Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-22 Meeting PacketAgenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall - Community Room This meeting will be held in person and electronically using Webex software. The meeting will be streamed live on the City's YouTube channel, YouTube.com/EdinaTV or you can listen to the meeting via telephone by calling 1-415-655-0001 access code 177 548 2726. Thursday, July 22, 2021 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 June 10, 2021 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Presentation: Edina Environmental Performance Dashboard B.Presentation: Proposed Edina Sustainable Buildings Policy 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.2021 WP Initiative #1: Climate Action Plan B.2021 WP Initiative #2: To-Go Packaging C.2021 WP Initiative #3: EEC Event Tabling D.2021 WP Initiative #5: Green Business Recognition Program E.2022 Workplan Development Discussion VIII.Chair And Member Comments IX.Sta3 Comments X.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli6cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: July 22, 2021 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission June 10, 2021 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve June 10, 2021 meeting minutes INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes: June 10, 2021 Agenda Energy and Environment Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Members of the public can observe the meeting by watching the live stream on YouTube at youtube.com/edinatv or by listening in by calling toll free 1-415-655-0001 with Access code: 177 793 1128. Thursday, June 10, 2021 7:00 PM I.Call To Order Chair Martinez called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM II.Roll Call Answering roll call were Chair Martinez, Commissioners Horan, Haugen, Ratan, Tessman, Student Commissioners Ana Martinez. Absent: Commisioner Lukens, Hovanec, Student Commissioner Mans. Late: Commissioner Dakane and Lanzas. III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion by Michelle Horan to Approve Meeting Agenda. Seconded by John Haugen. Motion Carried. IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion by Michelle Horan to Approve May 6, 2021 Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Rajeev Ratan. Motion . A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission May 6, 2021 V.Reports/Recommendations A.2021 WP Initiative #1: Climate Action Plan Chair Martinez provided an update on the Climate Action Plan B.2021 WP Initiative #2: To-Go Packaging Commissioner Horan provided an update on the to-go packaging ordinance. EEC members discussed what would be included in the ordinance. 7:10 PM Commissioner Dakane joined the meeting. 7:20 PM Commissioner Lanzas joined the meeting. C.2021 WP Initiative #3: EEC Event Tabling Commissioner Lanzas provided an update on the Event Tabling. Volunteers are welcome to help with Farmer's Market events. D.2021 WP Initiative #5: Green Business Recognition Program E.2022 Workplan Development Kickoff Commission members discussed the 2022 Work Plan ideas. A poll will be sent out for members to vote on items for 2022. F.July 2021 EEC Meeting Date Motion by Bayardo Lanzas to Change July Meeting Date July 22 at 7pm. Seconded by Ukasha Dakane. Motion Carried. VI.Chair And Member Comments Chair Martinez will be presenting a work plan update to City Council on June 15th. VII.Staff Comments Commission meetings will be transitioning back to in person meetings starting in July. Summer Sustainability Intern, Sletsy Dlamin, was introduced to the commission. Ana Martinez received the Mayor's youth service commendation. Human Services Fund Task Force is looking for a commissioner to join. July 4th parade is happening July 3rd and is looking for commissioners to participate in the parade. VIII.Adjournment Motion by Bayardo Lanzas to Adjourn the Meeting. Seconded by Ukasha Dakane. Motion Carried. T he City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: July 22, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Presentation: Edina Environmental Performance Dashboard Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Receive introduction to Edina's Environmental P erformance Dashboard from Sustainability Intern, Siletselwe Dlamini. INTRODUCTION: On July 1, the City rolled out a new public-facing tool that outlines the City of Edina’s goals to address climate change and continue to build a city where all can thrive. T his Environmental Performance Dashboard shares information about the City’s efforts and progress towards sustainability goals in Edina’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan, and will incorporate information from the Climate Action Plan once it is adopted. Dashboard metrics will be updated bi-annually to reflect progress on greenhouse gas emission reduction and other sustainability measures. ATTACHMENTS: Description Presentation - Environmental Performance Dashboard Edina Environmental Performance Dashboard Sletsy Dlamini Sustainability Intern Background Sustainability and Climate Change Goals outlined in City plans Community-informed Climate Action Plan development Triennial greenhouse gas inventory with scope 1 and 2 emissions Need for a reporting mechanism Tracking and Reporting Awareness & Accountability Progress Monitoring Decision Making Dashboard Divided into different sustainability topics Includes municipal operations reporting Outlines goals, accomplishments, progress Accessibility Ease of understanding Translation button Optimization for mobile devices Future tool improvement 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 Emissions (metric tonnes)Greenhouse Gas Emissions Total GHG 30% Reduction Goal Source: Edina GHG Inventory LINK TO DASHBOARD Date: July 22, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Presentation: Proposed Edina Sustainable Buildings Policy Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: EEC review and comment on proposed Edina Sustainable Buildings Policy. INTRODUCTION: Center for Energy & Environment will present with City staff on a proposed Sustainable Buildings P olicy for new construction in Edina. Public project site can be found here: https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/sustainable-buildings-policy-proposal ATTACHMENTS: Description MN Sustainable Buildings Report - CEE Fact Sheet: Sustainable Buildings Policy Presentation - SBP Stakeholder Session January, 2021 Prepared by Katie Jones, Marisa Bayer Center for Energy and Environment In collaboration with Hennepin County MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL SUSTAINABLE BUILDING POLICIES GUIDE Policy Framework and Implementation Recommendations 1 OVERVIEW Cities throughout Minnesota seek to improve public health, environmental justice, and environmental and economic sustainability. As cities set targets to reduce carbon emissions, reduce waste, protect natural areas, and mitigate stormwater runoff, many are turning to building-related strategies to help achieve these goals. Generally, cities have three main levers to create change: mandatory requirements, process incentives, and financial incentives. Because the State of Minnesota sets the building code, cities are unable to establish building requirements that are more strict than existing code; however, with financial levers and authority over land use, cities have tremendous potential to use sustainable building policies as a tool to make progress toward sustainability goals. To date, Minnesota cities have taken three approaches in the application of sustainable building policies, listed below in order of impact: 1. Mandatory approach (Recommended). This policy approach identifies default sustainability requirements for funding programs and land use variances above certain thresholds. These requirements are in addition to other program and land use requirements. 2. Scoring approach. Buildings are scored on a set of criteria and those with the highest scores qualify for city program funding and approval. 3. Suggestion approach. Developers are strongly encouraged to consider sustainability in construction through a sustainability questionnaire. Based on research of existing policies and interviews with Minnesota cities, we identified best practices and recommendations for creating a framework and implementing a mandatory sustainable building policy. The intent of this guide is to provide a resource for cities considering sustainable building policies and to encourage standardization across cities. Standardization has many benefits including improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness across the region, facilitating the adoption of sustainable building practices, and reducing competition among cities for development. Sustainable Building Policy Defined Sustainable building policies establish minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for new construction or significantly renovated developments. Included criteria typically target areas for pollution reduction and resource conservation. Also known as green building policies. Existing Policies As of 2020, seven Minnesota cities have some type of formal sustainable building approach: Duluth, Edina, Maplewood, Minneapolis, Rochester, St. Louis Park, and Saint Paul. The affected building types, triggers, and criteria vary by policy, although some standardization is taking shape. See the Appendix for detailed comparison of the policies. 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK GUIDE A policy framework addresses the fundamental questions of “what” and “who” — what does the policy cover, who does this apply to, who manages the policy, and what happens with non- compliance. Identify City Overlay and Applicable Rating Systems The first step is to understand the universe of existing third-party green building rating systems.1 Such rating systems provide processes for developers to achieve the city’s aims. Rating systems are often similar but not identical. For that reason, the city should note the strengths and weaknesses of the rating systems relative to one another and make a list of priority impacts the city wants to target. That list, along with considerations of other city goals, becomes a city overlay — a set of specific measurable minimum requirements that go beyond the base construction code and may exceed a standard’s requirements. Figure 1: Example relationship between the city overlay and an existing rating system for a single- family home new construction. A development must comply with everything in the city overlay. For many components, the MN Green Communities rating system meets the city’s criteria. However, as this example shows the city is specifically targeting higher building performance with DOE Zero Energy Ready certification. Applicable rating systems and the overlay should both be included in a policy. The two work in tandem, giving the city high-level policy customization, while giving developers flexibility in how to meet the targets. One benefit for the city is that using such rating systems lessens the need for specialized staff. In addition, leveraging existing rating systems that are well known in today’s construction industry allows for ease of communication and cost-effectiveness of implementation. 1 Green building rating systems — sets of sustainability criteria with detailed and proscriptive pathways for meeting the criteria. They are generally broad covering many sustainability areas (e.g., water, energy, waste, materials) and can include topic focused standards (e.g., Sustainable Buildings 2030 energy standard). DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes ENERGY STAR® certification Water conservation, waste diversion, indoor environmental quality, etc. City Overlay: Single Family Residential Rating System: MN Green Communities 3 Leverage existing third-party rating systems Cities with existing sustainable building policies recognize the value of standardization across the region — the more ubiquitous the rules, the more practiced the industry becomes at complying with them and the more cost-effective implementation becomes. Because of the unique characteristics of different building types, policy requirements should specify the appropriate rating system for each building type. The table below shows the most common and recommended minimum rating systems and their associated levels by building type. Municipal, Commercial, Mixed- Use, Industrial • LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations; Certified Silver or higher • B3 Guidelines Multifamily • LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations; Certified Silver or higher • B3 Guidelines • GreenStar Homes; Certified Silver or higher • Green Communities * Single-family • LEED for Homes; Certified Silver or higher • MN GreenStar; Certified Silver or higher • Green Communities* Parking • Park Smart Silver *For projects with MHFA funding, it is recommended that the MN Overlay version be used. Establish City Overlay Criteria Below we lay out the most common overlay criteria. Where possible, criteria are performance-based, which gives developers flexibility, and drives innovation and cost efficiencies. Cities should prioritize criteria for adoption that balance needs for implementation with city goals to ensure policy success. It is also important to note that as environmental and economic conditions change, flexibility within each criterium is valuable. For that reason, it is recommended that a department director be charged with promulgating the detailed overlay requirements. It is also critical to include a third-party verification component in the policy. Verifiers should be proposed by the developer and acceptable to the city. 4 Recommended Overlay Criteria Recommended Rule Predicted and actual energy use Meet SB 2030 Energy Standard through design and operation; for 1-3-unit buildings, meet DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Homes standard. Predicted greenhouse gas emissions Calculate and report. Predicted and actual use of potable water Achieve 30% below the water efficiency standards of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Predicted use of water for landscaping Achieve 50% reduction from consumption of traditionally irrigated site. Utilization of renewable energy Evaluate 2% of on-site renewables; install if cost-effective using SB 2030 guidance. Electric vehicle charging capability (if parking is included) Install conduit that allows charging stations to be installed at a future date. Diversion of construction waste from landfills and incinerators Achieve 75% diversion rate Indoor environmental quality Use low-VOC (volatile organic compounds) materials including paints, adhesives, sealants, flooring, carpet, as well as ASHRAE thermal and ventilation minimums. Stormwater management Adhere to quantity and quality requirements, including infiltration rate, suspended solid, and phosphorous reductions. Resilient design Document a design response to several identified potential shocks and stressors such as utility interruption, extreme rainfall and transportation interruption. Design Team shall integrate the identified strategies into the design of the project. Ongoing monitoring of actual energy and water use Benchmark using ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager annually. 5 Policy Triggers Given the regional competition for development, cities often balance priorities of encouraging development while achieving community-wide goals, such as sustainability targets. For this reason, we 1) encourage the greatest number of cities to adopt similar sustainable building policies to standardize the practice across a region, and 2) recommend cities consider their unique leverage points for the greatest impact. Cities can use the following triggers to activate a sustainable building policy: 1. Funding incentives. The most straightforward trigger is a developer’s request for public funding. To date, several cities have successfully used a minimum trigger of $200,000 in cumulative public funding. The types of qualifying funding sources vary. We recommend maximizing public funding sources for the greatest impact. (See examples below.) 2. Land use incentives. Though there is little track record of this approach for sustainability in Minnesota, it is used in other areas of the country. For cities with established zoning rules, we recommend cities consider three types of land use triggers: a. Planned unit development (PUD). Where a city has a large tract of land for development, it can set high-level density and other rules, such as a sustainable building policy, for the site, while giving the developer flexibility in how that is accomplished. b. Premiums. Setting clear expectations for developers can reduce costs and encourage specific types of development. We recommend cities consider codifying sustainability premiums as an incentive for density and height bonuses. c. Variance. Where not codified as premiums, cities should consider applying a policy when more intense variances are requested. 3. Process incentives. Cities can create faster approval processes and higher prioritization in permit and inspection reviews for developments that adhere to the sustainable building policy. This has not yet been tried in Minnesota but has been done elsewhere. 4. Building size. Because larger building developments have the greatest environmental impact and more sophisticated design teams, we recommend that a policy apply to buildings that meet the following size thresholds. This trigger is only activated when a project receives a funding, land use, or process incentive. a. New construction of 10,000 square feet and greater. b. Significant renovation of buildings 10,000 square feet and greater that include a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Funding Sources Comprehensive policies count all public dollars toward the threshold that triggers compliance including: 1. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) 2. Bonds 3. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) 4. HOME Investment Partnership Program 5. Housing Redevelopment Authority funds 6. Land write-downs 7. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) 8. A dedicated Sustainable Building Policy fund 9. Any other Federal, State, Regional (e.g., Met Council), or City funding source 6 Enforcement Enforcement can be approached from two angles — either for financially incentivized projects or for those triggered by land use and process incentives. The financial incentive is often needed to encourage and make such developments viable in the first place, making a financial penalty for non-compliance challenging to employ. For that reason, the best practice is to be proactive on the front end, providing sufficient resources and check-ins during the design development process to ensure compliance along the way. For projects triggered by land use and process incentives, the city could enact a fine for violation, which has been done in other American cities with some as high as $500 per day for non-compliance. In either case, compliance with the sustainable building policy should be included in the development agreement and loan documents. Evaluation Cities should evaluate a policy’s impact and adjust over time in order to meet stated goals. A best practice is to build a framework for these components within the policy itself by requiring an annual progress and impact report and setting a reassessment timeline (e.g., every 3-5 years) for overlay criteria and the approved third-party rating systems. Codify the Policy After the city council or board adopts the sustainability building policy, it is important to codify the policy within or near zoning- and planning-related chapters in city code because a sustainable building policy concerns land development. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE Before approval, it is important to have a plan to address questions of “how” — namely, how to operationalize the policy. Policy adoption alone will not ensure a sustainable building policy will be successful. Additional steps are needed to create structure, ownership, and awareness of the policy. Identify Leaders and Collaborators Policies are often managed by departments that are responsible for education, awareness, and enforcement. In some cases, these responsibilities may fall across departments, so it is important early on to identify the department and individual who will take primary ownership for the policy. Below is a list of key stakeholders to involve: Sustainability Staff As topic specialists, sustainability staff should either lead or play a significant part in policy development and assist in policy implementation. Such staff can advocate for the policy internally and educate external stakeholders. In addition, any initial meetings with 7 a project’s development team should include sustainability staff or other designated, qualified individuals who can speak to the technical nature of sustainability requirements. Planning Department City planning departments should be involved in the management of the sustainable building policy. City planners are responsible for reviewing project applications, engaging with developers, and ultimately drafting the developer’s agreement, which is the document holding a project developer accountable for following policies and codes. External Collaborators External partners can provide technical assistance to project teams to meet policy rating systems. These generally fall into two categories: • Specific: A partner that develops and manages an individual rating system is best equipped to answer questions regarding pathways for compliance for their rating system (e.g., USGBC for LEED). • Broad: A partner that can answer questions across multiple rating systems. Increase Awareness of the Policy A key question to ask is: how do developers, architects, and contractors know the policy exists? If the policy is new, or if major changes have been made to an existing policy, cities should take proactive steps to inform their development community about how this policy will impact future projects. At minimum, cities should post the policy clearly on the city’s website for easy access. Additional engagement would build support and acceptance of the policy. We recommend cities offer trainings, networking events, and building tours, as well as engage building associations to spread the word about the policies. Cities could also partner on outreach initiatives to increase reach and minimize cost. Community Highlight: St. Louis Park, MN Because the City’s Community Development Department oversees project and land use applications as well as financial incentives for development, it is a natural fit for the sustainable building policy to be managed by that department. Sustainability staff, who are in a different department, remain engaged by attending project meetings with developers to educate them about the City’s climate goals and aspects of the policy. The City also keeps an architecture and engineering firm on retainer for more detailed review beyond sustainability staff’s abilities and to help developers meet the goals of the policy. Community Highlight: Rochester, MN The City of Rochester hosts green building tours to showcase successful implementation of their policy in new development. Developers and architects can tour new buildings, ask questions, and learn how their peers are following Rochester’s sustainable building policy. 8 Identify Projects Subject to the Policy Although a policy itself specifies minimum requirements for subject developments, the city must create a process to easily identify incoming projects that meet those requirements. This is accomplished by leveraging existing development review processes. Planners also often use checklists and review guides to ensure projects meet required development policies and codes. For that reason, we recommend cities use this process to integrate a review for the sustainable building policy. Cities should make sure someone with sustainability expertise, either sustainability staff or other designated reviewers, attend development review meetings. Educate Project Teams Once the city has identified an eligible project, the policy should be reviewed with the project’s development team to ensure they understand all the components of the policy. This is a great opportunity for development teams to ask questions and for city staff to champion their policy. This meeting should be scheduled after a project application or funding application is received to ensure policy criteria can be incorporated as early as possible in the design process. Having the right people at the meeting will ensure that the policy expectations are clearly communicated, and any questions are addressed. On the city’s side, this meeting should include those involved in managing the policy, such as sustainability and planning staff. If the city is working with an external collaborator to help with technical assistance, including them in this meeting would be advantageous. From the project team, the architect and owner’s representative should be invited so that the team responsible for designing and funding the project understand the expectations. Ensure Compliance A best practice for compliance is for cities to connect project teams with external collaborators who are technical experts in both the development process and sustainability requirements. Cities then track compliance with the list of requirements. Because most projects that have been subject to sustainable building policies in Minnesota have been commercial, mixed use, or large multifamily, city staff have relied on the B3 Tracking Tool to monitor compliance for most recommended overlay criteria and then have separate manual tracking mechanisms to track any remaining criteria. Community Highlight: Saint Paul, MN The City of Saint Paul uses funding and size minimums to determine the projects subject to their sustainable building policy. After public project funding is requested and before it is approved, the staff member responsible for managing the policy is notified of the project. Staff send a letter to the project team detailing compliance requirements for the project, and soon after they hold a meeting involving the project team to review these requirements. Sustainability staff leverage this opportunity to walk through the policy step by step to make sure there are no surprises for the project team. 9 Another best practice is to leverage other existing processes for front end-confirmation of sustainable design, such as Xcel Energy’s Energy Design Assistance program and other similar utility programs that incentivize energy modeling to meet building performance criteria. Enforce the Policy Enforcement comes into play once a project receives the necessary approvals to start construction. In most cases, following the previous steps will ensure that a project adheres to the policy; however, if the project does not meet minimum standards, enforcement may be necessary. Formal enforcement should be codified in the policy, so developers understand the implications of not complying. Informally, city staff can communicate with project teams about the negative impact to their relationship and concerns over future projects following city policies. Evaluate Impact Evaluating the policy’s impact helps city staff and city decision-makers understand if the policy achieved the intended goals. Project reports should detail the size, cost, and anticipated savings compared to actual performance. A summary of these along with the collective environmental benefits (e.g., gallons of water and greenhouse gas emissions saved compared to code) should be shared with city council, staff, and the public. In addition, annual or biennial reviews with project teams, city staff, and external collaborators give valuable input into the effectiveness of the policy. Cities should talk to project teams about what worked and what could be improved about the sustainable building policy’s implementation process. They should also talk to external collaborators and sustainability experts about the latest trends and best practices for sustainable buildings. Having both quantitative and qualitative data on the policy’s success will be useful during future policy updates to strengthen its impact. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS Going forward, these policies should evolve as new sustainability standards become available and as city goals around reducing structural racism and ensuring equity become clearer and more focused. As cities find alignment on these issues, they should continue to exchange best practices and evolve together. We recommend cities check in on at least a biannual if not quarterly basis. This could be led by cities themselves or by an external coordinator. Areas that may warrant further exploration include: • Compliance tracking tool. Cities currently lack a holistic method for tracking compliance for all property types and may benefit from the development of one. Community Highlight: Rochester, MN The City of Rochester structures their Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreements as pay-as- you-go disbursements, giving the city the opportunity to withhold future disbursements if a project does not adhere to certain policies or codes. The city has used this approach for projects in the Destination Medical Center and throughout the municipality. 10 • Additional compliance strategies. Another possible route to ensure compliance is by leveraging permitting and inspections processes. However, because construction code is prescriptive and most sustainability criteria is performance-based, there has been no attempt in Minnesota thus far to take either of these two routes: o During permit approval. Because cities approve permits that give the green light for construction, they could explore issuing permits only once design models adequately indicate that sustainability requirements will be met. Incorporating permit approvals that are based on modeled designs of performance would necessitate thorough consideration of expertise and permitting staff needs. o During inspections. Building inspectors could take a bigger role in ensuring sustainability criteria are incorporated during construction. Similar to design review for permits, inspectors evaluate a building based on prescriptive code. For that reason, inspector scope would need to expand to include evaluation against a performance-based model design. • A one-stop-shop for expertise on sustainable building policies. An external collaborator would not only consult on multiple rating systems, but also serve as a single point of communication for technical questions and compliance monitoring for project teams and cities, respectively. This type of group has not yet been established to serve Minnesota cities. However, such a partner with broad expertise, design review experience, and implementation support ability could serve multiple cities while reducing sustainability staff needs. Although sustainable building policies have been around more than a decade in Minnesota, there remain great opportunities for more cities to leverage such policy tools and for better standardization among cities to ease implementation. As cities actively invest in new developments or receive developer requests outside existing zoning rules, they can use these policies to achieve sustainability goals. In the end, the built environment has strong impacts on environmental health and livability, and sustainable building policies are an important tool to build the physical environment that cities want and need. Achieving Sustainability in the Built Environment Cities throughout Minnesota seek to improve public health, environmental justice, and environmental and economic sustainability. Many cities are taking advantage of building-related strategies to reduce carbon emissions and waste, protect natural resources, and mitigate stormwater runoff. With a sustainable building policy, cities can use public financing and their authority over land use to make meaningful progress toward achieving their sustainability goals. Leveraging financial incentives and authority over land use, a sustainable building policy establishes minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for new construction and redevelopment. Included sustainability criteria typically target reducing pollution and conserving resources. This policy would be voluntary for developments not seeking financial incentives or land use changes. What are the Benefits? • Ensures new construction is on the forefront of efficient building construction. • Improves Edina’s building stock with healthy and sustainable buildings. • Creates demand for sustainability in the property market. • Supports Edina’s goal to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. To support our sustainability goals and building investment, the City of Edina is proposing a sustainable building policy. Edina Sustainable Buildings Proposed Framework The proposed sustainable building policy would apply to new construction and redevelopment projects that receive public financing and planned unit development approval. The policy would be structured to give developers the power to choose their preferred third-party rating system based on building type as well as their expertise and experience. The policy would also include additional sustainability requirements for electric vehicle charging and predicted greenhouse gas emissions to help the City meet its carbon reduction goals. Resources through Hennepin County Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative provides cities with a platform of shared resources to lower costs and exchange best practices. The County is currently undergoing a competitive RFP process to hire a vendor to provide education, technical resources, and compliance assistance. Upon policy passage and joint powers agreement approval, the City of Edina and developers will have access to the selected vendor. It is important to the City that the appropriate technical resources are available for successful sustainable building construction. Joining Sustainability and Climate Leaders Edina will be joining six cities with a formal sustainable building policy, along with another that is in the process of creating its own policy. The Cities of Saint Paul and St. Louis Park have been implementing their policies for more than 10 years, providing multiple local examples of successful policy implementation. Proposed Policy Details Policy Triggers Projects that receive the following incentives would “trigger” or necessitate compliance of the policy: • Planned Unit Developments (PUD) • Housing & Redevelopment Funds • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) • Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act • Housing Improvement Area and Affordable Housing Trust Fund • Conduit Bonds Sustainable Rating Systems Developers would select from the following third-party rating systems to adhere to the policy: • LEED • B3 Guidelines • Green Star Homes • Green Communities • Park Smart Edina Overlay Developers would also be subject to an Edina-specific Overlay, which aligns with established goals. • Electric vehicle charging • Predicted greenhouse gas emissions For questions, contact Sustainability Coordinator Grace Hancock at ghancock@edinamn.gov. 1-3% Realized Annual Energy Savings in Cities with Benchmarking Policies Edina Sustainable Building Policy Development A part of the Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative Katie Jones, Marisa Bayer Pg. 2 Agenda •How we got here •Proposed policy •Feedback to-date •Proposed resources •Q&A Pg. 3 How we got here •City Council Values •Existing Practices o Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 30% by 2025 o 2016 Electricity Action Plan o 2019 Efficient Building Benchmarking Ordinance EngagementEquity Environment Pg. 4 Sustainability is important in Edina Pg. 5 Definition: What is a sustainable building policy? Where triggered by funding or land use incentives, SBPs establish minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for new construction or significantly renovated developments. Included criteria typically target areas for pollution reduction and resource conservation. Also known as: green building policies, green building standards, Pg. 6 Policy History 2001 Minnesota State Legislature directs the establishment of Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3) 2006 Minneapolis adopts LEED Building Policy 2010 Saint Paul and St. Louis Park adopt Sustainable / Green Building Policies 2013 Maplewood adopts Green Building Program Ordinance 2018 Rochester and DMC adopt New Construction Sustainable Guidelines Proposed Sustainable Building Policy Pg. 9 Terms New development project Trigger (PUD or $$) Subject to Sustainable Building Policy Not subject to Sus. Bldg. Policy Yes No Pg. 10 Policy Triggers •Land use incentives •Planned unit development (PUD) •Financial incentive •Housing & Redevelopment Funds •Tax Increment Financing (TIF) •Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act •Housing Improvement Area and Affordable Housing Trust Fund •Conduit Bonds Pg. 11 Terms Third-party green building rating system City Overlay Sustainable Building Policy Pg. 12 Rating Systems –Things to Note Provide third-party verification Some certifications cannot be given until 12 months after a development is constructed Third party verification is relatively easy to operationalize for a city Pg. 13 Rating System Options Commercial/Mixed-Use LEED B3 Guidelines Multi-family LEED B3 Guidelines Green Star Homes Green Communities Single-family LEED Green Star Green Communities Parking Park Smart Silver Other rating systems as approved. Pg. 14 What about single-family homes? •The policy does not apply, unless: •The development requests a PUD •The development requests public $$ •Most likely scenarios: •Affordable townhome development •Subdivision development requiring a PUD •Takeaway –the policy will not have a large effect on single-family development Rare for single-family homes Pg. 15 Overlay Criteria Rule Predicted greenhouse gas emissions Must be calculated and reported Electric vehicle charging capability (if parking is included at all) i) Install conduit that allows 10% charging stations to be installed at a future date ii) 5% of parking spaces must be dedicated to charging stations Electric Appliance Capability Install electric sources for space heating, hot water heating, and cooking where cost-effective (15-year payback in line with current SB 2030 Guidelines payback periods) Feedback to date Pg. 17 Many developers/architects already incorporate sustainable elements Part of company mission to be sustainable Client included it in the scope Makes building more marketable Requirement of local jurisdiction Requirement of funding source Ethical responsibility for public health, safety It’s the right thing to do Pg. 18 Common themes in barriers and concerns Compliance Expertise •Setbacks, design guidelines, zoning •Evolving policies •Who is confirming compliance? •Lack of technical expertise at different points in process (design, approvals, construction, certification) •Only so many contractors who can do this work Cost implications Consistency •Higher standards result in more costs •Additional review can delay construction •Most funding sources don’t identify additional expense as “eligible” •Some funding sources have their own requirements •Differences between jurisdictions on overlays Pg. 19 Common themes for solutions and benefits Compliance Expertise •Single point of contact on who to ask questions •Clear decision maker on adherence to policy •Updated website, development review •Technical expertise for guidelines and overlays early on in process •Different points in process (design, approvals, construction, certification) Cost implications Consistency •Grants or incentives to help achieve goal •Streamlining process to avoid construction and permit delays •Uniform policies across jurisdictions to avoid confusion •Developer agreement listing requirements to avoid changes in standards Pg. 20 Edina Stakeholder Takeaways Part 1 •Building owners should be able to choose their rating system based on goals and cost •Bringing in third party rating requirements takes risk/liability off design team •Need for technical expert for questions •It’s important to be able to tell the story of SBP through case studies, both to demonstrate best practices and to sell to financiers •Currently, there is a market for sustainability in commercial buildings •There is less of a market demand for sustainability in MF buildings. •In both cases, SBP can help move the market. Pg. 21 Edina Stakeholder Takeaways Part 2 •This policy takes a different approach than Edina’s development questionnaire •Rather than guided questions, it requires a third-party certification and compliance with an overlay •Be very clear about rating system version requirements and the policy’s relationship to code •Requirement will be for whichever is most stringent between chosen rating system and code •There was interest: •In addressing sustainability in existing buildings •To accelerate this policy’s adoption Proposed Resources Pg. 23 Efficient Buildings Collaborative Standardized process for benchmarking policies Shared resources Tools for implementation Economically feasible Basic uniformity across cities benefits building owners Pg. 24 Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative •Recognition that small-to mid-sized cities often lack •Capacity •Technical expertise •Funding •Purpose: expand resources for cities to be able to develop and implement sustainability policies and programs •Open-source resources inside and outside of the county through use of JPAs Pg. 25 Efficient Buildings Collaborative Phase 2 WHAT: POLICY GUIDE HOW: IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCES Pg. 26 Sustainable Building Policy Activities POLICY REQUIREMENT EDUCATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPER COMPLIANCE TRACKING AND CERTIFICATION REPORTING Pg. 27 Timeline Proposal to City Council in 2021 October 2021 Implementation vendor contracted Q4 2021 Policy goes into effect •Only new developments started after this date would be subject to the policy ~July 1, 2022 Q&A FAQs Pg. 31 FAQs How is this Sustainable Building Policy different from previous policy? From current sustainable design questionnaires? The City of Edina currently has a voluntary development questionnaire that asks developers and architects to design for sustainability early in the design process. While the previous questionnaire used guided questions on a limited number of topic areas to encourage sustainable development, the new policy requires developers select one third-party green rating systems from a list and become certified. In addition, there are two requirements, one for measuring predicted greenhouse gas emissions and one for EV readiness, that apply regardless of green rating system selected. Pg. 32 FAQs What developments will this policy apply to? This policy will only apply to developments seeking a PUD (planned unit development) or financial assistance in the form of: •Housing & Redevelopment Funds •Tax Increment Financing (TIF) •Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act •Housing Improvement Area and Affordable Housing Trust Fund •Conduit Bonds Pg. 33 FAQs Why use a third-party rating system? Will this increase the cost of development? Using a third-party rating system, such as LEED or MN Green Communities, ensures that buildings are meeting sustainability requirements that are widely recognized as best practices. Doing so also clarifies liability and also allows for more certainty for the design team in knowing the policy requirements will be met. The cost for engaging the third-party rater is typically less than one percent of the cost of a project and when examined early in the design process, studies show that utilizing sustainability practices contributes 1-2% to total costs. Pg. 34 FAQs What is the implementation timeline? The policy is anticipated to go into effect beginning July 1, 2022, meaning any new building applications submitted after that day will be affected. This policy will not apply to any building applications that were submitted before the policy goes into effect. How will this policy relate to the ever-evolving rating system versions and energy code? The policy will require compliance with the most recent rating system version in existence at the time of development application. Where elements of the selected rating system and energy code differ, the policy will require adherence to the most stringent. Date: July 22, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:2021 WP Initiative #1: Climate Action Plan Discussion, Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: Update on progress and request action on current EEC initiative. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2021 EEC Work Plan Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Commission: Energy and Environment Commission 2021 Annual Work Plan Proposal Initiative # 1 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Make recommendations to Council regarding the development of the City’s Climate Action Plan [which will include information on GHG emission inventory and routes to carbon neutrality]. Create a Climate Action Plan Working Group to provide feedback and support for the plan development. The working group will report to the EEC which will provide formal recommendation to Council. Staff liaison will support this working group. Deliverable Recommendation to Council Leads H. Martinez A. Martinez Mans Rajat Tessman Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: No additional funds required. Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (40hrs) Progress Q1: Received introductory presentation from facilitating consultant in March Progress Q2: Progress Q3: Progress Q4: Initiative # 2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Review and recommend on development of to-go packaging ordinance and policy avenues. Includes an update to the 2016 study and report to incorporate the recently launched organics recycling program. Deliverable -Report and recommendation to Council Leads Horan (primary), Lukens, Dakane, A. Martinez, Lanzas, Mans Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (20hrs), Health Division (40hrs) Progress Q1: Focus groups in Feb/March 2021 were conducted Progress Q2: Progress Q3: Progress Q4: Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☒ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and decide on commission members coordinating and tabling at City events to educate the community on organics recycling and sustainable living. Deliverable -Presence at up to 4 City events to include Fourth of July, Open Streets, and Farmers Market Leads Lanzas (primary), A. Martinez, Horan, Mans Densmore Target Completion Date June – September 2021 Budget Required: Funds available, $200 for supplies and food. Staff Support Required: Coordinator (20hrs) and Organics Recycling Coordinator (8hrs) can advise and provide materials already created. Progress Q1: Progress Q2: Progress Q3: Progress Q4: Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Review and comment on staff recommendations for the City’s Green Building Policy. Deliverable - Commission comments on policy Leads All, Haugen, Tessman Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (16hrs) Progress Q1: Progress Q2: Received intro presentation, final draft city policy for comment, initial draft commercial policy for comment Progress Q3: Progress Q4: Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the Business Recognition Program by Q1 and decide future of the program. Implement changes, if any. Deliverable Report to commission. Leads Horan, Lukens, A. Martinez, Mans, Tessman Target Completion Date ongoing Budget Required: No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison support to manage intake and acceptance process (16hrs), Communications to support communication updates (16hrs), Community Engagement Coordinator (8hrs). Progress Q1: Agreed to continue program, began to compile and implement updates Progress Q2: Progress Q3: Progress Q4: Initiative # 6 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Review and Comment on Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) fund proposed Capital Improvement Plan. Deliverable - Commission comments on Capital Improvement Plan Leads All Target Completion Date Q2, 2021 Budget Required: No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (4hrs) Progress Q1; COMPLETE - Received for comment at Mar 11, 2021 meeting Progress Q2: Progress Q3: Progress Q4: Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Initiative # 7 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Review and comment on the ETC’s report and recommendation on organized trash collection. Deliverable -Memos to ETC for their study and report Leads Haugen Target Completion Date December 2021 Budget Required: No additional funds requested. Staff Support Required: Staff Liaison (4hrs) Progress Q1: no updates Mar21 Progress Q2: Progress Q3: Progress Q4: 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.) Develop a program with realtors to give sellers the opportunity to showcase environmental improvements to their homes (such as insulation). Coordination with other cities on climate action., Advocating for street sweeping, Education and engagement on water initiatives. Study and report on inequities in the environmental movement. Research enforcement of state law requiring water sensors for irrigation systems and other water saving tools, including rebates. Exploring ways of partnering with under-served/other communities to outreach/educate businesses. Community wide environmental event listening to what the community is saying. Plastic bag policy / program / options Date: July 22, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:2021 WP Initiative #2: To-Go Packaging Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: Date: July 22, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.C. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:2021 WP Initiative #3: EEC Event Tabling Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Sign up for a shift at the Edina Farmers Market. Volunteer to join the Edina Fall into The Arts Festival: - Saturday/Sunday September 11-12 - 10-6pm Saturday, 10-5pm Sunday - 2-3 shifts each day, 2 waste centers, 4-6 volunteers daily - 1-2 volunteers at EEC table to promote CAP draft plan and public comment at booth. INTRODUCTION: Update on progress and request action on current EEC initiative. Date: July 22, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.D. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:2021 WP Initiative #5: Green Business Recognition Program CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Receive working group member recommendation and approve. INTRODUCTION: Date: July 22, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.E. To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type: Other From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:2022 Workplan Development Discussion Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review draft 2022 EEC work plan items. Refine. INTRODUCTION: Work plans are due to Community Engagement Coord. on September 28 Council work session is October 5th to present work plan Commission Member Handbook is a resource to guide workplanning process. Commissions develop proposed work plans from June - August. Commission approves proposed workplan in September. Chair presents proposed work plan to Council in October. Staff present recommendations to Council in November. Council approves work plan in December. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2022 EEC Workplan Template 2022 EEC Workplan Instructions 2022 EEC Workplan Draft Items Template Updated 2021.06.08 Commission: Choose an item. 2022 Annual Work Plan Proposal Initiative # Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☐☐☐☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Initiative Title Deliverable Leads Target Completion Date Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Q1: Progress Q2: Progress Q3: Progress Q4: 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.) Staff Liaison InstructionsStaff Liaison InstructionsStaff Liaison InstructionsStaff Liaison Instructions 2022 Commission Work Plan Development Updated 2021.06.08 INSTRUCTIONSINSTRUCTIONSINSTRUCTIONSINSTRUCTIONS General Commission work plans are developed by the commission. Not the staff liaison. Each section with a white background should be filled out by the Commission. Sections in green highlight are completed by the Staff Liaison. List initiatives in order of priority. Parking Lot: These are items the commission considered but did not propose as part of the work plan. These items are not considered approved and would require a work plan amendment approved by Council to allow the commission to begin work. Initiative & Outcome Fields When writing initiatives, make sure the following points are addressed: 1. What is the specific action / outcome 2. Describe what the commission will do 3. Describe with the outcome(s) will look like Examples: Review and recommend a building energy benchmarking policy. Study and report on possible city actions to reduce access and usage of vaping for youth. Initiative Type Project This is a new or continued initiative. Annual / On-going Initiative that is on the work plan every year. Event These are events that are coordination and implemented by the commission, not by the City. Fields Target Completion Date Provide a target date or quarter for the initiative to be complete by. If the date has passed, provide an update in the progress field. Council Charge City Manager will propose a council charge for council consideration. If the council charge changes, the initiative action will also be updated. Budget Required – Staff Liaison Completes If funds are available, the staff liaison must provide the amount that will be used. I funds are NOT available; the staff liaison must explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. Staff Support – Staff Liaison Completes. List all staff support needed to complete this initiative. Include the hours and responsibilities. Select all groups needed. I.e. IT, Communications, Equity, etc TIMELINETIMELINETIMELINETIMELINE MEETING INFORMATION & ROLESMEETING INFORMATION & ROLESMEETING INFORMATION & ROLESMEETING INFORMATION & ROLES October 5, 2021, City Council Work Session Meeting goals Introduce the commissions proposed 2020 work plan to Council for the first time. Attendance / Stage Direction Commission chair (or designee) sits the table with Council. Liaisons sit on the perimeter. Liaison Role Do not present, be available for questions only. Chair Role Commission Chairs (or designee) present the commission’s 2020 proposed work plan. City Manager Role Remind Council of meeting goal and help move along discussion to allow all commissions to have time. City Council Role Review and ask clarifying questions about proposed 2020 work plans. Give feedback to City Staff on possible amendments to work plan initiatives. Commissions develop proposed work plans with liaison feedback June–August Commission's approve proposed work plan at September meeting Sept. 28, Proposed work plans due September Chairs present proposed work plans to Council October 5 Staff present recommendations to Council November 3 Council feedback incorporated into work plans Council approves work plans December 7 Work plans begin January November 3, 2021, City Council Work Session Meeting goals Review staff / liaison feedback on proposed 2020 commission work plans. Attendance / Stage Direction Commission members are not in attendance. Liaisons sit at the table with Council. Liaison Role Do not present, be available for questions. Chair Role Not in attendance. City Manager Role Present proposed 2020 commission work plans with City Council Role Review and ask clarifying questions about proposed 2020 work plans. Provide feedback on work plan initiatives. This would include: • Adding / removing an initiative • Changing scope of an initiative • Moving an initiative from one work plan to another December 7, 2021, City Council Meeting Meeting goals Approve 2020 commission work plans. Attendance / Stage Direction None. Liaison Role Do not need to attend. Chair Role Do not need to attend. City Manager Role Available for questions. City Council Role Approve work plans. No.Initiative Type Commission effort SUPPORT LEAD? 12 TOD Project C40 Reinventing cities example/challenge, work with both transportation and planning commission Ana, 6 Natural Habitat Project Propose an ordinance on No mow May, that support the 2020 pollinator resolution. Research information on benefits of this practices. Ana, Hilda, Tom 16 Others Communication Study and report on new ways to communicate what the city is already doing in way that is “evergreen”/consistent Bayardo John 9 Trees Education Educate communities on benefits of trees Bayardo, Hilda 10 Trees Project Support new ordinance development to protect trees (research information, work with parks and recreaction)Bayardo, Hilda Hilda 5 Residential energy use Project Develop a program with realtors to give sellers the opportunity to showcase environmental improvements to their homes (such as insulation). Research and revise inflrmation on what Minnepolis and Bloomington are doing. John 2 Plastic bag policy Project Research information on possible recommendations for a platic bag ordinance John, Ana, Cory, Hilda, Tom 13 Cities networking Collaboration Coordinate with other cities on sustainable practices broadly John, Ana, Cory, Tom 4 Residential energy use Education Promote Home Energy Squad visits & follow-ups John, Ana, Tom 1 Water rebates Project Research information on Metroploitan Council programs or enforcement of state law requiring water sensors for irrigation systems and other water saving tools, including rebates. 3 Street sweeping Project 7 Natural Habitat Education Inform residents about 2020 pollinator resolution and the importance of native planting 8 Natural Habitat Communication Coordinate with Edina Elementary schools/Art Center and other stakeholders to promote Kids art contest to create lawn signs promoting pollinator-friendly practices 11 Organics/Recycling Project Support and promote the recycling and organic programs at multi-family buildings Bayardo 14 Others Communication Partner with community groups to host listening sessions with traditionally underserved residents 15 Others Communication Ask community how city can be more welcoming and inclusive in communicating resources/programs (Identify barriers to participation in city processes/programs related to sustainability 17 Natural Habitat Project Study and report on potential pesticide use reduction policies that Edina could emulate (ex: Minneapolis)