 times total swept miles
On average, sweeper fuel consumption is 5 mpg
- [ (brush off time, empty) + (brush on time)+ (brush off time, full capacity)]
1 vehicle is sufficient for baseline and monthly sweeping, 2 vehicles are required for sweeping
above this level of effort based on labor hours required compared to sweeping timeframe.
Sufficient staffing is assumed.
Sweeping is most cost‐effective when solids loading to streets is greatest. Since solids loading
varies over the course of the year adding sweepings at certain times of the year (summer) is less
cost‐effecting than adding sweepings at peak loading intensities (spring, fall). Although sweeping
operations can be further optimized to take advantage of these differences, the cost calculations
presented here are based on regular sweeping at the frequency specified for each level of effort.
Estimated sweeping costs at each level defined level of effort are summarized in sections 6.4.1 ‐
6.4.3. Cost are outlined in detail for loads recovered within the direct drainage area of a priority
waters in Table 13 for sweeping with mechanical broom and Table 14 for sweeping with a high
efficiency sweeper. Costs are also outlined in detail for load recovery within the total drainage area
of each priority water for sweeping with a high efficiency sweeper in Table 15.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 21
6.4.1. Cost Effectiveness of Baseline Sweeping
Solids loading tends to peak in the spring (winter residuals) and again in the fall (leaf drop) which
makes the singular spring and fall sweepings that make up the baseline sweeping effort among the
most efficient (lb/curb‐mile). However, at the baseline effort, the cost of sweeping is driven by the
flat cost of vehicle financing. This drives the cost‐effectiveness of sweeping down compared to
monthly sweeping (section 6.4.2).
Based on the assumptions outlined above, the cost basis for baseline sweeping with a mechanical
broom sweeper and with a higher efficiency sweeper are $54 and $56.50 per curb‐mile of
sweeping respectively. Estimated total costs and cost‐efficiencies for baseline sweeping are
summarized in Table 12 and outlined in detail in Table 13 ‐ Table 15 . Note that while sweeping is
less expensive for a mechanical broom sweeper on a per‐mile basis, it is less cost effective ($/lb‐P
recovered) due to the reduced solids recovery compared to higher efficiency sweepers.
Table 10. Cost and cost‐efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) at the baseline
effort by major subwatershed.
Sweeper Type HUC 12 Watershed Cost ($)
Cost‐efficiency,
Phosphorus Recovery
($/lb‐P)
Cost‐efficiency,
Phosphorus Reduction*
($/lb‐P)
Mechanical
Broom
Minnehaha Creek 13,270 236 352
Ninemile Creek 26,020 215 428
Higher
Efficiency
Minnehaha Creek 13,839 185 278
Ninemile Creek 27,191 160 320
*Based on estimated sub‐catchment pollutant removal efficiency, see section 6.1.2.
6.4.2. Cost Effectiveness of Monthly Sweeping
Since monthly sweeping can be completed using a single sweeper, the vehicle financing cost does
not increase for monthly sweeping compared to baseline sweeping. Labor and fuel costs increase
such that the total cost is approximately 2X the cost of baseline sweeping; however, solids recovery
increases by more than 2‐fold over baseline, making monthly sweeping more cost‐effective than the
baseline effort.
Based on the assumption outlined above, the cost basis for baseline sweeping with a mechanical
broom sweeping is $33.50, and with a regenerative air sweeper $34 per curb‐mile of sweeping.
Estimated total costs and cost‐efficiencies for monthly sweeping are summarized in Table 11 and
outlined in detail in Table 13 ‐ Table 15 .
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 22
Table 11. Cost and cost‐efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) for monthly
sweeping by major subwatershed.
Sweeper Type HUC 12 Watershed Cost ($)
Cost‐efficiency,
Phosphorus Recovery
($/lb‐P)
Cost‐efficiency,
Phosphorus Reduction*
($/lb‐P)
Mechanical
Broom
Minnehaha Creek 28,764 251 375
Ninemile Creek 56,400 216 433
Higher
Efficiency
Minnehaha Creek 29,332 179 269
Ninemile Creek 57,634 154 309
*Based on estimated sub‐catchment pollutant removal efficiency, see section 6.2.2.
6.4.3. Cost Effectiveness of Bi-weekly Sweeping
Based on the number of vehicle hours required, bi‐weekly sweeping cannot be completed in all
defined sweeping zone during the period April‐October unless a second vehicle is used. Although a
second sweeper might not be financed in the same manner a primary sweeper, for the sake of
keeping cost estimates simple, the vehicle finance cost was doubled to account for the additional
sweeper in the bi‐weekly sweeping scenario. Labor and fuel costs also double compared to
monthly sweeping making the total cost for bi‐weekly sweeping 2X the cost of monthly sweeping.
Total load recovery increases over baseline and monthly sweeping when street are swept bi‐
weekly, but sweeping efficiency (lb/curb‐mile recovered) tends to decrease as sweeping intervals
decrease. For this reason, bi‐weekly sweeping is less cost‐effective than monthly sweeping;
however, the cost‐effectiveness of bi‐weekly sweeping with a higher‐efficiency sweeper is
comparable to baseline sweeping with a mechanical broom sweeper.
Based on the assumption outlined above, the cost basis for baseline sweeping with a mechanical
broom sweeping is $33.50, and with a regenerative air sweeper $34 per curb‐mile of sweeping.
Total cost ad cost‐efficiencies for bi‐weekly sweeping are summarized in Table 12 and outlined in
detail in Table 13 ‐ Table 15 .
Table 12. Cost and cost‐efficiency of street sweeping in defined sweeping zones (Appendix B) for bi‐weekly
sweeping by major subwatershed.
Sweeper Type HUC 12 Watershed Cost ($)
Cost‐efficiency,
Phosphorus Recovery
($/lb‐P)
Cost‐efficiency,
Phosphorus Reduction
($/lb‐P)
Mechanical
Broom
Minnehaha Creek 57,528 344 514
Ninemile Creek 112800 274 537
Higher
Efficiency
Minnehaha Creek 58,665 244 366
Ninemile Creek 115,269 194 391
*Based on estimated sub‐catchment pollutant removal efficiency, see section 6.3.2.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 23 Table 13. Summary of estimated costs and cost‐efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within direct drainage areas for each waterbody (see 5.1) for baseline, monthly, and bi‐weekly sweeping scenarios. Estimates are based on recovery using a mechanical broom sweeper. The cost basis for estimates is $54 (baseline) ‐ $33.50 (monthly, bi‐weekly) per curb‐mile of sweeping. Recovered Phosphorus (lb)* Baseline Sweeping Costs Monthly Sweeping Costs Bi‐weekly Sweeping Costs HUC 8 Waterbody Service Level Curb‐miles Baseline Monthly Bi‐weekly $ $/lb‐P $ $/lb‐P $ $/lb‐P Minnehaha Creek HUC 070102060605 Harvey Lake Low 1.1 0.7 1.5 2.1 $ 119 $ 170 $ 259 $ 172 $ 517 $ 246 Lake Pamela South High 8.1 8.7 12.7 18.6 $ 879 $ 101 $ 1,906 $ 150 $ 3,812 $ 205 Lake Pamela North High 5.8 6.2 17.9 26.1 $ 1,507 $ 243 $ 3,267 $ 182 $ 6,533 $ 250 Melody Lake High 10.6 5.9 12.1 17.6 $ 1,149 $ 195 $ 2,491 $ 206 $ 4,982 $ 283 Minnehaha Creek (all other*) (TMDLs) 96.8 40.9 88.3 129 $ 10,495 $ 257 $ 22,748 $ 258 $ 45,496 $ 353 Minnehaha Creek Subtotal* 122.4 56.2 114.5 167.2 $ 14,443 $ 13,270 $ 236 $ 28,764 $ 251 $ 57,528 Ninemile Creek HUC 070200121108 Arrowhead Lake (Landlocked basin) High 5.7 3.5 7.1 10.3 $ 618 $ 177 $ 1,340 $ 189 $ 2,679 $ 260 Centennial Lakes Low/No 6.7 5 9.9 14.7 $ 726 $ 145 $ 1,575 $ 159 $ 3,149 $ 214 Cornelia North High 43.5 17.4 35.7 52 $ 4,716 $ 271 $ 10,223 $ 286 $ 20,445 $ 393 Cornelia South High 3.7 19.2 39 56.9 $ 5,117 $ 267 $ 11,092 $ 284 $ 22,184 $ 390 Hawkes Lake Low 19.2 14.9 30.3 44.4 $ 3,025 $ 203 $ 6,557 $ 216 $ 13,113 $ 295 Highland Lake Low 8.7 5.9 11.4 16.4 $ 943 $ 160 $ 2,045 $ 179 $ 4,089 $ 249 Indianhead Lake (Landlocked basin) Medium 3.9 2.8 5.7 8.3 $ 423 $ 151 $ 917 $ 161 $ 1,833 $ 221 Lake Edina High 19.4 31.2 63.5 92.6 $ 7,221 $ 231 $ 15,651 $ 246 $ 31,302 $ 338 Long Brake Trail Low 3.1 2.1 4.3 6.4 $ 336 $ 160 $ 729 $ 169 $ 1,457 $ 228 Mirror Lake Low 8.9 4.1 8.4 12.2 $ 965 $ 235 $ 2,092 $ 249 $ 4,183 $ 343 Mud Lake Low 11.2 19.8 43.9 67 $ 4,239 $ 214 $ 9,189 $ 209 $ 18,377 $ 275 Ninemile Creek (all other*) (Future TMDL) 122.6 63.9 141.5 234.3 $ 13,292 $ 208 $ 28,811 $ 204 $ 57,622 $ 246 Ninemile Creek Subtotal* 240.0 121.1 261.6 412.3 $ 31,818 $ 26,020 $ 215 $ 56,400 $ 216 $ 112,800 * Recovered TP loads for direct drainage areas only (does not include loads recovered from streets located in upstream drainage areas). Recovery with mechanical broom sweeper. TOTAL $ 41,058 $ 218 $ 88,995 $ 223 $ 177,989 $ 290
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 24 Table 14. Summary of estimated costs and cost‐efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within direct drainage areas for each waterbody (see 5.1) for baseline, monthly, and bi‐weekly sweeping scenarios. Estimates are based on recovery using a regenerative air (or similar) sweeping technology. The cost basis for estimates is $56.50 (baseline) ‐ $34 (monthly, bi‐weekly) per curb‐mile of sweeping. Recovered Phosphorus (lb)* Baseline Sweeping Costs Monthly Sweeping Costs Bi‐weekly Sweeping Costs HUC 8 Waterbody Service Level Curb‐miles Baseline Monthly Bi‐weekly $ $/lb‐P $ $/lb‐P $ $/lb‐P Minnehaha Creek HUC 070102060605 Harvey Lake Low 1.1 0.9 2.1 3 $ 124 $ 138 $ 264 $ 125.53 $ 527 $ 176 Lake Pamela South High 8.1 8.3 18.2 26.8 $ 917 $ 110 $ 1,944 $ 107 $ 3,887 $ 145 Lake Pamela North High 5.8 3.3 7.4 10.8 $ 655 $ 198 $ 1,388 $ 188 $ 2,775 $ 257 Melody Lake High 10.6 7.8 17.3 25.3 $ 1,198 $ 154 $ 2,540 $ 147 $ 5,080 $ 201 Minnehaha Creek (all other*) (TMDLs) 96.8 54.4 126.2 185.7 $ 10,944 $ 201 $ 23,198 $ 184 $ 46,395 $ 250 Minnehaha Creek Subtotal* 122.4 74.7 163.8 240.8 $ 13,839 $ 185 $ 29,332 $ 179 $ 58,665 $ 366 Ninemile Creek HUC 070200121108 Arrowhead Lake (Landlocked basin) High 5.7 4.6 10.1 14.8 $ 644 $ 140 $ 1,366 $ 135 $ 2,732 $ 185 Centennial Lakes Low/No 6.7 6.7 14.2 21.2 $ 758 $ 113 $ 1,606 $ 113 $ 3,211 $ 151 Cornelia North High 43.5 23.2 51.0 74.9 $ 4,918 $ 212 $ 10,425 $ 204 $ 20,849 $ 278 Cornelia South High 3.7 2.3 4.8 7.1 $ 418 $ 182 $ 887 $ 185 $ 1,773 $ 250 Hawkes Lake Low 19.2 11.9 27.1 40.3 $ 2,171 $ 182 $ 4,601 $ 170 $ 9,202 $ 228 Highland Lake Low 8.7 7.9 16.3 23.6 $ 984 $ 125 $ 2,085 $ 128 $ 4,170 $ 177 Indianhead Lake (Landlocked basin) Medium 3.9 3.7 8.1 11.9 $ 441 $ 119 $ 935 $ 115 $ 1,869 $ 157 Lake Edina High 19.4 16.0 35.0 51.4 $ 2,193 $ 137 $ 4,649 $ 133 $ 9,298 $ 181 Long Brake Trail Low 3.1 2.8 6.2 9.2 $ 350 $ 125 $ 743 $ 120 $ 1,486 $ 161 Mirror Lake Low 8.9 5.4 12.0 17.5 $ 1,006 $ 186 $ 2,133 $ 178 $ 4,266 $ 244 Mud Lake Low 11.2 8.719.332.2 $ 1,266 $ 146 $ 2,684 $ 139 $ 5,368 $ 167 Ninemile Creek (all other*) (Future TMDL) 122.6 92.0202.3337.2 $ 13,861 $ 151 $ 29,380 $ 145 $ 58,761 $ 174 Ninemile Creek Subtotal* 240.0 163.9275.7529 $ 27,926 $ 170 $ 59,192 $ 215 $ 118,384 $ 224 * Recovered TP loads for direct drainage areas only (does not include loads recovered from streets located in upstream drainage areas). Recovery with high efficiency sweeper. TOTAL $ 41,765 $ 175 $ 88,525 $ 201 $ 177,049 $ 230 TOTAL regenerative air – TOTAL mechanical broom $ 707 $ 236.94 $ 413.18 $ 92,781.50 $ 232.65 $ 409.06 % Increase over mechanical broom+12% ‐21% +8% ‐32% +8% ‐32%
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 25 Table 15. Summary of estimated costs and cost‐efficiencies of phosphorus recovery within the TOTAL drainage area for each waterbody for baseline, monthly, and bi‐weekly sweeping scenarios. Estimates are based on recovery using a regenerative air (or similar) sweeping technology. The cost basis for estimates is $67 (baseline) ‐ $38 (monthly, bi‐weekly) per curb‐mile of sweeping. Load recovery for monthly sweeping (bold red font) is the most cost‐effective among the scenarios. Baseline Sweeping Costs§ Monthly Sweeping Costs§ Bi‐weekly Sweeping Costs§ HUC 8 Waterbody Service Level Total Curb‐miles* $ $/lb‐P recovered $/lb‐P reduced† $ $/lb‐P recovered $/lb‐P reduced† $ $/lb‐P recovered $/lb‐P reduced† Minnehaha Creek Harvey Lake Low 1.1 $ 147 $ 164 $ 246 $ 293 $ 139 $ 209 $ 585 $ 195 $ 293 Lake Pamela South High 8.1 $ 1,087 $ 131 $ 197 $ 2,157 $ 119 $ 178 $ 4,315 $ 161 $ 242 Lake Pamela North1 High 13.9 $ 1,863 $ 161 $ 241 $ 3,697 $ 144 $ 217 $ 7,395 $ 197 $ 295 Melody Lake High 10.6 $ 1,420 $ 182 $ 273 $ 2,820 $ 163 $ 245 $ 5,639 $ 223 $ 335 Minnehaha Creek (all other*) (TMDLs) 96.8 $ 12,971 $ 238 $ 358 $ 25,749 $ 204 $ 306 $ 51,498 $ 277 $ 416 Minnehaha Creek Subtotal 122.4 $ 16,402 $ 220 $ 330 $ 32,558 $ 199 $ 298 $ 65,117 $ 270 $ 406 Ninemile Creek Arrowhead Lake (Landlocked basin) High 5.7 $ 764 $ 166 $ 218 $ 1,516 $ 150 $ 200 $ 3,032 $ 205 $ 271 Centennial Lakes Low/No 6.7 $ 898 $ 134 $ 143 $ 1,782 $ 126 $ 133 $ 3,564 $ 168 $ 178 Cornelia North High 43.5 $ 5,829 $ 251 $ 347 $ 11,571 $ 227 $ 313 $ 23,142 $ 309 $ 426 Cornelia South2 High 47.2 $ 6,325 $ 248 $ 541 $ 12,555 $ 225 $ 470 $ 25,110 $ 306 $ 666 Hawkes Lake3 Low 27.9 $ 3,739 $ 189 $ 290 $ 7,421 $ 171 $ 264 $ 14,843 $ 232 $ 351 Highland Lake Low 8.7 $ 1,166 $ 148 $ 162 $ 2,314 $ 142 $ 146 $ 4,628 $ 196 $ 200 Indianhead Lake (Landlocked basin) Medium 3.9 $ 523 $ 141 $ 163 $ 1,037 $ 128 $ 146 $ 2,075 $ 174 $ 198 Lake Edina4 High 66.6 $ 8,924 $ 215 $ 358 $ 17,716 $ 195 $ 326 $ 35,431 $ 266 $ 444 Long Brake Trail Low 3.1 $ 415 $ 148 $ 260 $ 825 $ 133 $ 243 $ 1,649 $ 179 $ 330 Mirror Lake Low 8.9 $ 1,193 $ 221 $ 259 $ 2,367 $ 197 $ 232 $ 4,735 $ 271 $ 318 Mud Lake5 Low 39.1 $ 5,266 $ 185 $ 596 $ 10,454 $ 167 $ 538 $ 20,908 $ 218 $ 702 Ninemile Creek (all other*) (Future TMDL) 122.6 $ 16,428 $ 179 $ 365 $ 32,612 $ 161 $ 329 $ 65,223 $ 193 $ 395 Ninemile Creek Subtotal 256.6 $ 32,227 $ 189 $ 379 $ 63,973 $ 171 $ 343 $ 127,946 $ 216 $ 434 TOTAL $ 50,813 $ 196 $ 344 $ 100,867 $ 177 $ 312 $ 201,734 $ 229 $ 406 *Total curb‐miles and include upstream areas. §Cost‐efficiency based on cumulative phosphorus recovery and load reductions (recovered loads and load reductions as reported in Table 7 ‐ Table 9) †For Minnehaha Creek, load reductions are estimated at 66.7% of the recovered load (see discussion in sections 6.1.2, 6.2.2, and 6.3.2). 1 Upstream priority water = Pamela South 2 Upstream priority water = Cornelia North 3 Upstream priority water = Highland Lake 4 Upstream priority water = Cornelia South, Cornelia North 5 Upstream priority water = Hawkes Lake, Highland Lake
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 26
7. Recommendations
Although current street sweeping practices include sweepings that are expected to be among the
most efficient (lb/curb‐mile), the cost‐efficiency ($/lb recovered) of sweeping could be improved
significantly by using a regenerative air or other high efficiency street sweeper. Based on the
expected recovery for different sweeper types and sweeping frequencies, the following
recommendations are made:
Upgrade street sweeping vehicle(s) to regenerative air or other high‐efficiency sweeper
type to realize an increase in cost‐efficiency of about 21% for baseline sweeping. This is
expected to increase total cost for baseline sweeping by about 12%, but will increase load
recovery of solids by 47% and recovery of phosphorus by 33%.
Increase the number of sweeping to monthly sweeping during the snow–free season or
similar. Utilizing street sweeping vehicles during a greater portion of the year decreases the
cost‐basis ($/curb‐mile) of sweeping compared to baseline and improves cost‐efficiency.
Sweeping at monthly intervals with a high efficiency sweeper in priority watersheds is
expected to increase the recovery of solids by 250% and the recovery of phosphorous by
200% compared to current practice. The cost‐basis is lowered from about $59/curb‐mile to
about $38/curb‐mile of sweeping and the cost‐efficiency is improved from $237/lb‐P
recovered to $177/lb‐P recovered.
Consider additional sweeping in high priority watersheds (waterbodies with high service
level). Addition sweeping may require increasing the size of the street sweeping fleet.
Depending on how well sweeping are utilized, the cost‐efficiency of sweeping at bi‐weekly
(or higher) frequency may be comparable to that of current practices and the cost of
phosphorus recovery relatively inexpensive compared to recovery through structural
BMPs.
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 27
8. References
Barr Engineering. 2011. City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.
Berretta C., S. Raje, and J.J. Sansalone. Quantifying Nutrient Loads Associated with Urban Particulate
Matter (PM), and Biogenic/Litter Recovery Through Current MS4 Source Control and Maintenance
Practices. University of Florida, College of Engineering, Gainsville, Florida: Florida Stormwater
Association Education Foundation (FSAEF); 2011 Final Report: 31 May 2011.
City of Edina, 2011. City of Edina, Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, available through
the City of Edina: http://edinamn.gov/?section=engineering_water_resource
City of Edina, 2014. Lake & Pond Management Policy, Amendment to the Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan, available through the City of Edina:
http://edinamn.gov/?section=engineering_water_resource
Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. 2014a. Phase I – Preliminary Assessment of Data and Proposed Strategy for
Sweeping Prioritization. Technical memo to the City of Edina, 8/11/2014.
Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. 2014b. Preliminary estimates of pollutant load recovery through enhanced
street sweeping. Technical memo to the City of Edina, 10/6/2014.
Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. 2014c. Preliminary estimates of pollutant load recovery through enhanced
street sweeping. Technical memo to the City of Edina, Revision dated 10/27/2014.
Kalinosky, P., Baker, L., Hobbie, S., Bintner, R., Buyarski, C. 2013. Quantifying Nutrient Removal through
Targeted, Intensive Street Sweeping, Presentation, LID Symposium, August 20, 2013.
Minnesota Department of Transportations (MNDOT). 2008. Resource for Implementing a Street
Sweeping Best Practice, MN/RC – 2008RIC06.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 2013. MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization, City of
Edina, MN, reissue date August 1, 2013. Also available through the City of Edina:
http://edinamn.gov/?section=engineering_storm_water
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 28
Appendix A
Street sweeping zones
Figure 2 . Direct drainage area for Arrowhead Lake includes upstream catchments of non‐priority ponds. The
service level for Arrowhead Lake is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 29
Figure 3. Direct drainage area for Cornelia Lake North (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority
ponds). The service level for Cornelia Lake North is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 30
Figure 4. Direct drainage area for Cornelia Lake South (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority ponds).
The service level for Cornelia Lake South is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 31
Figure 5. Direct drainage area for Harvey Lake. The service level for Highlands Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 32
Figure 6. Direct drainage area for Hawkes Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority ponds). The
service level for Hawkes Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 33
Figure 7. Direct drainage area for Highland Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority ponds). The
service level for Highland Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 34
Figure 8. Direct drainage area for Indianhead Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority ponds).
The service level for Indianhead is ‘medium’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 35
Figure 9. Direct drainage area for Lake Edina. The service level for Lake Edina is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 36
Figure 10. Direct drainage area for Melody Lake. The service level for Melody Lake is ‘high’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 37
Figure 11. Direct drainage area for Mirror Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority ponds). The
service level for Mirror Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 38
Figure 12. Direct drainage area for Mud Lake (includes upstream catchments of non‐priority ponds). The
service level for Mud Lake is ‘low’.
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 39
Figure 13. Direct drainage area for Minnehaha Creek (does not include drainage areas for upstream priority
waters or landlocked subbasins). Water quality goals include the Lake Hiawatha TMDLs for excess nutrients
and Minnehaha Creek 303d listings (see Section 3.2).
Appendix A
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 40
Figure 14. Direct drainage area for Ninemile Creek (does not include drainage areas for upstream priority
waters or landlocked subbasins). Water quality goals include impairments for aquatic life and aquatic
recreation for Ninemile Creek (see Section 3.2).
Appendix B EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 41 Appendix B Tree Canopy Examples Examples of very low canopy cover (canopy rating score =1)
Appendix B EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 42 Examples of low canopy cover (canopy rating score=2)
Appendix B EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 43 Examples of medium canopy cover (canopy rating score=3.0)
Appendix B EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 44 Examples of medium‐high canopy cover (canopy rating score =4.0)
Appendix B EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 45 Examples of very high canopy cover (canopy rating score =5).
Appendix C
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 46
Appendix C
Excerpted from EOR, 10/6/2014
III. Load Recovery for Different Sweeper Types
The range of reported street sweeper pick‐up efficiencies is fairly broad, but some trends are
consistent across different sources. In general, the pickup performance of street sweepers
decreases with particle size, but the difference across particle size classes is greater for mechanical
broom technologies than for higher efficiency sweepers (regenerative air or vacuum) (Figure 15).
Higher efficiency sweepers generally outperform mechanical sweepers across all particle size
classes, however, for the largest material (rock, trash), differences may be minimal.
Figure 15. Comparison of removal efficiencies, mechanical broom and vacuum sweeper technologies, fine
and coarse particle size ranges as reported in MNDOT, 2008.
In addition to variation with particle size, sweeper pick up efficiency tends to decrease with loading
intensity and the gap in performance between higher efficiency and mechanical broom sweepers
tends to widen as load intensities decreases (Table 16). Based on the influence of particle‐size and
loading intensity, discount levels for mechanical broom were set at two levels. For those months of
the year when load intensity tends to be greatest (March through April and mid‐September through
mid‐November), predicted load recovery was reduced 10‐15% for coarse material (>2mm) and
30% for fine material (< 2mm). At other times of the year, predicted loads were reduced by 20%
for coarse material and 40% for fine material. The expected proportion of fine and coarse material
for different months of the year was taken from monitored load recovery in Prior Lake, MN (Table
17). Fine material tends to dominate street accumulations in the early spring but the ratio of fine to
coarse material decreases from spring to autumn (Kalinosky, 2014). The ratio of fine to coarse
material also depends on over‐street tree canopy density. Fine to coarse ratio for ‘medium’ canopy
cover were used to estimate the reduced efficiency of mechanical broom compared regenerative air
technology at different time of the year.
Appendix C
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 47
The classification of ‘fine’ and ‘coarse’ material in Table 17Error! Reference source not found. is
different than the NURP particle sizes classes. For this reason, the discount in pick‐up performance
for fine material was decreased compared to the reported average for silt and clay shown in Error!
Reference source not found.. The discount for coarse material was increased somewhat
compared to the reported average to for very fine sand to gravel because organic material, which
can make up a significant portion of recovered loads, was not included in performance testing.
Table 16. Comparison of overall pick‐up efficiencies for different sweeping technologies and loading
intensities (Sutherland, 1995). Efficiencies are based on pick up of street dirt simulant, NURP particle size
distribution 13% fine (d < 63 m), 40% medium (250 m d 2000 m), and 47% coarse (d ≥ 2000 m).
Pavement
Loading (lbs/acre)
Pickup Efficiency* (%)
NURP
Mechanical
Newer
Mechanical
Regenerative
Air
Vacuum
Sweeper
10 0% 31% 50% 70%
100 28% 55% 87% 89%
250 45% 66% 89% 89%
500 53% 70% 90% 89%
1000 57% 71% 91% 89%
Table 17. Ratio of fine (< 2mm) to coarse organic (>2mm) solids by month for different tree canopy cover
ratings. (Kalinosky, et. al, 2014). Medium canopy is taken to represent ‘average’ ratios.
Canopy Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Low 180.3 43.6 24.0 20.2 25.0 15.0 8.7 3.2 14.1
Medium 22.1 14.5 10.8 15.2 10.4 6.6 3.9 1.3 1.4
High 22.8 7.0 6.5 7.5 10.0 5.9 3.7 0.9 1.2
Finally, since the character of the material that accumulates on street changes from one season to
the next, the concentration of nutrients in each particle size fraction also varies with season (Figure
16). To estimate the total phosphorus recovered by mechanical broom sweepers, the same
discounts for coarse and fine loads were applied to expected phosphorus recovery, but the ratio of
coarse to fine loads were based on results for phosphorus recovery in Prior Lake (coarse : fine
phosphorus as opposed to coarse: fine total solids). The discounts reported in Table 6 are the
average for months included as high or low loading intensity with the value for each month
computed as follows:
Total discount, high intensity months =
(10‐15% X expected ratio of coarse solids/phosphorus) + (20% X expected ratio or fine solids/phosphorus)
Appendix C
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 48
Total discount, low intensity months =
(20% X expected ratio of coarse solids/phosphorus) + (40% X expected ratio or fine solids/phosphorus)
Figure 16. Seasonal pattern in the partitioning of solids and nutrients between the fine and coarse fractions
of sweeper waste.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecPercent Total Load as Coarse OrganicDry Solids Phosphorus Nitrogen
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 49
Appendix D
Table 18. Summary of P8 ponds by priority water. Priority waters modeling in P8 are shown in bold font.
(Pollutant removal efficiencies for priority waters were applied in estimates of load reduction to other, downstream
waterbodies and not to the waterbody itself).
Priority Watershed
Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Arrowhead Lake AH_1 pond 95%100% landlocked basin
Arrowhead Lake AH_32 pond 41%73%
upstream to
landlocked basin
Arrowhead Lake AH_4 pond 61%94%
upstream to
landlocked basin
Arrowhead Lake AH_6 pond 57%89%
upstream to
landlocked basin
Colonial Ponds CO‐2 pond 82%99%
Colonial Ponds CO_1 pond 57%95%
Colonial Ponds CO_4 pond 51%94%
Colonial Ponds CO_7 pond 67%98%
Colonial Ponds CO_5 pond 73%97%
Colonial Ponds CO_3 pond 63%97%
Eden Prairie EP_1 pond 44%76%
Hawkes Lake HL_24 pond 63%96%
Hawkes Lake HL_1 general 43%
Hawkes Lake HL_44 pond 100%100%
Hawkes Lake HL_40 pond 66%98%
Hawkes Lake HL_28 pond 50%96%
Hawkes Lake HL_9 pond 57%91%
Hawkes Lake HL_39 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Hawkes Lake HL_13 pond 64%97% landlocked basin
Hawkes Lake HL_50 pond 99%100% landlocked basin
Highlands Lake HI_22 pond 62%97%
Highlands Lake HI_21 pond 60%99%
Highlands Lake HI_20 pond 100%100%
Highlands Lake HI_17 pond 59%97%
Highlands Lake HI_5 pond 44%94%
Highlands Lake HI_1 general 58%
Highlands Lake HI_18 general 44%98%
Highlands Lake HI_13 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Indian Pond IP_1 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Indianhead IH_1 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Indianhead IH_14 pond 61%93%
upstream to
landlocked basin
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 50
Priority Watershed
Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_62 pond 44%95%
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_88 general 51%82%
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_30 general 73%99%
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_2 general 31%88%
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_5 general 62%93%
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_4 general 52%82%
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_3 general 37%78%
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_78 pond 67%99% landlocked basin
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_72 pond 46%86% landlocked basin
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_135 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Lake Cornelia ‐ North NC_6 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Lake Cornelia ‐ South SC_1 general 12%93%
Lake Cornelia ‐ South SC_2 pond 21%56%
Lake Cornelia ‐ South SC_3 pond 66%97%
Lake Edina LE_38 general 39%71%
Lake Edina LE_1 general 28%94%
Lake Edina LE_51 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Lake Edina LE_54 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Lake Edina LE_44 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Long Brake Trail SWP_4 pond 41%97%
Mirror Lake ML_40 pond 36%98%
Mirror Lake ML_38 pond 45%98%
Mirror Lake ML_16 general 58%99%
Mirror Lake ML_32 pond 37%93%
Mirror Lake ML_2 pond 57%91%
Mirror Lake ML_3 pond 63%98%
Mirror Lake ML_19 pond 10%43%
Mirror Lake ML_6 pond 66%98%
Mirror Lake ML_15 pond 71%100%
Mirror Lake ML_1 general 62%99% Lake
Mirror Lake ML_28 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Mirror Lake ML_26 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Mirror Lake ML_27 pond 100%100%
upstream to
landlocked basin
Mud Lake MD_1 pond 26%96%
Mud Lake MD_50 pond 8%93%
Mud Lake MD_11 pond 7%61%
Mud Lake MD_2 pond 45%99%
Mud Lake MD_28 pond 67%99%
Mud Lake MD_7 pond 66%98%
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 51
Priority Watershed
Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Mud Lake MD_21 pond 74%100%
Mud Lake MD_27 general 79%85%
Mud Lake MD_29 pond 64%97%
Mud Lake MD_39 pond 100%100%
Mud Lake MD_3 pond 13%72%
Mud Lake MD_4 pond 66%96%
Mud Lake MD_13 pond 68%99%
Mud Lake MD_15 pond 6%58%
Mud Lake MD_25 general 55%97%
Nine Mile Central NMC_114 pond 37%88%
Nine Mile Central NMC_77 pond 69%99%
Nine Mile Central NMC_112 pond 65%97%
Nine Mile Central NMC_70 pond 51%91%
Nine Mile Central NMC_44 pond 66%98%
Nine Mile North NMN_62 pond 39%91%
Nine Mile North NMN_63 pond 59%86%
Nine Mile North NMN_77 pond 71%97%
Nine Mile North NMN_55 pond 74%99%
Nine Mile North NMN_76 pond 100%100%
Nine Mile North NMN_49 pond 40%78%
Nine Mile North NMN_48 pond 61%94%
Nine Mile North NMN_27 pond 49%
Nine Mile North NMN_20 pond 53%89%
Nine Mile North NMN_24 pond 30%68%
Nine Mile North NMN_84 pond 61%94% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North HL_25 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North NMN_73 pond 62%86% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North NMN_74 pond 92%99% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North NMN_50 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Nine Mile North NMN_75 pond 75%100% landlocked basin
Nine Mile South NMS_28 pond 63%92%
Nine Mile South NMS_40 pond 64%93%
Nine Mile South NMS_103 pond 60%93%
Nine Mile South NMS_88 pond 62%99%
Nine Mile South NMS_23 pond 2%13%
Nine Mile South NMS_104 pond 17%45%
Nine Mile South NMS_72 pond 15%40%
Nine Mile South NMS_74 pond 14%48%
Nine Mile South NMS_79 pond 53%90%
EOR: water | ecology | community Page | 52
Priority Watershed
Device
Name
Device
Type
TP Removal
Efficiency
TSS Removal
Efficiency Comment
Nine Mile South NMS_76 pond 49%79%
Nine Mile South NMS_84 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_3 pond 37%76%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_57 pond 31%83%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_90 general 3%22%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_8 pond 66%91%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_86 pond 1%16%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_85 general 31%69%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_7 pond 27%59%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_5 pond 50%99%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_62 pond 18%96%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_33 pond 68%100%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_12 pond 3%13%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_6 pond 48%96%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_2 pond 11%35%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_34 pond 77%100%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_15 general 16%49%
Nine Mile South Fork NMSB_59 pond 95%99% landlocked basin
Pawnee Pond PA_6 pond 64%96%
Pawnee Pond PA_1 general 61%97%
Pawnee Pond PA_9 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_47 pond 62%94%
Southwest Ponds SWP_34 pond 36%87%
Southwest Ponds SWP_59 pond 62%95%
Southwest Ponds SWP_35 pond 53%89%
Southwest Ponds SWP_2 pond 24%89%
Southwest Ponds SWP_1 pond 5%71%
Southwest Ponds SWP_3 pond 67%98%
Southwest Ponds SWP_10 pond 67%96%
Southwest Ponds SWP_5 pond 24%80%
Southwest Ponds SWP_14 pond 65%99%
Southwest Ponds SWP_57 pond 100%100%
Southwest Ponds SWP_37 pond 74%99% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_40 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_31 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_33 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_58 pond 74%99% landlocked basin
Southwest Ponds SWP_9 pond 100%100% landlocked basin
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: VII.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Tara Brown, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Energy and Environment Comprehensive Plan Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide feedback on draft.
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is the draft of Energy and Environment Chapter for the Comprehensive Plan. It is written and
organized in a manner consistent with all other chapters. At this meeting, EEC members will provide feedback.
Feedback will be incorporated and second draft reviewed at October 11 EEC meeting in which the consultant
working on the chapter will be present. Anticipating this draft will be presented to the Planning Commission at
the October 24 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft Energy and Environment Chapter
EEC Comp Plan Info Submitted in April
Handout from Meeting: Memo from Chair Jackson Sept. 13, 2018
Page 1
I. Environment
Chapter Highlights
• Edina has demonstrated a strong interest in taking a
leadership role on sustainability. There are many options
for how this can be pursued – from the scale of an
individual household to national policy advocacy.
• Climate change is demonstrating impacts today, with more
in the future.
• An approach to sustainability can focus on key areas of
intervention (e.g. energy, waste, environmental quality),
but also should be reflected in the way the city is
designed, developed, and functions.
• Key decisions involve how the City operations leads by
example, and what the community requires of each other,
both residents and businesses.
Introduction
The citizens of Edina are ready for Edina to be a leader in
sustainability and quality of life. Each development decision must
consider the ‘triple bottom line’ – people, planet and profit – so
that the economic factors are not favored over the health and
welfare of the City’s natural environment and/or its residents in present and future decisions.
The City of Edina supports environmental policy and practices values that positively impact the
community. Environmental stewardship was identified as one of seven key strategic focus areas for the
City. Vision Edina stated: “Community residents and stakeholders believe that Edina can take an active
and ambitious internal and regional leadership role in embedding environmental stewardship principles
through actions such as promoting more comprehensive recycling, smart building and energy efficiency
practices.”
• This includes clean energy, reduction of GHG emissions, clean water, responsible
management of solid waste, clean air, transportation, ecological health and wise
management of natural resources.
• This means actions throughout the city which includes all parts of the city: city
operations, commercial, industrial and residential.
• This addresses trade-offs that occur when working to meet multiple goals, including
environmental, fiscal/economic, and quality of life.
• This proactively pursues resiliency and adaptation in the face of a changing climate.
This chapter will outline both existing conditions and progress to date on a number of City led
initiatives.
Definitions
Environment: factors that act
upon a community and ultimately
determine its form and survival,
including the impact humans have on
natural resources.
Sustainability: protecting regional
vitality for future generations by
preserving our capacity to maintain
and support our region’s well-being
and productivity.
Resilience: the ability to recover
from a disaster that could have been
prevented or mitigated with
sustainable practices.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 2
Edina’s Commitment to Sustainability
From the early 1970’s, with the establishment of its first
Environmental Quality Commission, Edina has sought to be
on the forefront of environmental and natural resource
issues. The past decade in particular has represented strong
action in that area, particularly around energy and climate
change topics.
The City of Edina established a citizen Energy and
Environment Commission (EEC) in 2007 to promote
sustainability initiatives and to advise the City Council. The
commission is comprised of Edina residents focused on
specific sustainability topics. The commission creates a work
plan annually, and recent focus has been on carbon reduction.
As of 2016, the EEC has been supported by a full-time staff
sustainability coordinator.
Since its founding, the EEC has overseen a number of
sustainability initiatives, as summarized in the sidebar to the
right. A particular early focus has been on municipal facilities,
looking for opportunities for the city to lead by example.
The 2008 comprehensive plan was an opportunity to set
some goals for future actions, including benchmarks for
progress. This plan set some specific goals related to
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction:15% reduction by 2015,
25% reduction by 2025, 80% reduction by 2050 (based on the
state 2007 Next Generation Energy Act). When the 2015
goal was not met, this was a wakeup call to do more. The
Conservation and Sustainability Fund was created to fund a
dedicated resource to manage and measure carbon reduction
actions.
An important tool in meeting those goals was the
development of an energy action plan, to develop a citywide
strategy for energy use reduction. In 2016, the City
completed its Electricity Action Plan, the first element of this
plan. Additional action plans are anticipated to be completed
in the following years, as outlined in this plan.
Key Edina Sustainability
Milestones
2007: Became a participant in the
Regional Indicators Initiative (RII)
Established EEC
Signed U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection
Agreement
Became an ICLEI City for Climate
Protection
2008: Energy and Environment chapter in
the Comprehensive Plan
2009: Completed Greenhouse Gas
Inventory
2010: Began benchmarking City
Buildings; Installed a closed loop
geothermal system at the Public Works
building
2011: Entered into a Guaranteed Energy
Savings Contract; Joined GreenStep
Cities; Installed solar panels on the roof
of City Hall
2012-2016: LED lighting retrofits in
multiple public buildings
2015: Established Conservation and
Sustainability Fund
2016: Hired sustainability coordinator;
completed Electricity Station Plan
2017: Participation in Community
Resilience-Building Workshop Series
2018: MN GreenCorps member
provided recommendations to green City
Fleet and meet GHG goals
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 3
Current Conditions
Much of the data in this section is drawn from Edina’s participation in the Regional Indicators Initiative, a
Twin Cites metro project to measure municipal performance data. Cities who participated in this
initiative did so as part of a commitment to increase their overall efficiency and level of sustainability.
Data was collected across areas of energy, water, travel, and waste, and corresponding GHG emissions
and costs were calculated for each area. For the purposes of comparison, data are also included for
several adjacent communities with comparable conditions.
Energy Use
Energy use in Edina and comparable communities has been gradually decreasing over time, coinciding
with a focus on increasing energy efficiency. Commercial energy use accounts for a larger portion of the
city’s energy use than residential, which aligns with the fairly high ratio of jobs to residents in Edina. An
analysis of electricity use from 2014 showed that the community used a total of 584 million kWh of
electricity. Commercial and industrial use accounted for 60% of the total, residential use was 34%, and
municipal and school operations were 5%.
When considering energy used per capita, Edina consumes the second largest amount of energy (behind
Bloomington). In 2013, Edina consumed 27.6 tons of carbon dioxide worth energy per capita per day.
However, this may be changing; Edina may drop to third largest consumer due to a combination of Edina
residents’ decreased energy use and increased energy use per capita of Minnetonka residents.
Bloomington and Richfield excluded as high and low outliers to better display variation in data. Their data follows the same patterns as the
4 cities given, just at much higher (Bloomington) and lower (Richfield) totals
When digging into the numbers, Residential energy use per capita is higher than other comparable
suburbs and uses 25% more electricity per capita than the average Minnesota city.
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
7,000,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Energy in Btu, 2007-2013
St. Louis Park Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 4
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 5
On the business, energy use per job is lower than the average
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 6
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 7
Table XX – Percent Change in Total Energy Use
2007 -
2008
2008 -
2009
2009 -
2010
2010 -
2011
2011 -
2012
2012 -
2013
Edina 7% -3% -4% 3% -11% 15%
Richfield 9% -4% -5% 5% -12% 16%
Bloomington 6% -5% -4% 4% -10% 13%
St. Louis Park 7% -4% -5% 4% -11% 14%
Minnetonka 7% -4% -5% 3% -11% 17%
Eden Prairie 6% -4% -5% 3% -10% 15%
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Energy per Capita per Day, in Tonnes
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 8
Water Use
Edina’s water use decreased from 2007 to 2010 and has been increasing since. Among neighboring cities,
Edina consumes the third most amount of water (behind Bloomington and Eden Prairie, and just ahead
of Minnetonka). Unlike energy, more of the city’s water use comes from single family residential uses.
Commercial water use in the city had been one of the lowest among neighboring cities, but it has been
increasing since 2009 and is now the second highest among neighboring cities. This change is likely due
to both increased commercial water use in the city (including from new multifamily development) and
decreased commercial water use in Eden Prairie and St. Louis Park.
Compared to the peer cities, Edina consumes the most water on a per capita basis, at around 133.8
gallons per capita per day.
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Energy per Capita per Day, in Tonnes CO2
Edina
900
1,400
1,900
2,400
2,900
3,400
3,900
4,400
4,900
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013MillionsTotal Water use in Gallons, 2007-2013
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 9
Bloomington excluded to better show changes in Edina. Bloomington has much higher commercial water uses that have been gradually
decreasing since 2007
Vehicles Miles Traveled
Compared to neighboring cities, Edina has a median value for total vehicle miles traveled. From 2007-
2013, total vehicle miles have fluctuated between 495 million and 510 million miles annually (about
13,600,000 range). Most cities experienced similar ranges, except for Bloomington. Bloomington saw a
sharp decrease in the number of vehicles miles traveled in 2010 (about 200 million miles fewer), and
total miles have remained close to 2010 totals since.
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013MillionsTotal Commercial Water use in Gallons, 2007-2013
Richfield St. Louis Park Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Water Use per Capita per Day, in Gallons
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 10
In 2013, total vehicle miles traveled per capita per day was 27.88 miles. This rate has been very gradually
decreasing since 2007 when the total was 29.69 miles per capita per day. Among neighboring cities,
Edina falls in the lower half of total vehicles miles traveled.
Waste Production
Given available data, most communities have somewhat plateaued in terms of waste reduction efforts.
Edina and neighboring communities cut tons of waste and tons of CO2 emitted from 2007 to 2010 but
have struggled to make further reductions. In 2013, Edina produced nearly 55,000 tons of waste,
creating about 9,900 tons of CO2 emissions. Waste per household per day has decreased in Edina and
neighboring communities, but the rate of reductions decreased after 2009. Edina is tied with
Bloomington for third among surveyed neighboring cities for most waste per household per day,
following Eden Prairie and Richfield. In Edina, the amount of landfilled and incinerated trash has
decreased while the amount of recycled trash has remained fairly constant.
200,000,000
400,000,000
600,000,000
800,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,200,000,000
1,400,000,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Vehicle Miles Traveled, 2007-2013
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
20
25
30
35
40
45
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Vehicle Miles per Capita per Day
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 11
MPCA’s Metropolitan Solid Waste Mater Plan 2016-2036 was approved on April 6, 2017 and outlined
the goals of municipal solid waste with a goal of recycling 75% of waste by 2030. To meet this, the state
and County are focusing on diverting organic food waste from landfills. Hennepin County is proposing
to amend Ordinance to require cities like Edina to provide residents the opportunity to recycle organics
by 2022.
30,000
50,000
70,000
90,000
110,000
130,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Municipal Waste, in Tons
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Waste per Household per Day, in Pounds
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 12
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 emissions in Edina decreased 17% between 2007 and 2010 and have since remained relatively
constant. St. Louis Park and Bloomington also experienced similar trends of decrease from 2007 to 2010
and more recent fluctuation in emissions. Most of the city’s emissions come from energy related
sources. Action will need to be taken by the entire community to allow a prosperous and healthy
community to grow while reducing its carbon footprint, to lessen impacts on our environment and the
changing climate.
6.34 6.34 6.22 6.22 6.25 6.36 6.36
10.31 9.06 8.52 8.45 8.17 8.15 7.78
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Edina Waste per Household per Day, in Pounds
Tossed
Recycled
100,000
600,000
1,100,000
1,600,000
2,100,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Greenhouse Gas (CO2) Emissions, in Tonnes
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 13
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Greenhouse Gas (CO2) Emissions per Capita
per Year
Richfield Bloomington St. Louis Park
Edina Minnetonka Eden Prairie
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 14
Trends and Challenges
Climate change. Climate change is a global challenge, with local implications regarding impacts and
policy. Addressing this will require coordinated change on a number of fronts – including reduction of
emissions, promotion of alternative energy sources, and alterations in consumption patterns and waste.
Climate resilience. In response to the impacts of climate change, there is a need to develop climate
resilience – defined as the ability to absorb and respond to stresses, and to adapt and evolve accordingly.
This will include identifying vulnerabilities in the community, in terms of both people and resources.
Alternative energy availability and cost. Sustainability best practices support the expanded use of
alternative energy sources, and the reduction and replacement of ones with large GHG emissions. Costs
for renewable energy has reduced significantly at a commercial level. The cost of wind is on parity with
coal generation. However, there are still issues regarding the availability and affordability of renewable
energy generation on small residential scale (solar PV on a home). Conversion to renewables cannot be
done overnight as there is significant infrastructure investment around current energy generation that
will take time and substantial resources to replace.
Cost and logistics of separating waste and recyclable items. Sustainability also leads to an
increased focus on a reduce/reuse/recycle approach to resources – with the goal of reducing overall
waste generated. It is critical to capture materials from the waste stream that can be reused. However,
the market for materials continues to change which makes recycling expensive to complete. Education
and behavior changes for residents and businesses to alter their purchasing and disposal practices will be
critical for successful recycling and waste reduction.
City’s potential to lead by example. The City of Edina has the ability to set the example for
sustainability best practices through its own operations and facilities. It will be important to look at the
complete lifecycle of purchases and processes to determine the opportunities to meet sustainability
goals and improve the community’s health and resiliency. This will need to be done through a triple-
bottom line lens, which identifies the true financial, environmental, and societal costs to allow
productive discussion and decision making about the level of commitment needed.
Environmental impacts in a fully developed community. Edina exists on land that has mostly
been removed from its original ecological and natural function to make way for human development.
While there are opportunities to improve this, substantial impacts remain. A fuller picture emerges
when looking at how this developed area fits into the larger ecological context of the region.
Water resource impacts. Water quantity and quality must be wisely managed to deliver core
services of drinking water distribution and source protection, sanitary sewer service, flood protection,
runoff management, and clean surface water (lakes, creeks, ponds, and wetlands). Climate change and
land use decisions have the biggest impacts on the resilience of our water resources systems.
Environmental Stewardship
In Vision Edina (2015), the city’s strategic vision framework, environmental stewardship was identified as
a strategic focus area. Participants in the process were more supportive of environmentally responsible
policies and practices than any other issue area. This reflected an awareness of the impact of the built
environment on the natural environment, and a sense of individual and collective responsibility to
address this. There also was a strong belief that that Edina can and should take an active and ambitious
internal and regional leadership role in embedding environmental stewardship principles through actions
such as promoting more comprehensive recycling, smart building, and energy efficiency practices. The
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 15
process cited a number of issues to be addressed, including lack of financial incentive for the private
sector to pursue environmentally sensitive practices, lack of coordination in waste removal and other
environmental services, and increased pressures on City infrastructure and the environment resulting
from growth and change.
Climate Change
The role of a community in addressing the global issue of climate change is necessarily limited as a
smaller city not on the global stage. However, the City of Edina has committed to several actions within
the community to support this goal. In 2007, Edina joined over 700 cities in signing the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement. The same year, the City Council voted to join the International Council
of Local Environmental Initiative (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection (CCP). Copies of these
agreements and their related milestones and objectives can be found LINK/APPENDIX.
The significance of these actions is a commitment on behalf of the city to identify actions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the community, primarily through reduction of dependence on fossil fuels.
Strategies covered include pursuing clean and efficient energy alternatives, supporting sustainable
development approaches, promoting alternative transportation options, encouraging green building
techniques, using energy efficient equipment and fleets, increasing water system efficiency, encouraging
recycling, maintaining urban forests, clean water landscaping, native prairie restoration, and many related
initiatives.
Since addressing climate change covers a broad range of topics, they are each discussed in more detail in
the following sections
Energy Efficiency and Alternatives
Addressing energy efficiency and promoting the use of renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels is a
key part of the climate change agenda. At present, the majority of energy consumed in Edina uses non-
renewable sources, and (though progress has been made) Edina consumes energy at a higher rate than
many other communities. Through the City’s Electricity Action Plan and other assessment work, the
City has been engaged in understanding energy usage patterns in the city, and identifying strategies to
promote solutions that fit for the community.
The approach to addressing energy efficiency and alternatives in Edina has been focused on two main
areas of influence: leading by example through municipal facilities and operations, and encouraging and
incentivizing private sector action. Solar access protection, a state-required element, is also part of the
City’s approach to promoting alternative energy.
Municipal Facilities and Operations
A core priority of the City and the EEC has been to lead by example by operating city facilities
sustainably. To ensure action, City Council setup the Conservation and Sustainability Fund to establish a
dedicated resource and funding for initial energy efficiency investments. Currently, the efficiency projects
are focused on facilities with a high Energy Use Intensity (EUI) and purchasing high efficiency products
when a system, like lighting or HVAC, come up for replacement.
Transportation is another GHG emitter. The current fleet is being reviewed and recommended actions
are being implemented to meet a 30% reduction goal.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 16
Private Sector Development
The City’s influence on the private sector is less direct, but no less important. The City has taken on a
role of supporting community education around energy efficiency and other sustainability initiatives.
Examples of initiatives include home energy fairs and energy house parties. These efforts also involve
partners such as the Home Energy Squad or Center for Energy and the Environment, and tabling at
other community events.
Education with businesses in the community regarding opportunities to increase energy efficiency, such
as utilizing programs, have proven more challenging as there are many decision makers between tenant,
property manager, and building owner. Cities have taken on green building policies, energy
benchmarking, and other policies to ensure data and standards are available to assist in encouraging
sustainable building construction and maintenance. To date, the City has created a toolkit for builders
when applying for permits that encourages sustainable practices. There may be additional need to revisit
regulations to determine if additional incentives or requirements are merited to further encourage
sustainable development.
Solar Access Protection
One important contribution the City can make in the transition to renewable energy sources is to
protect the access that individual residents, businesses and industry have to renewable sources of
energy. Active solar rooftop collectors and passive solar technologies require maximum exposure to
sunlight, which may be challenging in a developed environment. To help ensure that sufficient exposure
is available for all homeowners and businesses, the City already has ordinances for building setbacks,
building height restrictions, and maximum lot coverage. At present, there are still very few houses with
solar energy systems, likely due to high costs and logistical considerations associated with installation.
The University of Minnesota has developed a high-resolution statewide solar resource map that allows
cities to calculate how much electricity they could potentially receive from locally installed solar energy
systems. These data (see Figure XX) were used to calculate Edina’s solar resource, in terms of
potential for energy generation. The solar map shows the location of the best sites solar installations
and helps identify where there may be potential land use conflicts with solar development. Table XX
shows the amount of solar energy reasonably available for development in Edina. The gross potential
includes the total available resource, regardless of location; rooftop capacity and generation include only
the resource available on the rooftops of commercial buildings located in the city.
Table XX – Hopkins Gross and Rooftop Solar Generation Potential
Total Generation Potential (MWh/year) 16,700,686
Rooftop Potential (MWh/year) 2,739,861
Gross Generation Potential (MWh/year) 1,670,068
Roof Generation Potential (MWh/year) 273,986
These calculations assume a 10% conversion efficiency and current (2016/17) solar technologies. The
average home in Minnesota consumes between 9 and 10 Mwh/year (Solar Energy Industries Association;
US Energy Information Administration). Using only Edina’s rooftop generation potential, 27,000-30,000
homes could be powered by solar energy annually – more than the total number of existing units in
Edina.
Actions by the City of Edina that promote solar access and energy usage – such as facilitating financing
mechanisms like PACE financing and maintaining updated development regulations and incentives – can
result in wider adoption of solar energy in Edina. Another alternative is participation in community solar
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 17
gardens, which provide people an opportunity to support renewable energy through membership in a
large solar array located in a sunny open area. The Edina Community Solar Garden, located on the roof
of the Public Works and Park Maintenance Facility, is fully subscribed at the time of this writing with 68
households participating.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 18
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 19
Sustainable Buildings and Sites
The built environment has a significant impact on the natural environment, particularly in a city like Edina
that is already fully developed. Investment in sustainable building and site practices – either in new or
renovated projects – can have a significant impact on energy efficiency and reduction of energy costs and
GHG emissions.
On the regional scale, it is generally more sustainable for development to be located in developed
communities that are well-served by infrastructure, rather than on the outskirts where undeveloped
land is being consumed and infrastructure is being extended, creating a larger carbon footprint.
However, at the local level, as the City considers development and density option they must consider
local impacts to the environment. Meeting the carbon reduction goal will necessitate discussions on
tradeoffs in development and density and their carbon impacts. For example, growth can provide a
lower carbon footprint per resident and new development can be more energy efficient. But increasing
the population would likely increase community the community’s carbon footprint overall (though
possibly not at a per capita level). Stopping density is not the answer but growth does require
investigation of ways to grow more sustainably, and to seek to decouple carbon increases from
economic growth.
For building construction and design, particularly in the case of larger scale development, the City
encourages developers to consider and pursue green building standards and sustainable energy
guidelines. The “give to get” city development review process provides an opportunity to discuss how
the developer and City can achieve a project that benefits the community. A green building policy will
provide clear direction to developers.
The City encourage best management practices in building and site design and maintenance that:
• Support green building development, including design, materials, and operations
• Encourage responsible demolition practices
• Promote energy efficiency and renewable energy options
• Minimize waste, and optimize processing of the waste stream with zero waste being the
target goal
• Reflect best practices to support water quality through drainage plans, stormwater
management, and limitations on impervious surface
• Encourage sustainable lawn management, plant biodiversity, and tree canopy development
• Investigate ways to stack benefits, such as native plants that absorb runoff, support
pollinators, and help clean water
• Support smart water use policies that conserve and reuse water, such as grey water
Education and outreach is always the first step, and can be incentivized with tools such as rebates and
other financial options. Education and outreach are useful tools that we should continue to use;
however, we should recognize that the impact of education alone is limited. Beyond these actions, many
cities explore regulatory tools, either at the local level or through state action, that provide additional
reinforcement and consistency to sustainable practices.
Natural Environment
Protecting the natural environment in Edina is an overall goal for the community. In a practical sense,
that means addressing impacts of development and human activity on natural resources, and addressing
ways to mitigate those impacts. Focus areas include waste reduction, water quality, air quality, ecology
and habitat, and the city’s tree canopy.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 20
Waste Reduction
The City of Edina has pursued waste reduction and recycling programs since the 1970’s, and continues
its commitment to the present day. The City has adopted the long-standing Minnesota waste hierarchy
to prioritize policies and actions:
• Rethink. Rethinking how to approach waste can provide new directions for how to use
resources. The City encourages all to think of their waste footprint as a starting point to
reduce waste and its impact on the environment.
• Reduce. Recent emphasis on the “sharing economy” – where people share resources
rather than purchase their own – is very consistent with reduce policies. Opportunities
to efficiently share vehicles, space, tools, or other elements can be both cost effective and
good for the environment. Limiting the use of disposable materials at the City operations
level can also help in this area.
• Reuse. Reuse policies fit in well with sustainable building and design practices, which
include green demolition approaches as well as use of reclaimed and recycled materials
over new ones. The concept of a circular economy (where resources are repeatedly used
to extract the maximum usage, before recovery and regeneration) forms a model for
how resources can be used more sustainably than a traditional linear system.
• Recycle. The City’s current recycling program involves biweekly curbside single sort
collection. Drop off sites are available at the county level for larger items, and items with
hazardous content.
Air Quality
Outdoor Air Quality
The quality of the air in Edina is a significant determinant to the health and comfort of the city’s
residents. Pollutants in the air can cause anything from minor irritations or annoyances to serious
respiratory health problems. In Edina, the outdoor air quality is generally very good; however, there are
certain sections of the city, which are at particular risk for degradation of air quality – mostly due to
auto emissions during traffic congestion.
Air quality in a metropolitan area is greatly influenced by factors outside the control of an individual
community. However, the City can seek to promote cleaner air through policies that reduce mobile
source emissions, namely automobile traffic, by encouraging alternative forms of transportation. On a
more granular scale, the City can limit practices such as open burning and small engine equipment which
high levels of emissions.
Indoor Air Quality
Indoor air quality is also a consideration, though with different factors to consider. Poor indoor air
quality is typically linked to presence of contaminants and/or poor building system condition or
maintenance. Remedies are typically consistent enforcement of building codes and public health
standards, which are largely already addressed in city and state regulations.
Ecology and Habitat
While natural ecological system and habitat have been significantly impacted by development in Edina
over the past century, they are still present. A diverse array of plants and animals live alongside people
in the city – and positive steps are possible to ensure ecological functions are protected, enhanced, and
restored.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 21
Protecting, enhancing, and restoring ecological systems in Edina involves a range of best management
practices to mitigate impacts of pollution and runoff. This can include brownfields remediation in the
case of contaminated soils or groundwater. It can also involve promoting connectivity in green space, to
allow for more functional habitat for plants and wildlife. The City’s actions will be a blend of regulation,
education and encouragement, programmatic approaches, and capital investment. Programmatic
approaches would include municipal best practices, and operations and maintenance such as street
sweeping.
A couple focus areas of the city related to this topic have been reduction of excessive pesticide and
fertilizer use, and promotion of plantings that support pollinators. These are related to goals regarding
biodiversity and the use of native plants where possible.
An example is Braemar Golf Course’s Academy 9 native restoration, completed in 2016. The
restoration included more than 13 acres of prairie and oak savanna restored, more than 29,000 square
feet of wetland buffer planted, and expansion of a water quality pond. Managing and expanding this
native restoration is a long-term commitment.
Tree Canopy
The City of Edina has a substantial tree canopy throughout much of the city. Tree canopies have many
stacked environmental benefits such as carbon sequestering, reduction in heat island effect, storm water
mitigation, and supporting wildlife. Actively managing the tree canopy diversity will be important
maintaining its health and resiliency to the changing climate and diseases like Emerald Ash Borer. The
City should review policies and actions that support the establishment and maintenance of a tree canopy
and benefits.
Water
Water resources are an essential element of the City’s environment, and a key element for its life and
health. The Water Chapter covers this topic in depth. Some potential priority areas related to water
and environmental sustainability are listed below:
• Water supply. PLACEHOLDER – COMPLETE WITH INPUT FROM ENGINEERING
STAFF
• Surface water management. PLACEHOLDER – COMPLETE WITH INPUT FROM
ENGINEERING STAFF
• Water quality. Encouraging more sustainable practices related to salt usage to reduce
pollution of waterways.
Goals and Policies
Environmental Stewardship
Goal: Take a leadership role in promoting environmentally responsible policies and practices.
1. Develop a comprehensive citywide environmental management plan that explores
and includes best practices in water management, biodiversity, green space
management, streetscape enhancement and waste management.
2. Partner with energy and utility service providers to educate residents on the
importance of energy efficiency in their daily living and promote energy efficiency and
smart building practices at all City-owned properties.
3. Continue to identify a series of environmental flagship pilot projects to bring
stakeholders together and begin exploring creative solutions.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 22
4. Develop incentives for individual households to take an active role in the overall city
responsibility for environmental management.
Climate Change
Goal: Support statewide and national efforts to meet or beat targets for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
1. Support state and federal efforts to implement policies and programs in support of
greenhouse gas emission goals, including reduction of dependence on fossil fuels.
2. Strive to meet or exceed Paris Climate Accord and Next Generation Energy Act targets for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Inventory greenhouse gas emissions in city operations and in the community and set
reduction targets and timelines to reduce those emissions.
4. Create a holistic climate action plan that tackles both climate mitigation and climate
adaptation.
Energy Conservation and Alternatives
Goal: Improve energy efficiency consumption in the city, and replace fossil fuels with renewable sources
where possible.
1. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by advocating for the development of
renewable energy resources.
2. Make energy efficiency a priority across city programs, policies, regulations, and
investments.
a. Create benchmarks of current energy use in all public facilities and set a goal to
reduce energy use and costs.
b. Monitor energy usage at public facilities and make changes and investments as
needed to increase overall energy efficiency and reduce cost.
c. Pursue the reduction of emissions from municipal fleet vehicles through “green
fleet” practices, including the use of high efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles, no-
idling, reduction of discretionary trips, and vehicle sharing.
d. Implement purchasing guidelines for city procurement that address energy efficiency
and alternative energy.
e. Work with public and private institutions to support the development of renewable
energy pilot projects in the city.
f.
3. Develop goals for energy efficiency, implement through policies and programs, and
monitor and verify results.
Goal: Encourage private property owners to pursue energy efficient practices in the construction and
maintenance of their homes, businesses, and commercial properties.
1. Inform residents of the opportunities available to them to control and reduce their energy
consumption.
2. Create incentives in the form of tax rebates and low interest financing to reduce residential
energy demand and promote renewable energy and low-carbon energy use.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 23
3. Promote the adoption by homeowners, builders, and remodelers of city and state government
energy guidelines, with the goal of meeting LEED certification standards for new constructions.
4. Encourage the use of green building materials and sustainable site design to reduce the need for
summer cooling and winter heating.
5. Inform and educate builders, property owners, and businesses about energy conservation and
alternative energy opportunities, including tax incentives or rebates.
6. Support the development of locally generated renewable energy by to power part or all of the
energy needs of a private development.
7. Explore opportunities for establishing district energy systems where appropriate, to promote a
more efficient and cost effective energy solution.
Goal: Meet or exceed state standards regarding solar access protection.
1. Continue to enforce setback, building height, and lot coverage ordinances that can serve as
protection to solar access
2. Become SolSmart certified to ensure policies, permitting, and inspections processes do not
inhibit solar access.
3. Consider access to solar protection when reviewing variance requests.
4. Promote the use of active and passive solar energy for heating, lighting, and other aspects in
design, construction, remodeling, and operation of City buildings.
5. Leverage the Solar and Wind Access Law to establish polices that restrict development for the
purpose of protecting solar access.
Sustainable Sites and Buildings
Goal: Encourage sustainable development patterns that reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
1. Adopt and enforce land use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create
compact, walkable urban communities.
2. Promote transportation options such as bicycle facilities, commute trip reduction programs,
incentives for carpooling, and public transit.
3. Encourage and incentivize sustainable building practices using the Minnesota B3 Guidelines, U.S.
Green Building Council's LEED program, or other standards.
4. Evaluate adopting ordinances and policies to provide incentives for energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and reductions in greenhouse gases.
5. Continue to implement City’s sustainability purchasing policy that considers the environmental
impact of City purchases.
Environmental Quality
Goal: Pursue a reduction in overall waste through initiatives to reduce, reuse, and recycle materials.
1. Continue to operate a household recycling program for single-family and multi-family housing,
encouraging the 3 R’s, reduction, reuse, and recycling.
2. Encourage home composting of organic wastes, including food scraps and yard waste.
3. Support citywide co-collection of Source Separated Organics with yard waste.
4. Encourage local businesses to participate in waste reduction programs such as the Minnesota
Chamber of Commerce’s WasteWise program.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 24
5. Encourage proper disposal of hazardous and other problem materials such as e-waste through
public education about opportunities and regulations around disposal.
6. Educate consumers on how to avoid purchasing products with environmentally harmful
ingredients and instead buy “green.”
7. Recommend changes to the City purchasing policy to encourage the use of materials that are
re-usable, recycled, compostable, or which use minimal packaging. Incentivize city vendors to
deliver products in reusable containers.
8. Expand the range of plastics that can be included in residential recycling as markets permit.
9. Encourage greater recycling among local businesses.
10. Identify an Edina site that would produce renewable energy from city waste, such as an
anaerobic digester, away from residential areas.
Goal: Encourage best practices to reduce air pollution and maintain good indoor and outdoor air quality.
1. Cooperate with enforcement of the Clean Air Act and other laws and regulations relating to air
quality including the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act.
2. Encourage and consider requiring mechanical ventilation systems in new homes.
3. Provide incentives for building practices that improve indoor air quality.
4. Encourage property owners to plant trees along roadways where possible to help reduce traffic
noise and absorb CO2.
5. Maintain healthy urban forests on public lands and streets to increase shading and absorb CO2,
and encourage private property owners to do the same.
6. Enact an ordinance that restricts vehicle idling in Edina and post ‘No Idling’ signs at all schools
and public parking lots.
7. Promote the use of renewable energy sources at the local and state levels to reduce the amount
of particulate matter generated by coal plants.
Goal: Support the protection, enhancement, and restoration of natural ecological systems and habitat, in
the context of a developed environment.
1. Support the cleanup and remediation of brownfields where appropriate.
2. Encourage open space and site design that provides connectivity in green space, and supports
habitat and ecological function.
3. Investigates strategies to reduce of excessive pesticide and fertilizer use and to limit runoff.
4. Promotion of plantings that support pollinators, and encourage biodiversity and the use of native
plants where possible.
5. Encourage the development and maintenance of a healthy urban tree canopy.
Implementation
Implementation Strategy
The City of Edina has a range of tools and strategies that it can use to implement these goals and
policies. These include:
• City Budget and Operations. The most direct control the City has is over how it manages
its own internal systems. Implementation strategies will include:
o Addressing sustainability through strategy, planning, and budgetary decisions.
o Embedding sustainability into decisionmaking, budget process, capital improvements, and
inter-departmental initiatives.
o Operating city facilities in sustainable manner, including supporting green building
policies, net zero goals for new buildings, and efficient/shared use of existing facilities.
Edina Comprehensive Plan
Environment Chapter 082818 Draft
Page 25
o Setting baselines and reporting on goals and benchmarks, such as energy utilization,
purchasing, and performance standards.
• Policy and Regulations: The city will work through staff and commission to amend and
approve policies that support sustainable actions, meet sustainability goals, and meet the needs
of the community. This will include:
o Creating incentives for sustainable practices in policy and regulations, to encourage and
guide property owners, developers, and others to adopt best practices.
o Where appropriate, evaluate creating regulatory requirements and/or options (such as
“give to get”) to promote sustainable practices.
• Education: The city will continue to pursue and learn about best practices across a range of
topics, and to share that information with the community. This will include:
o Participating in regional, state, and national conversations and initiatives regarding
moving forward on sustainability goals.
o Using opportunities with city staff, EEC, neighborhood organizations, neighbor-to-
neighbor interactions, business associations, and other community partners to promote
sustainable actions.
o Appendix XX has ideas for education and outreach.
• Alliances: Edina is a part of a larger community, and that can bring advantages – particularly
regarding taking on projects that are beyond the scope or scale of an individual city.
o Building alliances among city commissions, Edina School District, Chamber of
Commerce, Hennepin County, neighboring jurisdictions, and other governmental
entities within the region to connect on policies, learn best practices, and share
resources.
• Goals, Metrics, and Benchmarking: Setting specific goals, metrics, and benchmarks can
provide focus and accountability when working toward a long term vision.
o Continuing to develop and utilize benchmarking and metrics to monitor and reach
stated goals. Some of the ones that have already been developed are included below.
Citywide Goals
Goals are our way to prioritize action, get resources, and measure our actions. Meeting these goals will
require trade-offs by communities. Current adopted City goals related to sustainability and the
environment include:
1. Greenhouse Gases. 30% Greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2025, 80% emissions
reduction by 2050.
a. Municipal: Lower the City’s GHG emissions by 7.5% over 18 months; reduce the
City’s GHG emissions 30% by 2025 from a 2012 baseline
b. Residential: 750 homes take energy saving actions each year; double the number of
subscribers to Windsource®, and double the average subscription amount within 18
months
c. Business: Reduce and/or off-set 2% of electricity usage annually
2. Waste: Reduce residential waste 75% by 2030.
3. Add goals arising out of the Partners in Energy Program (To be determined in Summer 2018)
along with additional ways to promote action planning.
4. Other government entity and community goals (reference water section for water goals)
5. Equitable distribution of environmental benefits
6. WATER GOALS
7. Net zero goals for municipal buildings
Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Directions to writers of Comp Plan: When writing the new chapter, keep it concise. Current chapter is
too long with too much backstory. Chapter should be a summary, ideally less than 6 pages, with an
appendix that can provide a history and examples that are more specific. When maps are added (i.e.
gross solar potential map), add that the fact that the map was a point in time. If possible, add real-time
or updated maps over time.
Throughout the plan, EEC wants to see:
• City operations be a leader.
• City staff consider the impact of climate change on making decisions on staffing and services.
• Environmental sustainability and stewardship framed in practical outcomes.
Energy & Environment Commission believes sustainability should be engrained throughout and
therefore, recommend a statement at the beginning of the comp plan:
The citizens of Edina are ready for Edina to be a leader in sustainability and quality of life. Each
development decision must consider the ‘triple bottom line’ – people, planet and profit – so that the
economic factors are not favored over the health and welfare of the City’s natural environment and/or
its residents in present and future decisions.
Definitions
Environment: factors that act upon a community and ultimately determine its form and survival,
including the impact humans have on natural resources.
Sustainability means protecting regional vitality for future generations by preserving our
capacity to maintain and support our region’s well-being and productivity.
Resilience is the ability to recover from a disaster that could have been prevented or mitigated
with sustainable practices.
Chapter 10
Values and Goals
• Value Statement: The City of Edina supports environmental policy and practices values that
positively impact the community. Environmental stewardship was identified as one of seven key
strategic focus areas for the City. Vision Edina stated: “Community residents and stakeholders
believe that Edina can take an active and ambitious internal and regional leadership role in
embedding environmental stewardship principles through actions such as promoting more
comprehensive recycling, smart building and energy efficiency practices.”
a. This includes clean energy, reduction of GHG emissions, clean water, responsible
management of solid waste, clean air, ecological health and wise management of
natural resources. To summarize: Reduce, reuse, recycle.
b. This means actions throughout the city which includes all parts of the city: city
operations, commercial, industrial and residential
• Goals: Goals are our way to prioritize action, get resources, and measure our actions. Meeting
these goals will require trade-offs by communities.
a. GHG goal: 30% Greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions reduction by 2025, 80% emissions
reduction by 2050.
b. Waste goal: Reduce residential waste 75% by 2030.
c. Add goals arising out of the partners in Energy Program (To be determined in Summer
2018). Along with
d. Additional ways to promote action planning.
e. Other government entity and community goals(reference water section for water goals)
f. Equitable distribution of environmental benefits
Tools:
• Policy: The city will focus through staff and commission to amend and approve policies that
support sustainable actions, meet sustainability goals, and meet the needs of the community.
• Education: We encourage city to connect on policies, learn best practices.
a. We will use opportunities with city staff, EEC, organized neighborhoods, neighbor-to-
neighbor, and business organizations to promote sustainable actions.
• Alliances: Edina is a part of a larger community. It is important to build alliances across City
Commissions, with Edina School District, Chamber of Commerce, Hennepin County, and other
government entities within the region to connect on policies, learn best practices, and share
resources.
• Tools: develop and utilize existing tools for benchmarking and metrics to monitor and reach
stated goals
Avenues:
1. City facilities – City facilities and operations will lead by example and commit resources to
achieving our sustainability goals. This would include:
a. Integrating strategy, planning, and budgetary decisions
b. Encouraging city staff to embed sustainability into decision-making, budget process,
capital improvements and build alliances across City Departments.
c. Operations - Green building policy, net new city buildings
i. Operational aspects (like irrigation, tree canopy and green space).
ii. Share resources example (South Metro training center.)
d. Reporting - setting baselines and report out on (e.g. energy utilization, purchasing, new
buildings)
2. Density and Development: As the City considers development and density option they must
consider the tradeoffs to the environment. Meeting the carbon reduction goal will necessitate
discussions on trade-offs in development & density and their carbon impacts. For example,
density can provide a lower carbon footprint per resident and new development can be more
energy efficient. But increasing the population through density would increase community the
community’s carbon footprint.
3. Commercial and Industrial Facilities - This includes non-city owned government and nonprofit
entities
a. Constructions & Design- encourage green buildings, energy guidelines , give to get
options, deconstruction
b. Operations – encourage energy consumption and efficiency, minimize waste and
optimize processing of waste stream with zero waste being target goal, water quality,
water drainage
c. Capturing opportunities to educate (with appendix of big ideas)
d. Drainage and impervious surfaces, run-off plans
e. Energy efficiencies and renewable energy options
f. Lawns and plant diversity - permeable lawn, grass (appendix the weed) Tree policy,
g. Rebate and financial options
4. Residential
a. Utilize policies available to support green buildings (design, materials, etc), energy
efficiency and residential energy options, responsible demolition, pervious surface use,
smart water use (ex. Irrigation), reduction of waste and plant biodiversity (including
tree canopy and green space).
i. Give to get options was mentioned as a policy form.
b. Continue to reassess policies that impact drainage and impervious surfaces (i.e.
construction permits needing run-off plans) and look for ways to stack benefits (i.e.
utilizing native plants that can absorb run-off, support pollinators, and clean water
versus use of a buried cistern)
c. Support pollinators, tree canopy, biodiversity and native plants
d. Beyond policy, look for opportunities to educate (with appendix of big ideas)
5. Subject Areas
a. Solid waste – Encourage all to think of their waste footprint, use the waste reduction
pyramid (i.e. rethink, reduce, reuse, recycle), and anti-littering to reduce waste and its
impact on the environment.
i. As we manage waste (i.e. trash, recyclables, and organic recyclables), continue
to find ways for reduction via pick up options, hazardous waste, green
demolition, sharing economy, and the circular economy.
b. Energy – Commission to review the LogoPEP work
i. The city consider energy resources and reduction and their impact on our city’s
goals.
ii. Continue to look for opportunities for renewable resources
c. Water – See Water Chapter and notes below . Water is governed by the water chapter.
Here are the guiding principles:
i. Sewage management – Monitor environmental opportunities such as grey
water
ii. Surface water management - Creating resilience plan for severe weather events
and volatility. Consider the effect of development and increased impervious
surfaces on stormwater management Encourage resiliency systems
iii. Water quality – Protect water quality including the connection between
stormwater and groundwater policy and continue to consider the factors
affecting water quality
iv. Wetlands – value the protection of wetlands
v. Water supply – value the protection of the water supply
d. Air Quality – Promote clean energy and other actions to improve air quality such as
reducing transportation emissions
e. Tree canopy has many stacked benefits (carbon sequestering, reduction in heat island
effect, storm water mitigation, support wildlife, etc). Review policy and actions that
support tree canopy and benefits.
f. Natural habitats – Consider other natural resources such as soil, natural habitat, sunlight
g. Reduce pesticide and fertilizer use.
Notes for Other Chapters and Commissions:
Planning
• Density and Development discussion: Overall impact of density within the geographical outlines.
Density can provide a lower carbon footprint per resident, but increase the population would
increase community the community’s carbon footprint.
• Live, work, and play. Development that is more efficient has mixed use, which allows people to
cut their transportation carbon footprint when they live and work in close proximity.
• Look for opportunities for district level sustainable, environmental, and resiliency benefits.
Water – Questions for the Water section when reviewed
• Sewage management – No comments. Will grey water come into effect?
• Surface water management -
o Stormwater - Creating resilience plan for severe weather events and volatility.
Encourage resiliency systems
o Water quality - Consider the connection between stormwater and groundwater policy
o Wetlands - Do we talk about the relationship development and wetlands? Ask Jess if
we have a map on wetland
• Water supply – No comments
Appendix: Collection of Sustainability Ideas and Specifics
2018 Comprehensive Plan
Solid Waste
- Incorporate consideration of waste into every aspect of plan - think of the waste hierarchy: reduce,
reuse, recycle
- Any new commercial development should incorporate 3-stream waste collection
- Consideration for organics both in production and collection - i.e. new food establishments take
packaging and waste collection into consideration
- Keep all new technologies and innovations in regards to waste on the table
- Educate citizens on waste at every opportunity
- Public spaces need to have 3-stream waste receptacles conveniently located for citizens
- Events should consider waste in their planning. Both packaging and waste collection should be part
of permit/expectation
- Consider opportunities for citizens to dispose of waste materials at centralized location - i.e. a day
where there is an electronics collection at a central drop-off
- Construction and demolition requirements or options for greener practices. This could include
reusing materials and/or more environmental considerations when building
- Parks using a percentage of compost in turf management and in planting beds
Energy
-Consideration of self generation or self sourced generation:
-Look into costs for on site generation or programs to source directly from remote sources
-Consider long term environmental impact relative to city goals
-Consider carbon free sources or programs giving Renewable Energy Credits to end users
-Explore benefits of all electric sites and partnerships with utilities to off set potentially higher bills
-For larger developments consider on site generation, district energy systems, or district thermal options
(Natural Gas use on site will always have carbon emissions)
- Consider the impact of community solar gardens
-If the new home construction boom continues, consider local rebates/incentives to make homes more
efficient, resilient , & sustainable. Consider incentives for reused materials or products sourced through
in-state companies. (Discount on permit fees? Free LEDs throughout the house is builder/owner meets
____ efficiency level or a percentage of recycled materials.
Wetland
- Achieve no net loss of wetlands
- Discourage wetland alteration.
- administering the Wetland Conservation Act
- update the wetland inventory data
- restore previously existing wetlands
- buffer zones of native vegetation
- minimization of water level fluctuations
- Involve the appropriate regulatory agencies (MPCA, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the MnDNR) in the planning of any proposed water quality or
flood control facilities
Natural Habitat
- Address invasive species
- Encourage native plants, especially pollinator-friendly plants
- Encourage large tree preservation
- Encourage increasing tree canopy
- Capture education opportunities for teaching eco-systemsReduce pesticide and fertilizer use
Water
- Road salt best practices for overall reduction of chlorides to surface water receptors
- Irrigation system best practices including upgrades and incentives for overall water use reduction
- Incentives for potable water use reduction (business, residential)
- Long term drinking water sustainability, well redundancy, and water quality (including emerging
chemicals of concern)
- Leveraging available new technologies that optimizes electricity usage and well maintenance.
- Resilient storm water management
- Incentives to reduce the proliferation of single use plastic water bottles
- Building / new structure enhancements that optimize water usage including options for gray water
systems
- Continued long term water use coordination with water water shed agencies, County, and adjacent
communities.
- Innovative use of rainwater run-off for activities such as watering plants (refer to U of M
operations example)
MEMORANDUM
To: The City of Edina Energy and Environment Commission
From: Carolyn Jackson, Chair
Re: Draft of the Environment Chapter of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan
Date: September 13, 2018
Just like the rest of, I was only informed of the draft of our Environment Chapter to the
Comprehensive Plan when it was included three days ago (September 10) in our meeting packet.
As you will recall, we directed the drafters of the Comprehensive Plan that the “Chapter should
be a summary, ideally less than 6 pages, with an appendix that can provide . . . examples that are
more specific.” We also directed them that the content areas of energy, water, solid waste air
quality, natural habitat and fertilizer/pesticides should be addressed in four different ways: by the
City, by Commercial/Industrial actors, by Residents and by density.
I was surprised at the content of the draft chapter. While I can see echoes of the
recommendations we made to the consultants, the final document is dramatically different from
what we had submitted. My objections fall into three categories: Content, Process and Policy.
Thank you for your consideration of these points:
Content Objections
Three major content objections:
1. While the City has limited control over private actors, the goal we have set of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions encompasses all actors within the City limits, not
just City buildings and operations. Therefore, the comprehensive plan must address
all actors.
The consultants ignored our direction to segment environmental policies by City,
Commercial/Industrial (including non-profits, other governmental entities and multifamily
housing) and Residential (single family residences.) Instead, they lumped them all together into
the phrase “private property owners.”
a. First, this ignores the reality that many actors in Edina that use energy and
water and create solid waste are not property owners in Edina.
b. Second, three years of undergoing the Partners in Energy program revealed
that City, business and family residences have major differences.
i. The data gathered on energy and water gets broken down along these
categories.
ii. The decision making process for these three categories is very
different, so a “one size fits all” policy or direction will be ineffective.
2. The draft ignores our direction to only include high level policy in the chapter and put
details in an appendix.
3. The draft includes a large number of detailed policies that have never been aired to
the general public or to the EEC.
Jackson Memo
To Edina EEC
September 13, 2018
4. The draft addresses the following topics: “environmental stewardship, climate
change, energy conservation and alternatives, sustainable sites and buildings, and
environmental quality.” These terms are unfamiliar, vague and confusing.
Process objections:
1. Despite repeated requests, neither the consultants nor the city provided us a template
to work from.
2. The draft chapter was delivered only 3 days before our September meeting—The
agenda previously set for the September meeting did not account for review of the
comprehensive plan.
3. Consultants are not present at our meeting to answer questions or receive in-person
feedback.
Policy objections:
1. Although the Met Council has asked for a “resiliency” chapter, this draft does not
address resilience. At no time in the process did the consultants give us any guidance
on how to include resilience in this chapter. I hope it is included in the water chapter.
2. This draft directs the City to create both a comprehensive environmental management
plan and a “holistic climate action plan.” However, the five pages of detailed policies,
goals and implementation generated by the consultants effectively preempt the
priorities and direction of the community.
3. We have not yet seen the draft of the water chapter, nor have we been informed as to
whether our request that the overall plan include environmental considerations has
been included anywhere in the plan. With this incomplete picture, we are unable to
provide adequate comments on this chapter.
I look forward to discussing these objections with you. I hope that you will join me in
communicating a message to the City, both to the staff and the City Council, that this chapter
does not meet the objectives we set out and that it should not fall on us to draft a new chapter
that does meet our objectives. We have already spent 7 months (October 2017 to April 2018) on
this chapter, and the consultants should have worked with us more cooperatively at that time.
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: VII.B.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
From:Carolyn Jackson, Chair
Item Activity:
Subject:2019 Work Plan Discussion Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Finalize and approve recommended 2019 EEC Work Plan
INTRODUCTION:
Annual work plans ensure that the Commissions’ initiatives are aligned with the City Council’s priorities. EEC
began discussion of 2019 Work Plan at the August meeting. This discussion will finalize a recommended 2019
EEC Work P lan to be sent to Council to review and approve.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2019 Work Plan Survey
2019 Work Plan Draft
2019 EEC Work Plan
10 Respondents ranked their top five initiatives.
Total Score Lead Support Commission Effort Impact
1 Residential curbside organics recycling 9 7.7 Melissa
Seeley
Maddy Fernands,
Michelle Horan
Proposal review process (5-10hrs)
On-site tours (4-6hrs)
Reduction of residential
waste to meet MPCA goal
of 75% waste diversion
and nominal GHG
emission reduction
2 Business recognition program 10 7.4 Michelle
Horan
Carolyn Jackson,
Maddy Fernands,
Bayardo Lanzas,
Melissa Seeley
Program creation (4-10hrs),
Business outreach (2hr per business),
Applicant Review (0.5 hr per
applicant),
Recognition (2hrs)
Relationship building with
business community
3 Building energy benchmarking policy 9 6.9 Carolyn
Jackson
Michelle Horan,
uknown
Stakeholder meeting (4-6hrs),
Report recommendation (5-12hrs)
Potential for 1-2% GHG
energy
reduction/efficiency with
top energy users
4 Pollinator resolution 7 6.9 Michelle
Horan
Research (5-20hrs),
Report recommendation (5-12hrs)
Support pollinators and
eco system
5 Increase of street sweeping and other water
quality improvement actions
9 6.4 - Lauren Satterlee Research (5-20hrs),
Report recommendation (5-12hrs)
Improve water quality
6 Timeline and parameters recommendation for
a Climate Action Plan
5 6.4 Lauren
Satterlee,
Maddy
Fernands
Chloe Maynor Research (10-20hrs),
Report recommendation (5-12hrs)
Set a timeline in motion
for planning
7 Education and outreach events 6 5.8 - Lauren Satterlee,
Maddy Fernands,
Bayardo Lanzas
Planning (16-40hrs),
Event (2-6hrs),
Recap (2hrs)
Build relationships with
community and educate to
act
8 Green building policy 8 5.8 - Chloe Maynor,
Lauren Satterlee,
Carolyn Jackson
Stakeholder meeting (4-6hrs),
On-site tours/resarch (4-6hrs)
Report recommendation (5-12hrs)
Potential for
communitywide GHG
emission reductions and
support of healthy,
resilient building
9 Pass an enhanced tree ordinance 6 5 Bayardo
Lanzas
Carolyn Jackson,
Melissa Seeley
Research (10-20hrs),
Report recommendation (5-12hrs)
Potential for nominal
carbon sequestoring
10 Other: City owned Building energy efficiency 5 4.4 Unknown Unknown Receive and review reports (1-2hrs) Remain up to date on
actions
Commission Work Plan Instructions Updated 2018.06.27 Instructions: Each section with a white background should be filled out. Do not fill out council charge. Scott will complete this section with his proposed charge to the Council. Liaisons are responsible for completing the budget and staff support columns. List initiatives in order of priority Definitions New Initiative – not on previous work plan and has completion date Continued Initiative – carried over from a previous work plan with a revised target completion date Ongoing Responsibility – annually on the work plan and may or may not have a target completion date Parking Lot – initiatives considered by not proposed as part of the work plan. Not approved by Council EVENT Initiatives – if it is an annual event list the initiative as ongoing. It if is a new event list the items as a new initiative. Timeline SEPT MEETINGS: Commissionapproves proposed work plan. Plans due to MJ September 25.OCT 2 WORK SESSION:Chairs present proposed work plan to Council. Chairs present.NOV 7 WORK SESSION: City Manager presents staff proposed revisions. Liaisons present.DEC 4 COUNCIL MEETING: City Manager incorporates council feedback and submits final draft for approval.JAN 1: Commissionofficially starts implementing work plans.
Commission: Energy and Environment Commission 2019 Annual Work Plan Proposal Initiative # 1 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☐ New Initiative ☒ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☐ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Residential curbside organics recycling ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 2 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☐ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Business recognition program ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 3 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project.
Building energy benchmarking policy ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). ☐ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Lead Commissioners: Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 4 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☒☒☒☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☐ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Pollinator resolution ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Initiative # 5 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☐ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Increase street sweeping and other water quality improvement actions ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report:
Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Timeline and parameters recommendation for a Climate Action Plan, Education and outreach events, Green building policy, Pass an enhanced tree ordinance City owned building energy efficiency Proposed Month for Joint Work Session (one time per year, up to 60 minutes): ☐ Mar ☐ April ☐ May ☐ June ☐ July ☐ Aug ☐ Sept ☐ Oct ☐ Nov
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: VIII.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Casey Casella, City Management Fellow
Item Activity:
Subject:Working Group Minutes Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Receive minutes from EEC working groups.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
EEC Working Groups and Subcommittee List
Minutes: EOWG, Aug 2, 2018
Minutes: EBWG, July 11,2018
Edina Energy & Environment Commission
Working Groups and Subcommittees
Updated 8/09/18
Business Environmental Working Group – Second Wednesday at 7:00pm - Chair Michelle Horan - mhoran00@gmail.com
Commissioners: Carolyn Jackson and Paul Hussian, Members: Mike Woolsey and David Goldstein
Objective: Business energy efficiency and conservation, 30% GHG emission reduction by 2025.
Education & Outreach Working Group – First Thursday at 7:00pm – Chairs Lauren Satterlee lauren.mpls.mn@gmail.com
and Howard Hoffman howard.hoffman@gmail.com Commissioner: Richard Manser, Members: Bob Gubrud, Chuck
Prentice, Mathias Samuel, Paul Thompson, and Kristopher Wilson.
Objective: The mission of the Education and Outreach Working Group is to support the charter of the Edina
Energy and Environment Commission by creating awareness and engaging residents, schools, communities of
faith, and community organizations to take action to conserve and increase energy efficiency to work towards
30% GHG emission reduction by 2025, to reuse and recycle, and to preserve and enhance our environment.
Merged Residential Energy Efficiency Working Group in 2/8/18
City Operations Energy Efficiency and Conservation Subcommittee – Chair Keith Kostuch Commissioners: Bill Glahn
and Richard Manser
Objective: City Operations energy efficiency and conservation, 30% GHG emission reduction by 2025.
Recycling Solid Waste and Organics Working Group (RSWO) – First Wednesday at 7:00 pm - Chair Melissa Seeley
msee10@me.com Commissioners: Michelle Horan
Objective: Evaluate and monitor the provisions of the recycling, solid waste and organic waste collection
programs in Edina. Evaluate and monitor the reduction in municipal solid waste by residents and businesses in
Edina. Educate the public about recycling, organics and solid waste reduction.
Student Environmental Leadership Council (Subcommittee) – Chair Melissa Seeley - Student Members: Maddy Fernands
and Natalie Swanson open to students attending secondary schools in Edina.
Objective: To facilitate, coordinate and share information between the EEC and the School Environmental
groups and to work on common energy and environmental objectives as appropriate. To assist in developing
environmental leaders of tomorrow.
Minutes
Education and Outreach Working Group
Energy & Environment Commission
Edina City Hall, Mayor’s Conference Room
I. Call to Order: August 2, 2018 at 7:05 pm
II. Attendees: Lauren Satterlee, Howard Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Amanda Elg
III. Agenda approved
IV. Topics Discussed
a. 2018 Events -
● 4th of July Parade -
● We had 12-15 volunteers assembling pinwheels and walking in
the parade. Have pinwheels left over.
● Tabling at a series of events, including:
● Focus on hockey games because everyone comes in 1 door
(rather than soccer games).
● Holiday set of 2 games at Braemar: Nov 3-5, or Dec 27-30. Edina
Kids Hockey Association rather than High School because more
teams playing in former games.
○ Howard will ask neighbor about concession options and if
he knows people organizing tournaments. (Budget went to
4th of July Parade. Will need to raise funds if we want to
sell hot chocolate & coffee for sports events.)
○ There may be resources with booster clubs, check-in table
for players we could set up near? Amanda will check if
there’s a roster for booster clubs.
○ Edina Girls Athletic Association - Paul will follow up with
president
○ Tara confirmed with CEE use of the TOLBY mascot for the
Family Fun Night at Cornelia (June 20, 6:30-8pm) and a
few sticker handouts as well, but we didn't have any
volunteers.
b. Reviewed current Work Group member list and objective - Howard will call Jeff B,
Paul will call Clover and tell her we’ll remove her from active list.
c. 2019 EEC Work Plan - draft attached. Due in September.
● Recognition program for residents (more informal than business
awards).
● How does the plaque that CEE gives work? (“Energy Fit” plaque home)
Howard will reach out.
● Lauren can ask Tara: Can we use HES budget partially for funding 1st
mo of Windsource? Maybe after HES left. Tara said this would take a
Council approval and we’d have to create a whole process around this
subsidy.
● Discuss planning for Home Energy Tour, perhaps in collaboration with
SW suburb commissions around Earth Day 2019. Need to decide, since
planning takes several months.
1. Participant considerations: Our Lady of Grace (geothermal),
businesses/ residents who have installed Powerwall, Grandview
Auto (solar rooftop), Community Solar Garden, Mattias’ house
(geothermal), Chuck’s house. Potential collaboration with MRES?
2. Howard will reach out to Parade of Homes and to builders - City
Homes & Great Neighborhood Homes.
3. Lauren will do more research on other builders and will ask Tara
there are flyers given to new permit grantees.
4. Amanda will ask Kris if he has contacts.
5. Ask builders: Would they be interested in a gathering to learn
about energy efficiency? Do they have any homes that are part of
the Parade of Homes, and if so about any energy saving
measures they’ve done on those homes? If yes, maybe we can
provide an information flyer as part of the tour.)
d. Youth updates
e. Review action items, identify one member to follow up with any requests to Tara.
f. Close
V. Adjournment: 8:45pm
VI. Next Meeting: September 6, 2018, 7:00pm, Mayor’s Room
BEWG Meeting July 11, 2018
Michelle Horan
Carolyn Jackson
Paul Hussian
Summarize Business Working Group Efforts to EEC
• Outreach is difficult – suggestions?
• Electricity is major expense – need benchmarking ordinance/business recognition – strengthens
motivation – need incentive
• Provides carrot and stick – reinforces comprehensive plan
• Contact businesses only once
• Support sustainable efforts businesses
Reviewed Recognition Program outline prepared by Michelle
Goals and timeline for program
Make motion to approve future actions for BEWG at Thursdays meeting
Create a list of new members of BEWG – Mike Woolsley (Paul) David Goldstein & Hello Pizza contact
(Michelle) – contact by August meeting. Update on status of group, info on his non-profit and commit
to volunteer
Job Descriptions could include: approach via NextDoor?
• Electronic data manager
• Others?
• Working members
o Corporate messengers
Outreach to Chamber of Commerce
Hines Galleria contact – give us a summary of steps taken to improve energy efficiency?
Reviewed Survey
• Extra points for multiple categories
• Few other minor edits to Marshall survey
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: X.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
From:Tara Brown, Liaison
Item Activity:
Subject:Open Streets and EV Ride and Drive
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
Volunteers are needed from 1-5pm on Sunday, September 23 for Open Streets at the EEC booth.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Open Streets Location Map
Open Streets Vendor Booth Location
B B Electric Vehicles Fire Truck Music B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 25 16 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 13 14 15 16 34 35 36 37 29 26 27 28 33 30 31 32 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 57 58 59 60 53 54 55 56 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 71 70 69 68 Pet Zone 72 74 73 40 B Restrooms Storm Shelter Bounce House Vendor LocaƟon 50th & France Vendor LocaƟon
Booth #Booth Host
1
City of Edina, Neighborhood Connections, Volunteer Edina &
Buckthorn Removal
2 Cool Planet/Citizens Climate Lobby
3 Center for Energy and Environment
4 Xcel Energy
5 Facepainting
6 Hennepin County Library
7 Edina Historical Society
8 The Grange
9 Edina Heritage Preservation Commission
10 Cookie Cart
11 Edina Wrestling Association
12 Edina Parks and Recreation Commission
13 DJ Bob
14 Edina Art Center
15 Usborne Books & More (Erica Hohenstein)
16 Mary Kay by Parris Ellis
17 Bring It!
18 Marty Chiropractic
19 Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN - Edina Retail Center
20 Orange Theory Fitness - Edina
21 Bhatki Wellness Center
22 The Center of Movement
23 Edina Transportation Commission
24 Edina Energy, Environment Commission
25 Edina Water Resources
26 Aupaircare Edina
27 Beautycounter
28 Prismatic Unicorn LuLaRoe by Jennifer Bentley
29 Bethel #1 Job's Daughters-Mpls/Edina
30 Heather Edelson for MN House
31 Matt Boockmeier State Farm
32 Edina Youth Basketball Association
33 Ron Anderson for Edina City Council
34 Southwest Television (SWTV)
35 Profile by Sanford
36 York Gardens
37 Clear Captions
38 Three Rivers Park District
39 Shawn McCann - Sidewalk Chalk Artist
40 Physical Culture(v) Fitness & Wellness Studio
41 Edina Soccer Association
42 Hummingbird Tutus
43 Zan Associates
44 Twin Cities International Bilingual Montessori School
45 Chang's Yongin Martial Arts
46 Edina Lions Club
47 Edina Community Education
48 Edina Robotics FIRST Team 1816, The Green Machine
49 … by Amy
50 VW Photography
51 Kiddie Academy
52 Avidor
53 Commuter Services
54 MnDOT
55 Mindful Families
56 Brownie Cart
57 The Bar Method
58 The Sota Shop
59 Maat Mons LLC
60 Marissa's Kisses (LipSense by SeneGence)
61 CBDisGreat
62 City Chic Boutique - Authorized LuLaRoe Retailer
63 Z-Ultimate Self Defense
64 Rotary Club of Edina
65 Landmark Tours
66 Metropolitan Pediatric Specialists
67 Caricature Artist
68 TranscenDance Xperience
69 Edina Volleyball Association
70 MN Falun Dafa Association
71 Mini Donuts
72 Clear Health Chiropractic
73 Antique Firetruck
74 Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
Pet Zone Canine Circus
Date: September 13, 2018 Agenda Item #: XI.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
From:Tara Brown
Item Activity:
Subject:EEC Meeting Schedule and Roster List
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2018 EEC Meeting and Roster List
Meetings and Events
Day Date Event Time Location
Thurs Jan 11 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Thurs Feb 8 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Thurs Mar 8 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Wed Mar 28 Commission Comp Plan Presentations 5:30 pm Council Chambers
Thurs April 12 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Mon April 16 BC Member Annual Reception 5:30 pm Braemar Golf Course
Mon April 23 Volunteer Recognition 5:30 pm Braemar Golf Course
Thurs May 3 Comprehensive Plan Mid-Term Check in 6:00 pm Public Works
Thurs May 11 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Tues May 15 Work Session w/ City Council 5:30 pm Community Room
Thurs June 14 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Thurs July 12 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Thurs August 9 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Thurs Sept 13 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Thurs Oct 11 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Thurs Nov 8 Regular Meeting 6:00 pm Community Room
Thurs Dec 13 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Community Room
Attendance at Regular Meetings and Rescheduled Regular Meetings are counted towards attendance policy.
Chair and Vice Chair specific meetings
Mon March 21 Chair and Vice Chair Annual Meeting 6:00 pm Public Works
Tues Oct 2 Chair Only - 2018 Work Plan Review w/ Council 5:30 pm Community Room
Roster
Name Email
Glahn, Bill billglahn@aol.com
Fernands, Maddy maddyfernands@gmail.com
Hoffman, Howard howard.hoffman@gmail.com
Horan, Michelle mhoran00@gmail.com
Hussian, Paul pahussian@hotmail.com
Jackson, Carolyn
(Chair) bjandcj@aol.com
Kostuch, Keith kostuch.eec@gmail.com
Lanzas, Bayardo blanzas@artaxstudios.com
Manser, Richard
(Vice Chair) richardmanser@icloud.com
Maynor, Chloe chloem20475@isd273.org
Satterlee, Lauren lauren.mpls.mn@gmail.com
Seeley, Melissa msee10@me.com
Brown, Tara (Liaison) tbrown@edinamn.gov
Casella, Casey (City Fellow) ccasella@edinamn.gov