HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-12 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 177 278 7562.
Thursday, August 12, 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 July 22, 2021
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Water Resources Update: Jessica Wilson
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.Sta1 Report: Edina Forest Practices
E.2022 Workplan Development Discussion
VIII.Chair And Member Comments
IX.Sta1 Comments
X.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public
process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli7cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: August 12, 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 July
22, 2021
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve July 22, 2021 EEC minutes
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2021-07-22 EEC Minutes
Agenda
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
Chair Martinez called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM
II.Roll Call
Answering roll call were Chair Martinez, Commissioners Dakane, Horan,
Hovanec, Haugen, Lanzas, Lukens, Tessman, Student Commissioners Ana
Martinez.
Absent: Commissioner Ratan, Student Commissioner Mans.
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion by Michelle Horan to Approve Meeting Agenda. Seconded by
Bayardo Lanzas. Motion Carried.
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion by Hilda Martinez Salgado to Approve Meeting Minutes. Seconded
by Ukasha Dakane. Motion Carried.
A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission June 10, 2021
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Presentation: Edina Environmental Performance Dashboard
Sletsy Dlamini, Edina summer Sustainability Intern, presented the City's
Environmental Performance Dashboard and answered questions from the
commissioners.
B.Presentation: Proposed Edina Sustainable Buildings Policy
Marisa Bayer from Center for Energy and Environment and Sustainability
Coordinator, Grace Hancock, presented the proposed Sustainable Buildings
Policy and answered questions from the commissioners.
VI.Community Comment
Motion by Cory Lukens to Close Community Comment. Seconded by John
Haugen. Motion Carried.
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or
concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of
speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on
tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair
or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might
refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting.
VII.Reports/Recommendations
A.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
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.
Staff Liaison Hancock invited Commissioners to volunteer for the Fall into
the Arts Festival in September for their moving to zero waste effort.
D.2021 WP Initiative #5: Green Business Recognition Program
Commissioner Horan presented three Working Group members for
approval.
Motion by Michelle Horan to Approve Working Group members.
Seconded by Hilda Martinez Salgado. Motion Carried.
E.2022 Workplan Development Discussion
Commission members discussed the 2022 Work Plan ideas.
A list of discussed work plan ideas will be shared with commissioners.
VIII.Chair And Member Comments
Commissioner Dakane shared an upcoming community screening of a
documentary about plastic bags, expected to be held on July 31st.
IX.Staff Comments
Staff invited Commissioners to join a tree knowledge exchange virtual
meeting on July 27th.
X.Adjournment
Motion by Bayardo Lanzas to Adjourn the Meeting. Seconded by Cory
Lukens. Motion Carried.
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If
you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print
documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Date: August 12, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Water Resources Update: Jessica Wilson Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Receive update from Water Resources Coordinator, Jessica Wilson.
INTRODUCTION:
Date: August 12, 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: Received update on progress from facilitating consultant in May
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: Ordinance under development, draft expected in July/August 2021
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
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: Commission tables at Farmers Market weekly; agreed to skip Fourth of July Parade; agreed to promote moving to zero waste and Climate Action
Plan public comment at Fall into Arts Fest September, 2021
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: COMPLETE - Received and commented on Sustainable Buildings Policy framework and proposal in July, 2021
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, Dakane, 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: Convened working group
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:
Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports]
Progress Q4:
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: Received written update from ETC at May meeting
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: August 12, 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:
Approve Ordinance No. 2021-XX: Amending Chapter 20 Concerning Health and Environment.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached draft ordinance and advisory communication.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Advisory Communication - Green To Go Packaging
Ordinance - Green To Go Packaging
2016 EEC Report to Council - Green To Go Packaging
Date:
To: Edina City Council
From: Energy and Environment Commission
Subject: Green To Go Packaging Ordinance
Action Re-
quested:
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.
BACKGROUND
In 2017 the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan (The Plan) was adopted by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA). This plan provides the framework for managing solid waste in the metro area through 2036, and supports
the goals of the Waste Management Act (WMA) hierarchy; improving public health; reducing the reliance on landfills; con-
serving energy and natural resources; and reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. All counties in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area (TCMA) are accountable for implementing The Plan and its goal of recycling 75 percent of waste by 2030.
According the MPCA, 63% of the waste created in Minnesota could be reduced, reused, recycled, or composted. However,
if this waste is not diverted, and if the current trends continue, nearly 8 million tons of additional waste will end up in Minne-
sota landfills over the twenty year period of The Plan. In addition, as those landfills reach capacity, some of that waste will
have to (and already is) be shipped to other states, making waste management more and more expensive for residents.
Therefore, counties and cities need to find strategies to promote reuse, recycling and composting.
In the report Reducing Wasted Food & Packaging: A Guide for Food Services and Restaurants, written by the EPA, one of the rec-
ommended strategies to reduce wasted food and packaging is to “Use packaging that is compostable or recyclable”. Zero
Waste and Environmental Packaging ordinances have been enacted in surrounding communities and across the nation to
deal with the problems associated with waste and single use plastics. Now, with the recently launched organics recycling
program, the City of Edina has the infrastructure in place to divert both recyclable and compostable products. With the
increase of food and beverage “take out” due to the pandemic, there has been a surge in single-use plastics disposal — a
trend which could continue even after bars and restaurants resume “normal” activity. A packaging ordinance will help Edina
reduce the waste associated with take out dinning.
ASSESSMENT
PACKAGING ORDINANCE AND POLYSYTRENE BANS
Currently, the MPCA does not have a blanket position on policies to prohibit or restrict any
Page 2
single-use consumer packaging products at the city, county or state level. However, over 100 cities across the United States
have implemented some version of a to-go food packaging or polystyrene ban.
In the table below are some examples of cities/states that have passed legislation on to-go food packaging or polystyrene.
Polystyrene Bans/Packaging Ordinances
Ordinance/Policy Enacted Rationale Ordinance
Maine Prohibits establishments from
processing, preparing, sell-
ing or providing food or bev-
erages in polystyrene. Prohibits
use of plastic straws.
January 1,
2021
Delayed
enforcement
to 7/1/21
Concern for the envi-
ronment as well as hu-
man health and safety.
https://legisla-
ture.maine.gov/stat-
utes/38/title38ch15-
Asec0.html
Maryland A person may not sell or offer
for sale in the state an EPS
(expanded polystyrene) food
service product; and a food
service business or school may
not sell or provide food or
beverages in an EPS food ser-
vice product.
July 1, 2020
Delayed
enforcement
to 10/1/20
It’s bad for the environ-
ment to produce, and
it often ends up as litter
on the side of our road.
http://mgaleg.mary-
land.gov/mgaweb-
site/Laws/Statute-
Text?article=gen&sec-
tion=9-2201&enact-
ments=False&ar-
chived=False
Minneapolis Requires all takeout food
containers to be recyclable,
reusable, returnable or
compostable (rigid and ex-
panded polystyrene are
not included on the list of plas-
tics meeting the
requirement). Covered food
establishments must have
recycling and composting
programs.
April 22, 2015 To promote reusable,
refillable, recyclable
or compostable
food and bever-
age packaging.
https://library.munic-
ode.com/mn/minneap-
olis/codes/code_of_or-
dinances?no-
deId=COOR_TIT10FO
CO_CH204ENPRE-
NACPA
San Diego Prohibits all food containers
made of polystyrene.
January 1, 2019 The city’s goal is to
achieve zero waste by
2040. The ordinance not
only helps in achieving
that goal but also
improves water quality,
reduces pollution and
keeps our environment
healthy.
https://www.sandi-
ego.gov/sites/de-
fault/files/san_di-
ego_single_use_plas-
tic_reduction_ordi-
nance.pdf
Page 3
St. Paul Regulation of food and bever-
age packaging at retail food es-
tablishments to include items
that are reusable, recyclable or
compostable.
April 2019
Effective Janu-
ary 2021
Implementa-
tion delayed
while
Council deci-
des next steps
Reduce the volume of
landfilled waste, to mini-
mize the toxic by-prod-
ucts of incineration,
to make the waste
stream less damaging to
the environment, to
make St. Paul and the
surrounding communi-
ties more environmen-
tally sound places to
live.
https://library.munic-
ode.com/mn/st._paul/co
des/code_of_ordi-
nances?no-
deId=PTIILECO_TITX
XIIIPUHE-
SAWE_CH236ENPRPL
PA
Fayetteville Fayetteville City Council
passed an ordinance ban-
ning the use of single use ex-
panded
polystyrene foam plates, bowls,
cups, clamshells, cups, and
similar products by any estab-
lishment providing prepared,
ready to-eat food or drink.
July 1, 2020 The City Council has
determined it is vital to
our citizen's health and
especially to our water
supply of Beaver Lake
that the amount of EPS
that can escape into our
environment should be
reduced as much as
possible.
https://www.fayette-
ville-ar.gov/Docu-
mentCenter/View/1988
1/ORDINANCE-6250--
-City-Wide-EPS-Ban
Seattle The City of Seattle requires all
food service businesses to
find recyclable or
compostable packaging
and service ware alternatives
to all disposable food service
items such as containers, cups,
straws, utensils, and
other products. This applies to
all food service businesses, in-
cluding restaurants, grocery
stores, delis, coffee shops,
food trucks, and institu-
tional cafeterias.
January 1, 2009 The production, use and
disposal of expanded
polystyrene food service
products and disposable
food service ware have
significant adverse im-
pacts on the environ-
ment and that com-
postable or recyclable
alternative
products are available.
http://clerk.seat-
tle.gov/search/ordi-
nances/123307
Page 4
Charleston Operations will be required to
stop using: Single-use plastic
carryout bags, Non-Recyclable
and Non-Compostable Dis-
posable Food Containers and
Service Ware, and polystyrene
products.
January 1, 2020 This ordinance is de-
signed to protect the
engine of our economy
and livability of our City
so businesses, particu-
larly those influenced
by tourism, and resi-
dents can
continue to enjoy what
the beauty and bounty
of Charleston’s water-
ways offer for genera-
tions to come.
https://www.charleston-
sc.gov/Docu-
mentCenter/View/1998
7/2018-146-Environ-
mentally-Acceptable-
Packaging-and-Prod-
ucts-Ratified?bidId=
St. Louis Park Encourage the use of reusable
food and beverage packaging
when possible; minimize the
amount of single-use, disposa-
ble food and beverage packag-
ing that must be thrown in the
garbage, and thus disposed via
incineration or landfilling; max-
imize the amount of single-use
food and beverage packaging
items that can be recycled or
composted; and minimize con-
tamination in organics and re-
cycling.
January 1, 2017 https://www.stlou-
ispark.org/home/show-
publisheddocu-
ment/19969/637479741
921700000
LIFECYCLE CONSIDERATIONS AND TRADE-OFFS
When creating an ordinance that would ban or regulate particular products, simply evaluating a product by its end of life
disposal (recycling, composting, landfilling) is not the only criteria available to judge it from an environmental perspective.
There are three possible lenses through which to look at environmental impact: life cycle assessment, the preferred
waste management methods, and overall material and waste trends.
Life Cycle Assessment
“A life cycle assessment (LCA) details all environmental impacts of a product throughout all stages of the product’s life. It
takes into account the amount of resources that go into the product and the emissions, waste, and pollution that result from
the manufacture, distribution, use and disposal of a product. An LCA may also detail outcomes like ecosystem toxicity and
human health impacts caused throughout a product’s life cycle”. There are potential trade-offs with any given policy.
“There may be trade-offs in environmental impacts because of the relative impacts of different product materials or because
of how a policy affects citizen behaviors.” 1
Preferred Waste Management
1https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf
Page 5
The State has developed a Waste Hierarchy (see below). Because our current rate and use of materials is not sustainable,
the Waste Management Act and The Landfill Abatement Act requires that the state’s waste management system move away
from incineration (waste to energy) and landfill disposal, and adopt a hierarchy for solid waste processing in order of prefer-
ence: reduce, reuse, recycle, organics recycling, incineration, landfill. Incineration and landfilling being the least favorable.
Therefore a product that can be reused, recycled or composted would be preferred to a product that has to be placed in
the trash.
MINNESOTA’S WASTE HIERARCHY
Material and Waste Trends
Over the last three decades there has been an overall increase
and investment in the use of plastics. After efforts by many organizations and states to reduce the amount of single use food
packaging, the covid pandemic created a new surge in demand for these products. A continued increase in plastics use
means an increase in waste creation, oil consumption, and GHG production. In 1980, 20,000 tons of plastic was recycled.
That number increased to more than 3 million tons in 2015. In addition, 2015 saw 5 million tons of plastic burned and 26
million tons landfilled.2 .
An article in Packaging Digest states, “Ready-To-Eat (RTE), Ready-To-Heat (RTH), and other grab-and-go packaging con-
cepts are likely to increase this market into double digits from 2021 to 2025. Specific raw material types such as expanded
polystyrene foam will continue to provide low-cost options for many applications, as long as states and municipalities do not
have bans on this raw material”.3
Plastic refining is a greenhouse gas intensive industry and the fastest growing. “If plastic production and use grow as cur-
rently planned, by 2030, these emissions could reach 1.34 gigatons per year—equivalent to the emissions released by more
than 295 new 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants. By 2050, the cumulation of these greenhouse gas emissions from plas-
tic could reach over 56 gigatons”4. “Today, about 4-8% of annual global oil consumption is associated with plastics, accord-
ing to the World Economic Forum. If this reliance on plastics persists, plastics will account for 20% of oil consumption by
2050."5
2https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data
3https://www.packagingdigest.com/food-packaging/covid-19-and-food-packaging-one-year-later
4https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Plastic-and-Climate-Executive-Summary-2019.pdf
5https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/08/how-plastics-contribute-to-climate-change/
Page 6
STATUTE AND GOALS DRIVING PACKAGING ORDINANCES
A packaging ordinance in the City of Edina would support our solid waste and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The Com-
prehensive Plan states that Edina’s goals are to reduce GHG emissions 30% by 2025 and 80% emissions reduction by 2050.
The Comp Plan also commits to 75% of solid waste annually diverted from landfills by 2030. Similarly, Hennepin County has
goals of recycling 75% of waste and sending zero waste to landfills by 2030.
In pursuit of those goals, Hennepin County revised its recycling ordinance on November 27, 2018.
• Businesses that generate large quantities of food waste must implement food recycling by January 1, 2020.
• Cities must offer curbside organics recycling service to residents by January 1, 2022.
MPCA Policy Plan Goals
Management
Method 2020 2025 2030 2036
Recycling 51% 54% 60% 60%
Organics Recovery 12% 14% 15% 15%
Resource Recov-
ery 35% 31% 24% 24%
Max Landfill 2% 1% 1% 1%
At the City, County and State level there are statutes and goals in place to reduce waste. Many neighboring cities have in-
cluded packaging ordinances as a tool to meet these goals. Minneapolis adopted a packaging ordinance in 2015 and St. Louis
Park enacted theirs in 2015. With the addition of Edina’s curbside organics collection it is far easier for residents to
properly dispose of compostable materials.
Page 7
THE ECONOMICS OF PLASTIC
When looking at reducing waste, there are economic benefits to selecting materials that can have another life, materials that
are recyclable and compostable. Understanding the materials that have another life, recyclable or compostable, and a market
in Minnesota is important to factor in when selecting the materials for a packaging ordinance. The following is a brief over-
view of the different resins that have economic value and are sorted and collected in Minnesota MRFs:
Resin #1 — PET. PET is one of the most commonly used plastics in consumer products, and is found in most water and
pop bottles, and some packaging.
Roughly 75 percent of recycled PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) bottles
go to domestic markets. Although Minnesota does not have a PET reclaimer it does
have companies that purchase recycled PET flakes and pellets. The out-of-state
reclaimers are not at capacity for PET, therefore, any increase of PET recovered from
Minnesota would be in demand at these national and regional reclamation operations.HDPE
Resin #2 — HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene). HDPE plastic is the stiff plastic used to make milk jugs, detergent
and oil bottles, toys, and some plastic bags. HDPE is the most commonly recycled plastic and is considered one of the safest
forms of plastic. It is a relatively simple and cost-effective process to recycle HDPE plastic for secondary use.Approximately
80% of HDPE (High-density polyethylene) stays in domestic markets. Unlike PET Minnesota does have in-state reclaimers for
HDPE.
Currently Minnesota’s reclaimers need to purchase HDPE from out-of-state to meet
their demand of recycled HDPE. Any increase in HDPE recovery will decrease
Minnesota’s need to purchase out-of-state HDPE.
Resin #3 – PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride). PVC is dubbed the “poison plastic” because it contains numerous toxins which it
can leach throughout its entire life cycle. Almost all products using PVC require virgin material for their construction. Prod-
ucts made using PVC plastic are not recyclable and are not collected by local haulers.
Resin #4– LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene). LDPE is often found in shrink wraps, dry cleaner garment bags, squeez-
able bottles, and the type of plastic bags used to package bread. When recycled, LDPE plastic is used for plastic lumber,
landscaping boards, garbage can liners and floor tiles. Products made using recycled LDPE are not as hard or rigid as those
made using recycled HDPE plastic. Curb side haulers will not accept plastic bags or film, because it can get caught in the
machinery, delaying the sorting process and damage equipment. Many retail and grocery stores as well as the Hennepin
County Drop Off Sites, however, will collect and send plastic bags and film to to be recycled.
Resin#5 — PP (Polypropylene). Polypropylene plastic is tough and lightweight, and has excellent heat-resistance quali-
ties. It serves as a barrier against moisture, grease and chemicals. PP is generally collected by most Haulers in the twin cities.
Resin#5 - BLACK PP (Polypropylene) IS NOT RECYCLABLE. The reason main reason black PP is not collected
by haulers is because there is not an after market for black plastic. Black dyes and pigments in the plastic affect the quality
and value. Black plastic is also difficult to sort. Plastic is sorted using an optical light sensor and a puff of air to get the plas-
tic to the right location. Black absorbs all light and thus isn't sensed and would have to somehow be picked out by hand.
This is not economically or mechanistically viable because it is very hard to tell the difference between a #5 and other black
plastic containers.
Resin # 6 — PS (Polystyrene) IS NOT RECYCLABLE. Polystyrene is an inexpensive, lightweight and easily-formed
plastic with a wide variety of uses. Because polystyrene is structurally weak and ultra-lightweight, it breaks up easily and is
dispersed readily throughout the natural environment. Polystyrene is not accepted for curbside recycling in MN or many
Page 8
other curbside programs. This is why polystyrene, in either form, expanded (styrofoam) or rigid, accounts for about 35% of
US landfill material.
Resin #7— Other (BPA, Polycarbonate and LEXAN). This category was designed as a catch-all for polycarbonate
(PC) and “other” plastics, so reuse and recycling protocols are not standardized within this category. Of primary concern
with #7 plastics, however, is the potential for chemical leaching into food or drink products packaged in polycarbonate con-
tainers made using BPA (Bisphenol A). BPA is a xenoestrogen, a known endocrine disruptor.
Resin #7 — PLA. Confusingly, #7 can also include PLA, Polylactic Acid. Polylactic Acid is a biodegradable thermoplastic
aliphatic polyester. It is made with renewable resources such as corn starch, tapioca, or sugar cane and is used in composta-
ble products.6
NOT ALL GREEN PACKAGING IS CREATED EQUAL
Here are some eco-terms to know:
Bagasse — The pulp that remains after renewable and sustainable raw materials such as bamboo, reed, rice, hemp and
sugarcane are processed.
Biodegradable — Solid materials that break down as a result of natural bacteria activity and disappear into the environ-
ment over a period of time.
Commercially Compostable — Solid materials that decay under controlled conditions in a commercial composting facil-
ity utilizing microorganisms, humidity and temperature. This is different than backyard or home composting, which turns
organic waste such as leaves, food scraps and lawn clippings into a soil-like fertilizer.
Plastarch Material (PSM) — Resin made with various biodegradable materials and starch filler.
Polylactic Acid (PLA) — Biopolymer made from plants that can be formed into linings for paper cups and other prod-
ucts, such as hinged to-go containers often used for cold sandwiches and salads.
Post-consumer Recycled Content — Materials such as corrugated boxes, newspapers and bottles that have been recov-
ered and reprocessed after initial use by consumers.
Recyclable — Materials that can be reclaimed or reprocessed into new products.
Renewable and Sustainable Resources — Naturally occurring raw materials such as bamboo, reed, rice, hemp and sug-
arcane that can be transplanted, harvested and replanted.
STAKE HOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Two Stakeholder meetings were held virtually; February 16 and February 18, 2021. The purpose of these meetings was to
share details about the ordinance and get input from businesses that could help shape the ordinance.
February 16, 2021 2:00pm
Attendees:
Michelle Horan - Energy and Environment Commission, City of Edina
Melissa Seeley - Energy and Environment Commission, City of Edina
Grace Hancock - Sustainability Coordinator, City of Edina
Twila Singh - Organics Recycling Coordinator, City of Edina,
6https://learn.eartheasy.com/articles/plastics-by-the-numbers/
Page 9
Solvei Wilmot - Environmental Health Specialist, City of Edina,
Mallory Anderson - Waste Prevention and Recycling Specialist, Hennepin County
David Richoz - General Manager, COV Edina
Stephen Munasinghe - Partner at Lettuce Entertain You Restaurants
Jonathan Wang
Keiko Niccolini - CMO & General Manager, rWare
Lee Renneke - City of Edina Health Inspector
Questions/Comments:
David Richoz, of COV Edina was the only participant who offered feedback. He explained that there was a large
problem with restaurants getting supplies of products during the pandemic. The restaurant typically keeps 7 to 10 days
worth of supplies on hand, but is stockpiling more at this time. He states that he really wants to do the right thing regarding
waste management.
February 18, 2021, 10:00am
Attendees:
Michelle Horan - Edina Energy and Environment Commission
Melissa Seeley - Edina Energy and Environment Commission
Grace Hancock - City of Edina, Sustainability Coordinator
Twila Singh - City of Edina, Organics Recycling Coordinato
Solvei Wilmot - City of Edina, Environmental Health Specialist
Andre Xiong - Hennepin County
Keiko Niccolini - CMO & General Manager, rWare
Brian Baker - Vierkant
Mac Sellars - Grant Program Manager at r.Cup
Bill Chrysler, General Manager, Edina Country Club
Keiko Niccolini - CMO & General Manager, r.Ware
Anne Spaeth, CEO Long Table Hospitality and The Lynhall
Questions/Comments:
Bill Chrysler, General Manager, Edina Country Club, in response to the question about packaging inventory and the pro-
posed time of a year between approving an ordinance and its implementation, stated “a year would be nice as we utilize a lot
of logged product that we order in bulk”
Anne Spaeth stated “the start of the pandemic was very difficult. We had to go to Costco Business. Doesn’t seem to be an
issue now. Lynhall orders containers once per month unless it’s a holiday”. She also asked for, and was sent the link to
Hennepin County grant opportunities.
NEXT STEPS
The growth of plastic use and pollution, and its inevitable link with climate change needs our immediate attention. We all
need to begin to make behavior changes in order to tackle this reality. No plan of attack is perfect, or without pushback
and consequences, however, we have to start. Every step, no matter small or large, is a step towards our goals — waste
and GHG reduction, and mitigating the impacts of climate change.
By creating a preferred packaging ordinance, Edina would be leading the way in improving
both Minnesota’s economy and environment with the following direct and indirect affect:
• It would support Edina businesses in complying with the new recycling business legislation;
• It would increase the amount of recyclable materials being diverted from the waste stream and landfills;
• It would increase the amount of recovered materials going into the markets and Minnesota’s economy.
Page 10
• It could help the city and businesses vision future actions that could move us closer to zero waste, focusing on waste
prevention and reduction, reuse and the potential for a circular economy.
• It would tackle social and environmental justice, since normally incinerations are located in low-income or communi-
ties of color disproportionally impacted by environmental burdens and pollution.
A packaging ordinance is one tool, the City has to address the costs and impacts of waste. Plastic production and disposal is
at a point where we can no longer just recycle ourselves out of our waste problem. States, counties, cities and residents
will have to make further commitments towards waste reduction by embracing new ways of "doing business”. Promoting
the circular economy where businesses "design out waste and keep products and materials in use and regenerate natural
systems”, along with encouraging citizens to move away from the “purchase-use-trash” linear model of consumerism to pur-
chasing reusable, returnable, or fixable products are great examples of new ways of thinking that could have large impacts on
our environment
The Energy and Environment Commission is asking the Edina City Council to approve of a Preferred Packaging Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING GREEN TO GO PACKAGING
The City Of Edina Ordains:
Chapter 20 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Article XII to provide as
follows:
ARTICLE XII GREEN TO GO PACKAGING
DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY
20-636 Purpose and Objectives. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to:
1. Promote waste reduction.
a. Lowering the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during the incineration and landfilling of
non-recyclable and compostable food and beverage packaging and non-packaging items.
b. Assisting the City in reaching the waste reduction goals established by the State of
Minnesota and Hennepin County.
2. Promote waste prevention.
a. By encouraging the use of reusable food and beverage packaging when possible.
b. By reducing or eliminating products that create waste such as single-use, disposable food
and beverage packaging and non-packaging items that cannot be recycled or composted,
and must be disposed of by incinerating or landfill.
3. Promote waste recycling by maximize the amount of single-use food and beverage packaging and
non-packaging items that can be recycled or composted.
4. Minimize contamination in organics and recycling.
20-637 Definitions. The following words shall have the meaning ascribed to them, unless the
context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Certified compostable shall mean that a material or product will biodegrade without leaving a residue or
any toxicity in the soil. Any compostable plastics or lined papers must meet the ASTM D6400 and ASTM
D6868 standards for compostable products, as certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute or other
similar independent certification bodies.
Commercially compostable shall mean that certified compostable materials will biodegrade at a commercial
site used to compost organic materials where the environment is carefully controlled and regulated to
facilitate optimal degradation.
Food and beverage packaging shall mean packaging used to serve food and beverage products
intended for immediate consumption including cups, plates, bowls, serving trays, to-go containers,
clamshells, wrappers, and lids.
Green To Go Packaging shall mean and include any of the following:
Compostable packaging: packaging that is separable from solid waste by the generator or prior to
collection for the purpose of composting. Compostable packaging must be made of unlined paper
(unless lining is certified compostable), certified compostable plastic that meets ASTM D6400 or
2
ASTM D6868 or other cellulose-based packaging capable of being decomposed through composting
or anaerobic digestion.
Recyclable packaging: food or beverage packaging that is separable from solid waste prior to
collection for the purpose of recycling. Recyclable packaging must be accepted by the local material
recovery facilities (MRF) receiving and processing the materials and have existing robust recycling
markets as determined by the City of Edina. This includes glass bottles, aluminum cans and plastic
food and beverage packaging. Plastic food and beverage packaging that is acceptable includes the
following types of plastic resins:
• Polyethylene Terephthalate (#1 PET or PETE);
• High Density Polyethylene (#2 HDPE); and
• Polypropylene (#5 PP)
• BLACK PLASTIC (#5 PP) AND POLYSTYRENE (#6 PS — BOTH RIGID AND
FOAM) ARE CURRENTLY NOT ACCEPTED AT LOCAL MATERIAL RECOVERY
FACILITIES, THEREFORE IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE RECYCLABLE PACKAGING
OPTION AT THIS TIME.
Reusable packaging shall mean food or beverage packaging that is capable of being refilled at a retail location
or returned to the distributor for reuse at least once as a container for the same food or beverage.
Food establishment shall mean a "food establishment" as defined by Edina City Code.
Mobile food unit shall mean “mobile food unit” as defined in Edina City Code.
Non-packaging food service items shall mean items that are not packaging, but are used to consume food,
including straws and utensils.
Single-use shall mean an item designed and intended for a single use.
DIVISION 2. ON-SITE COLLECTION FOR RECYCLEBLES AND COMPOSTABLE
PACKAGING
20-638 Rules.
No person owning, operating or conducting a food establishment or any person or organization providing
free food or beverage products within the City of Edina in a manner which would require a permit or
license, shall do or allow to be done any of the following within the city:
Provide or possess for sale any packaging which is not green to go. Presence of food and beverage
packaging other than Green to Go will be presumed as non-compliance with this ordinance
This subparagraph shall not apply to manufacturers, brokers or warehouse operators, who conduct
or transact no retail food or beverage business.
To reduce contamination in recycling and organics, mobile use-food establishments and all other food
establishments shall implement the following:
Single-use cups and containers that are utilized with lids shall have lids of the same category of
packaging.
Recyclable packaging shall only have recyclable lids
Compostable packaging shall only have compostable lids.
3
Compostable cups shall be labeled to clearly indicate to the consumer that the cup is compostable. Labeling
must include at least one of the following:
The words “certified compostable,” “commercially compostable” or other language, as approved by
the City of Edina. “Made from plants,” “bio-based,” or “biodegradable” are not acceptable
alternatives on their own.
The logo of a third-party certification or testing body indicating the cup meets compostability
standards, as approved by the City of Edina.
All food establishments shall implement the following in relation to non-packaging food service items:
Single-use utensils including, but not limited to, forks, spoons, and knives shall be
compostable.
Single-use straws of any kind shall only be provided to consumers upon request. Front- of-house
straw dispensers, which allow for customers to self-serve, meet this requirement.
A food establishment which utilizes single-use compostable and/or recyclable food packaging to serve
consumers on-site shall have on-site collection for recyclable and/or compostable packaging.
A food establishment that does not utilize single-use packaging to serve consumers on-site is
exempt from the requirement to have on-site collection for recyclable and/or compostable
packaging.
. A food establishment that does not have dine-in seating for consumers is exempt from the
requirement to have on-site collection for recyclable and/or compostable packaging.
. If a mobile use-food establishment is being hosted by an entity as part of an event or regular
business, the hosting entity shall provide on-site collection for recyclable and/or compostable
packaging.
. Containers for the on-site collection of recyclable and/or compostable packaging shall be co- located with
garbage containers.
. If garbage receptacles are available to consumers, then receptacles for separating recyclable and/or
compostable packaging must also be made available to consumers in the same location.
. If garbage receptacles are not available to consumers and are instead placed in areas for use by staff
only, then receptacles for separating recyclable and/or compostable packaging are only required in
those locations.
. A food establishment shall arrange for the collection of recyclable and/or compostable packaging by a
licensed solid waste collector for delivery to an appropriate transfer station or processing facility.
20-639 Exclusions and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provisions to the contrary, this ordinance
shall not apply to:
Manufacturers, brokers, distributors or warehouse operators who conduct or transact no retail food or
beverage business;
Food and beverage service provided through patient care at hospitals and nursing homes;
4
Food packaging pre-packaged by a manufacturer, producer or distributor;
Plastic films less than ten(10) mils in thickness;
Any packaging, which is not considered green to go packaging, but for which there is no commercially
available alternative as determined by the City of Edina, following Hennepin County guidance. In
determining whether there are commercially available alternatives, the City of Edina will consider whether
there is availability of green to go packaging for affected products. Every rule creating an exemption under
this paragraph will be reviewed annually by The City of Edina.
20-640 Enforcement. The director shall have the duty and the authority to enforce provisions of this
chapter pursuant to City Code Sec. 20-445.
20-641 Severability. If any part or provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person,
entity, or circumstances shall be judged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction,
such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application which is directly
involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair
the validity of the remainder of this ordinance or the application thereof to other persons, entities, or
circumstances.
Section 3. Effective Date. Six months following adoption by Edina City Council
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Published:
Attest
Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor
Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on
Send two affidavits of publication
Bill to Edina City Clerk
1 The MPCA Guide can be found online at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf
2 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf
3 Polystyrene bans are also in place at the local level in other states including Florida, Maine, Oregon and Massachusetts.
Date: November 7, 2016
To: City Council
From: Energy and Environment Commission
Subject: Study and report on proposal to ban Styrofoam food packaging materials in
Edina.
Action
Requested
:
The Energy and Environment Commission is seeking Edina City Council’s input on
how they would like to proceed.
Background: With Zero Waste and Environmental Packaging ordinances being enacted in surrounding
communities and across the nation, the Edina City Council asked the Edina Energy and
Environmental Commission (EEC) to research and report on a proposal to ban polystyrene food
packaging in materials. This report outlines the EEC’s findings.
The Edina Energy and Environmental Commission (EEC) researched national and regional
trends relating to bans, Zero Waste and Environmental Packaging ordinances. The extent of the
movement towards bans, restrictions, and ordinances is best summarized in the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Guide1 which outlines goals, considerations, resources, and
policies on product bans and restrictions. Through our research we found bans were not as
productive as packaging ordinances. Packaging Ordinances are driven by waste reduction
goals and can be flexible if new data or market change. In this report, you will find information
regarding polystyrene bans and the considerations around packaging ordinances.
Assessment: Polystyrene Bans
Currently, the MPCA does not have a blanket position on policies to prohibit or restrict any
single-use consumer packaging products at the city, county or state level.2 However, the MPCA
report shows that there are 65 city or county ordinances in California that ban the use of
polystyrene food containers for food vendors, restaurants and at government facilities.3
Additionally, Haiti has a (poorly enforced) ban on polystyrene containers, and Guyana plans to
Page 2
ban import and use of expanded polystyrene foam in 2016.
Table 1 below, also from the MPCA guide, outlines the rational and impact of comparable
ordinances in Cities throughout the United States:
Table 1
Polystyr
ene
contain
ers City
Ordinance/ Policy Enacted Rationale Impact Ordinance
Amherst, MA Prohibits food
establishments and
City facility users from
dispensing prepared
foods in expanded
polystyrene
Novemb
er, 2012
(effectiv
e
January
1 2014)
Reduce waste
that is not
recyclable; To
protect health,
safety of
residents from
styrene.
Information
on the
impact of
this policy is
not readily
available
https://www.amherst
ma.gov/Docum
entCenter/View/2481
8
Seattle ,WA Ban on polystyrene
foam food containers
and packing material.
The ban applies to all
food service
businesses, including
restaurants, grocery
stores, delis, coffee
shops and institutional
cafeterias.
January
2009
Reduce amount
of waste and
negative
environmental
impacts to bird
population.
Seattle aspires to
be a zero waste
city, and this ban
was part of this
policy objective.
Information
on the
impact of
this policy is
not readily
available
http://clerk.seattle.go
v/~scripts/nph-
brs.exe?s3=&s4=1227
51&s5=&s1=&s
2=&S6=&Sect4=AND
&l=0&Sect2=THE
SON&Sect3=PLURON
&Sect5=CBORY
&Sect6=HITOFF&d=
ORDF&p=1&u=%
2F~public%2Fcbor1.h
tm&r=1&f=G
Page 3
4 Prepared by David J. Power & Associates
http://losgatos.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1321&meta_id=137201
5 Prepared by Monica F. Harnoto http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2013final/HarnotoM_2013.pdf
6 Prepared by Franklin Associates https://plasticfoodservicefacts.com/life-cycle-inventory-foodservice-products
Minneapolis,
MN
Requires all takeout
food containers to be
recyclable, reusable,
returnable or
compostable (rigid and
expanded polystyrene
are not included on
the list of plastics
meeting the
requirements).
Covered food
establishments must
have recycling and
composting programs.
April
2015
To promote
reusable,
refillable,
recyclable or
compostable
food and
beverage
packaging.
Information
on the
impact of
this policy is
not readily
available
http://www.ci.minnea
polis.mn.us/w
ww/groups/public/@
health/docume
nts/webcontent/wcms
1p-130775.pdf
New York,
NY
Ban on single-use
expanded polystyrene
foam, including
packing peanuts.
January
2015
Reduce waste
that is not
recyclable.
None;
ordinance
under
appeal after
judge struck
it down,
saying that
EPS is
recyclable.
No ordinance in
effect currently.
Lifecycle Considerations and Trade-offs
One of the primary concerns identified by the EEC in regards to a polystyrene food packaging
ban is the need to consider the complete life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory
(LCI) of a product in order to determine its true impact on the environment. The lifecycle of a
product includes the extraction of raw materials, the manufacturing of the product,
transportation, use, and disposal. Lifecycle assessments are very complex and the results may
vary depending on bias of the sponsoring institute and the quality of the data. A few LCA/LCI
studies include ‘A Summary of Life Cycle Assessments and Life Cycle Inventories’4, ‘A
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Compostable and Reusable Takeout Clamshells at the
University of California, Berkeley’5, and ‘Life Cycle Inventory of Foam Polystyrene, Paper-Based,
and PLA Foodservice Products.’6 The impacts articulated therein outline the trade-offs that will
result from the replacement materials.
Some impacts of particular interest to the commission were in relation to take-out food
packaging. The MPCA report reads, “a ban on polystyrene containers will result in an increase
in the products that replaces it – another type of plastic, paper with plastic lining, or
Page 4
7 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf
8 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf
compostable containers. Some specific alternative products may be manufactured in such a
way to decrease life cycle impacts compared to polystyrene. Though more of the alternatives
may be recyclable, they are also likely to weigh more than polystyrene, so waste generation
tonnage may go up along with recycling rates. Switches to compostable products are beneficial
only if there are prevalent organics collections programs in place.”7 Trade-offs were also found
by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. “Polystyrene used less energy and
chemical inputs and resulted in fewer emissions than other packaging types (e.g. paper), but
caused more solid waste by volume. In terms of toxics, styrene, from which polystyrene is
made, is a likely carcinogen; on the other hand, most types of packaging plastics leach
chemicals that can interfere with human hormone activity”8
Policies will have trade-offs because of environmental impacts of different product materials or
because of how a policy affects citizen behaviors. Instead of looking at outright bans, The
Edina City Council should explore a policy that holistically supports our environmental goals to
reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Waste and greenhouse gas reductions were what
drove our neighboring cities to enact packaging ordinances. The rest of this report looks at the
law, economics, arguments and considerations for a packaging ordinance.
Statute and goals driving a packaging ordinance
A packaging ordinance in the City of Edina would support our solid waste and greenhouse gas
reduction goals.
• Waste – Our current rate and use of materials is not sustainable. For this and many
other reasons, the Waste Management Act and The Landfill Abatement Act requires
that the state’s waste management system move away from landfill disposal and adopt
a hierarchy for solid waste processing in order of preference: reduce, reuse, recycle,
organics recycling, landfill.
Page 5
To assist businesses and the public in minimizing waste, additional statues and goals have been
developed:
o Business - As of January 1, 2016, the Minnesota legislature expanded the recycling
requirements to businesses. Businesses in the seven-county metro area that contract
for four cubic yards or more of trash per week must recycle three materials.
o Residential - Counties have been required to amend their solid waste master plans in
order to meet these goals of waste prevention, recovery and landfill abatement.
Hennepin County’s Master Plan includes the following goals to be attained by 2030
for residential waste collection: Increase recycling from 41% to 54-60%; Increase
organics recycling from 3% to 9-15%; Decrease landfill disposal from 19% to 9%.
• Greenhouse gas reduction – Food waste is a significant contributor to our greenhouse
Page 6
9 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/reducing_wasted_food_pkg_tool.pdf
10 https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/execsum.pdf
gas emissions.9 Food and its packaging containers account for almost 45% of materials
landfilled in the United States. Using packaging that is easily recycled, composted or
reusable not only reduces solid waste generation, but also reduces negative
environmental impacts by using less energy and raw materials and emits less
greenhouse gas (GHG). In an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, which
examined the relationship between municipal solid waste (MSW) management and
Climate Change, it states that:
o Source reduction, in general, represents an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions in
a significant way. For many materials, the reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions
from the raw material acquisition and manufacturing process, and the absence of
emissions from waste management, combine to reduce GHG emissions more than
other options do.
o For most materials, recycling represents the second best opportunity to reduce GHG
emissions. For these materials, recycling reduces energy-related CO2 emissions in
the manufacturing process (although not as dramatically as source reduction) and
avoids emissions from waste management. Paper recycling increases the
sequestration of forest carbon.
o Composting is a management option for food discards and yard trimmings. The net
GHG emissions from composting are lower than landfilling for food discards
(composting avoids CO2emissions), and higher than landfilling for yard trimmings
(landfilling is credited with the carbon storage that results from incomplete
decomposition of yard trimmings). Overall, given the uncertainty in the analysis, the
emission factors for composting or combusting these materials are similar.10
The economics behind a packaging ordinance
When looking at reducing waste, there are economic benefits to selecting materials that can
have another life, materials that are recyclable and compostable. Understanding the materials
that have another life, recyclable or compostable, and a market in Minnesota is important to
factor in when selecting the materials for a packaging ordinance. The following is a brief
overview of the different resins that have economic value and are sorted and collected in
Minnesota MRFs:
PET Resin #1 Roughly 75 percent of recycled PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) bottles
go to domestic markets. Although Minnesota does not have a PET reclaimer it does
have companies that purchase recycled PET flakes and pellets. The out-of-state
reclaimers are not at capacity for PET, therefore, any increase of PET recovered from
Minnesota would be in demand at these national and regional reclamation operations.
Page 7
11 Recycling and Solid Waste Infrastructure https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/w-sw1-09.pdf
12 St Louis Park Council Votes Unanimously in Support of Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Seth Rowe for the Sun Sailor,
published December 15, 2015, http://sailor.mnsun.com/2015/12/15/st-louis-park-council-votes-unanimously-in-support-
of-zero-waste-packaging-ordinance/
HDPE Resin #2 Approximately 80% of HDPE (High-density polyethylene) stays in
domestic markets. Unlike PET Minnesota does have in-state reclaimers for HDPE.
Currently Minnesota’s reclaimers need to purchase HDPE from out-of-state to meet
their demand of recycled HDPE. Any increase in HDPE recovery will decrease
Minnesota’s need to purchase out-of-state HDPE.
Resin #3-#7 These resins are generally packed together at MRF as pre-picked rigid
grade. This grade generally needs to be sent somewhere else to be further sorted, the
majority being exported to China. Included in this category is rigid Polystyrene (resin
#6). Currently, Polystyrene, both rigid #6 or food service foam are difficult to recycle
economically. Therefore, there are not strong after markets for these plastics. However,
in the last few years, there have been companies around the nation that have begun to
sort and resell these mixed resins to reclaimers, but until these end markets grow, the
demand for rigid #6 is not significant in Minnesota.
Resin #7 These resins can include Polylactic Acid (PLA) Polylactic Acid is a
biodegradable thermoplastic aliphatic polyester. It is made with renewable resources
such as corn starch, tapioca, or sugar cane and is used in compostable products.11
Stakeholder engagement
The Recycling Solid Waste and Organics working group (RSWO) met with many stakeholders to
learn more about Zero Waste and Environmental Packaging ordinances. These events and
meetings kicked off in November of 2015 and continued through 2016.
Through the discussions and articles, the arguments against the Minneapolis and St. Louis Park
ordinances mainly came from the chemical and restaurant industry. Letters and/or
Representatives from DOW Chemical Company and the American Chemistry Council came in to
argue that both the City of Minneapolis’ and St. Louis Park’s ordinance should include
polystyrene as a recyclable and acceptable packaging option. They also argue that
polystyrene is recycled in other states, but if it continues to be rejected as a recyclable material
in Minnesota it will be difficult to create the “robust markets” that the Minneapolis and St.
Louis Park ordinances require. The St. Louis Park City Council’s rejected the “arguments from
industry representatives opposed to an ordinance aimed at banning food packaging the city
deems to be unable to be recycled, composted or reused.”12 An additional concern from the
Minnesota Restaurant Association is mainly concerned with performance and price of the
acceptable packaging options.
Page 8
There were many positive responses from some business/restaurant owners/managers. Some
business owners, have multiple locations and have already made the switch because they are
already under the Minneapolis ordinance. Some know their customers want it and are doing
it anyway with compostable products because they already compost. Additionally, businesses
see it as a way to reduce their waste and hopefully reduce their costs in hauling. Lastly,
businesses shared that transitioning to the new products was not difficult.
Below is an in-depth listing of the meetings and information shared.
1. Minneapolis Packaging Ordinance – EEC Commissioners met with Minneapolis staff
to understand the work that went into drafting their ordinance; including their process,
research and lessons learned.
2. Compostable serve ware – EEC Commissioners met with Simon Hefty from Litin Eco to
understand the state of the compostable serve ware market. Simon has been in the
compostable products business for over ten years. He was used as the “expert” on
compostable products for both Minneapolis and St. Louis Park
3. Minnesota Restaurant Association – On March 2, 2016, Solvei Wilmot, Health and
Recycling Coordinator; Melissa Seeley, EEC Commissioner; Michelle Horan, EEC
Commissioner met with Dan McElroy, Executive Vice President of the Minnesota
Restaurant. Dan shared businesses concerns: the quality hot and cold cup packaging
and potential cost increase of packaging. Additionally, franchise owners need to hold
to national pricing and will be unable to pass on any pricing increase to customer.
4. Public Meetings – EEC held two public, stakeholder meeting to get input from
businesses and the public.
a. January 27, 2016, Stake holders meeting – In attendance: Solvei Wilmot;
Michelle Horan; Lauren Satterlee, EEC Commissioner; Melissa Seeley, and Simon
Hefty. No businesses attended.
b. March 2, 2016, Stake Holders meeting 2 – In Attendance: Solvei Wilmot;
Michelle Horan; Lauren Satterlee; Melissa Seeley, Simon Hefty. Businesses in
attendance: Dave Fashant, Fairview Southdale Hospital; Bill Chrysler, Edina
Country Club; Eric Wold, Neighborhood Ice Cream Shop, owner; Jordan
Hamilton, Hello Pizza. Below are the comments:
i. Fairview Southdale Hospital - Wanted to be on record to let Edina
know that he hoped we did NOT exempt hospitals from our ordinance.
Current waste composition: 40 yard dumpster of MSW picked up 4
times/week; 40 yard dumpster of recycling picked up 2 times/week; 40
yard construction & demolition; and organic collection with Barthold’s
Farms (food for animals)
1. They currently have a 30% recycling rate (single sort). They
contract with Sodexo for food service. They are working with
them to ban polystyrene foam.
Page 9
2. They are changing to a full organics program with Aspen as the
hauler. Started a food to hogs program 12-15 years ago
capturing food from the kitchen during prep.
3. Concerns: Space on the loading dock for an additional dumpster.
Although they support a ban of polystyrene foam for food
containers, Fairview does not want the ordinance to ban all
polystyrene foam. They have unique situations with
vendors/products that currently require foam.
ii. Edina Country Club – They currently collect recycling and have had a
food to hogs program for 3 years. The food to hogs program covers
kitchen food prep and leftover food from dining operations. The only
polystyrene foam they currently use is cups out on the golf course.
1. Concerns: Additional costs related to an organics program. He
was made aware of grant money and assistance available from
Hennepin County. Asked about education of club members.
Wondered if ECC would be responsible for
contamination/compliance with all three waste streams.
Additional costs regarding compostable cups members would
use on the course.
iii. Hello Pizza – When they first opened they had every intention of having
all compostable products. They have no objections to the proposed
ordinance. Currently they use compostable cups.
1. The obstacle: Their loading dock is shared among three
restaurants and two of the restaurants are not interested in
collecting organics.
2. Once they are able to incorporate organics collection the only
MSW they foresee is straws and items brought in by customers
from outside the restaurant.
iv. Neighborhood Ice Cream - Currently serve everything in polystyrene
foam and only collect MSW. Any recyclables collected are taken home
by the manager. They share a loading dock with other tenants and there
is currently only one 4 yard container for MSW collected once per week.
The manager came to collect information and is willing to make the
switch. Considering reusable wares versus compostable. They were also
made aware of available assistance from Hennepin County
5. Convention Grill – EEC Commissioner met with the owners who have eight other
restaurants many in Minneapolis and has already switched packaging for those
establishments.
6. St. Louis Park ‘Zero Waste’ Ordinance – EEC Commissioners met with St. Louis Park
staff to understand their process and decision making that lead to the passage of the
ordinance.
Page 10
a. EEC Commissioners also attended the St. Louis Park’s Packaging Fair to see the
communication and resources provided to businesses. Businesses attending
were receptive to the ordinance change and resources available from Hennepin
County
7. DART Container Corporation – Solvei Wilmot, Michelle Horan, Sarah Clarke, DART
Lobbyist, and AnnMarie Treglia, from DART (phone) were in attendance. DART made
the argument that Polystyrene, both rigid and expanded, are recyclable materials, and
there are places in the states where it is currently being recycled. Their request is to
include polystyrene products as an acceptable packaging option in Edina's proposed
Acceptable Packaging Ordinance, because polystyrene is recyclable. Their argument is
valid, however, currently, in the state of MN, there is not a strong market for
polystyrene, and therefore, it is not recyclable here. When markets grow and there is
demand for polystyrene, due to the wording of the ordinance, the adjustment to add
polystyrene can be made.
8. Organic Processing Facility Tour – Members of the Energy and Environment
Commission’s Recycling, Solid Waste and Organic Workgroup toured Full Circle
Organics processing facility, Hennepin County’s Brooklyn Park Transfer Station where
commercial organic material is collected and Mdewakanton Sioux’s Organic processing
facility. Members learned the challenges of managing yard waste compostable
materials with organic materials and the laws that have requirements for management
of those items. In addition, the members visited with Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency about the requirements a compost and organic processing facility must meet.
Next Steps: In summary, the MPCA is supportive of policies that result in net prevention of waste, conserve
natural resources, lower life cycle pollution and emissions, and push management of wastes to
their highest and best uses.
By creating a preferred packaging ordinance, Edina would be leading the way in improving
both Minnesota’s economy and environment with the following direct and indirect affect:
• It would support Edina businesses in complying with the new recycling business
legislation;
• It would increase the amount of recyclable materials being diverted from the waste
stream and landfills;
• It would increase the amount of recovered materials going into the markets and
Minnesota’s economy.
Attached is the Minneapolis and St Louis Park’s packaging ordinances. The Energy and
Environment Commission is seeking Edina City Council’s input on how they would like to
proceed after reviewing this study and report.
Page 11
Date: August 12, 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: August 12, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.D.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Staff Report: Edina Forest Practices Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Receive information on current City of Edina tree management practices to inform 2022 workplan development.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report: Edina Forest Practices
August 12, 2021
Energy & Environment Commission
Luther Overhold, City of Edina Forester
Current Edina Tree Practices
Information / Background:
1. What is your City's practice for tree preservation as a component of development or redevelopment?
A. Ordinance No. 2014-25 (edinamn.gov) This is our current tree protection ordinance.
2. What is your City's tree replacement process/policy.
A. Currently we replace trees at least 1:1 in our projects and follow the tree ordinance.
3. What is your City's practice regarding boulevard trees? (installation, maintenance, costs, etc.)
A. Residents are responsible for trees on the boulevard. We maintain only trees on city
property and provide all the maintenance on city trees.
4. What resources community education programs does your City provide to promote trees?
A. We currently have an Arbor day celebration every year and invite the public to it. For the
past 2 years we have had a tree giveaway and it has gone very well and we plan to continue
it. We have a spring and fall buckthorn dump for residents. I also speak periodically at EPS
from kindergarten to high school when asked.
5. What are your City's policies or practices regarding trees in parks or other public properties?
A. We maintain them for as long as safely possible. We have a tree donation program that
allows residents to donate trees to city parkland. Currently they get to pick location and
species.
6. What challenges has your City faced related to tree management and conservation?
A. Construction and development is the biggest issue in my opinion. We could also use more
staff, currently we only have 1 forester to manage all the trees in the city.
7. Where have you seen success in tree management and conservation?
A. The tree preservation ordinance has been successful but is due for an update. Before it
came into fruition 5 years ago you could remove all the trees on your property and put sod
down in its place. The tree giveaway has been the perfect way to get trees into the hands of
STAFF REPORT Page 2
our residents. We launched an ash tree inspection program at the beginning of July and
have advised hundreds of residents on their ash trees. Most were still treatable.
8. Anything you would flag from other communities who spoke at the tree forum that you particularly
liked/would like help implementing?
A. I really think we need to enhance our tree protection ordinance and make it stricter on all of
the builders. All of the regulations the other cities have are great and I am all for
implementing them here in Edina but we will need more staff to make sure that it is
effective.
Date: August 12, 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 Instructions
2022 DRAFT EEC Work Plan
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.
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Commission: Choose an item.
2022 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)
Initiative Title: Climate Action Plan - Follow-up on the implementation
of actions established in the Climate Action Plan approved by the City Council in 2021
Deliverable Leads: Hilda Martinez
(Primary),
Support: Michelle Horan
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: Choose 1-2 actions or 1 theme to focus on in 2021
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
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)
Initiative Title: Green Business Recognition Program - Strengthen and
bring more business to the Green Business Recognition Program
(promotion, outreach, etc.)
Deliverable Leads: Michelle Horan
Support: Cory Lukens,
Tom Tessman
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: Consider setting a numeric goal of # new businesses, or % renewable energy subscribed, etc.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Organics Recycling - Support and promote the recycling
and organic programs at multi-family buildings
Deliverable Leads: Bayardo Lanzas
Support: Michelle
Horan, Hilda Martinez
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:
Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☒ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Coordinate and table at City events to educate the
community on organics recycling and other sustainability programs of
the City (Energy squad, pollinator and tree ordinance, etc.).
Deliverable
-Presence at up to 4 City events to
include Fourth of July, Open Streets,
and Farmers Market
Leads:
Support: John Haugen,
Bayardo Lanzas, Hilda
Martinez
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:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Communications - Study and report on identifying best
practices, resources and mechanisms that can help in a better
communication of the environmental programs taking place in the City.
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:
Initiative # 6 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Trash Hauling - Study and report on case studies and
option to have organized trash collection in the City of Edina
Deliverable Leads: John Haugen
Support: Michelle
Horan, Cory Lukens,
Hilda Martinez
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: Note that this initiative builds on 2021 ETC item
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Initiative # 7 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Natural Habitat - Support new ordinance development
or the modification of current ones to protect tree canopy (research
information, work with parks and recreation) and explore the benefit
from initiatives like No Mow May that can help expand the green
ground coverage on the City.
include the promotion of more sustainable private lawn management
such as water sensor on lawn irrigation systems, bee lawns, pollinator
friendly gardens, fall/spring clean up practices
Deliverable Leads: Hilda Martinez
Support: Michelle
Horan, Bayardo Lanzas
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: Consider City Forester Overholt comments, consider potentially splitting if different actions
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 8 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Plastic Bag Policy - Revise and update report done in
2017 on possible recommendations for a plastic bag ordinance
Deliverable Leads: Michelle Horan
Support: John Haugen,
Cory Lukens, Tom
Tessman
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: Council received report at 11/8/17 meeting; Council comments and report can be found in agenda/minutes from this meeting.
City Manager Comments:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Initiative # 9 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Stormwater Pollution Management - Study and report?
water quality and include pesticide reduction? tie in turf management
& impact (stormwater pollutant management)
bring this back to advocating for additional street sweeping and fold
everything else into a natural habitat initiative. My reasoning is that
Jessica and her team already do this work.
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:
Initiative #
10 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☒ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title: Cities Networking - Coordinate with other cities on
sustainable practices broadly. Coordinate with RCC to host one or two
meeting a year with other Cities Environmental Commissions with the
aim to share best practices
Deliverable Leads:
Support: John Haugen,
Cory Lukens, Tom
Tessman
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?
Template Updated 2021.06.08
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.)