HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-13 EEC AgendaAgenda
Energy and Environment Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
City Hall - Community Room
Meeting will take place in person. Masks are optional.
Thursday, July 13, 2023
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 8, 2023
V.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.
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.2023 Workplan Development Discussion
B.Sta+ Report for Comment: Carryout bag fee proposal
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Sta+ Comments
IX.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 ampli1cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: July 13, 2023 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager
Item Activity:
Subject:Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission June
8, 2023
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve EEC meeting minutes, June 8, 2023
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
EEC Minutes: June 8, 2023
Agenda
Energy and Environment Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
City Hall - Community Room
Meeting will take place in person. Masks are optional.
Thursday, June 8, 2023
7:00 PM
I.Call To Order
Chair Martinez called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
II.Roll Call
Answering roll call were Chair Martinez, Vice Chair Lukens, Commissioners
Weber, Lanzas, Hovanec, Tessman, Schima, and Student Commissioners Machart
and Rawat
Late: Commissioner Haugen arrived at 7:12pm, Commissioner Dakane arrived at
7:30pm
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion by Tom Tessman to Approve Meeting Agenda. Seconded by Hilda
Martinez Salgado. Motion Carried.
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A.Minutes: Energy and Environment Commission May 11, 2023
Motion by Hilda Martinez Salgado to Approve Meeting Minutes. Seconded
by Bayardo Lanzas. Motion Carried.
Motion by Hilda Martinez Salgado to Approve Meeting Minutes. Seconded
by . Motion Carried.
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Special Presentation: 2023 Water Resources Update
Commissioners received a presentation from Water Resources Manager
regarding an annual report on Edina's water resources programming.
VI.Community Comment
no community comment was received.
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or
concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of
speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on
tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair
or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might
refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting.
VII.Reports/Recommendations
A.Consultant Report: Proposed Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance Public Input
Results
Commission received the consultant report, and Liaison Hancock opened
the topic for discussion. Commissioners made the following comments:
Commissioners expressed the opinion that public resistance would be
short lived if ordinance passed.
Commissioners asked about enforcement. Staff responded that
general retail businesses are not currently licensed by the city, so new
enforcement processes would need to be established.
Commissioners commented City ordinances should be informed by
science and research, not only by public input.
Commissioners questioned whether an annual report to track progress
was actually needed.
Commissioner commented the proposed carryout bag fee would be a
small but visible and important step.
Commissioners asked if the City could pass omnibus bills to tie
multiple waste items, for instance, together. Liaison Hancock
committed to follow up on this question.
B.Comment on 2024 Commission Climate Action Menu
Liaison Hancock introduced the 2024 draft commission climate action
menu.
No additional actions were requested by the Commission to be added
before the menu is shared with other commissions for 2024 work
planning.
C.2024 Workplan Development Kickoff
The Commission brainstormed ideas for the 2024 work plan. The work plan
will be approved by the Commission at their August meeting for submittal to
Council in September.
D.Monthly call for communication requests
No communication requests were received.
VIII.Chair And Member Comments
Chair Martinez thanked student commissioner Machart for her service.
Commissioners asked if a property clearing trees in Edina was required to
comply with the former or amended residential tree protection ordinance.
Liaison Hancock will follow up.
Commissioners asked for confirmation about current water restrictions.
Liaison Hancock confirmed that irrigation was on an odd/even schedule.
Commissioner Weber agreed to lead the EEC group for the July 4 parade.
IX.Staff Comments
Staff shared the newly adopted amended landscaping ordinance, Ordinance
2023-07.
Staff shared that City Engineer Millner will liaise at the Commission's next
meeting on July 13.
X.Adjournment
The EEC meeting was adjourned at 9:13pm.
Motion by John Haugen to Adjourn. Seconded by Tom Tessman. 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 13, 2023 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager
Item Activity:
Subject:2023 Workplan Development Discussion Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Begin drafting 2024 EEC workplan.
Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yWddItL5Bevd-188UYOydIJx0P 9pjIpx0e39riYlnpc/edit?
usp=sharing.
Eden Prairie Commission work plan is included here as an example and for work plan initiatives inspiration.
INTRODUCTION:
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
2024 Commission Work Plan Template
CAP Commission Menu
EXAMPLE Eden Prairie Commission Work Plan
Page 1 of 2
Commission Name
2024 Proposed Work Plan
1 Initiative Type:
Project, Ongoing/Annual, Event
Target Completion Date:
Quarter or month
Lead(s):
List at least one commissioner
Initiative Title:
Initiative Description:
Deliverable:
Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☐ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide
Budget Required (completed by staff): Are there funds for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the
impact of Council approving this initiative.
Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Who in addition to the staff liaison will have to support this initiative?
How many hours of support are needed? Communications/marketing?
Liaison Comments: Liaison comments should be completed prior to submitting the proposed work plan to MJ.
City Manager Comments:
2 Initiative Type:
Project, Ongoing/Annual, Event
Target Completion Date:
Quarter or month
Lead(s):
List at least one commissioner
Initiative Title:
Initiative Description:
Deliverable:
Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☐ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide
Budget Required (completed by staff): Are there funds for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the
impact of Council approving this initiative.
Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Who in addition to the staff liaison will have to support this initiative?
How many hours of support are needed? Communications/marketing?
Liaison Comments: Liaison comments should be completed prior to submitting the proposed work plan to MJ.
City Manager Comments:
= commission
= staff
Page 2 of 2
3 Initiative Type:
Project, Ongoing/Annual, Event
Target Completion Date:
Quarter or month
Lead(s):
List at least one commissioner
Initiative Title:
Initiative Description:
Deliverable:
Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☐ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide
Budget Required (completed by staff): Are there funds for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the
impact of Council approving this initiative.
Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Who in addition to the staff liaison will have to support this initiative?
How many hours of support are needed? Communications/marketing?
Liaison Comments: Liaison comments should be completed prior to submitting the proposed work plan to MJ.
City Manager Comments:
4 Initiative Type:
Project, Ongoing/Annual, Event
Target Completion Date:
Quarter or month
Lead(s):
List at least one commissioner
Initiative Title:
Initiative Description:
Deliverable:
Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☐ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide
Budget Required (completed by staff): Are there funds for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the
impact of Council approving this initiative.
Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Who in addition to the staff liaison will have to support this initiative?
How many hours of support are needed? Communications/marketing?
Liaison Comments: Liaison comments should be completed prior to submitting the proposed work plan to MJ.
City Manager Comments:
Parking Lot
Strategy Action Potential Council Charge
BE 1-7 Create a welcome packet for new businesses, which will provide information on all the energy efficiency improvement resources and opportunities. Report and Recommend
BE 3-2 Explore the development of renewable energy program(s) which increase utilization of on-site / in-community renewable energy while creating benefit
for low-income community members. Example programs include City of Dubuque Low Income Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC), Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe Community Solar for Community Action, and Texas Energy Poverty Research Institute Community Solar Program Model. Goal: 16,000 MWh clean
energy delivered through programs annually by 2030.Study and Report
BE 4-2 Partner with institutions and businesses within Edina to secure commitments to reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions in line with the goals of
this Climate Action Plan, achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.Review and Decide
BE 4-5 Create an educational program to inform residential and commercial properties about renewable energy opportunities including technologies that
eliminate on-site fossil fuel use.Review and Decide (Event or
handout materials)
Buildings &
Energy 1-5
Partner with local organizations and businesses to educate the public and promote the adoption of energy efficiency habits like purchasing high-efficiency
equipment, turning the lights off in unused spaces and at night, having efficient indoor temperature control, and promote home energy audits among
their staff and students.
Report and Recommend or
Review and Decide (Event)
Environmental
Health HS 2-2
Add climate preparedness elements to public health programs already aimed at vulnerable populations and low-income households and dedicate
increased funding to accommodate demand for public health services among at-risk populations. Study and Report
GS 2-7
Establish a policy to identify, create, and promote incentives to assist homeowners and households with low incomes to cover some of the cost of
converting traditional lawns by planting pollinator friendly food gardens, permaculture, wildflowers, clover or native grasses in an effort to slow the Study and Report
GS 2-8
p p g g p p p g
native plantings, "carbon gardening" strategies for ornamental gardens, and produce gardens, tree profile rebuilding, elimination of synthetic fertilizer
and pesticide use, high mow deck settings, use of biochar amendments, polyculture lawn mixture and other beneficial greenspace practices included in Study and Report
HS 1-1
Establish a communication campaign in alignment with the American Public Health Association Policy Number: 201711 and educate the public about the
hazards of air pollution, including indoor air quality, and the steps individuals can take such as reducing and eliminating fossil fuel use, and available
resources to reduce their exposure. Review and Decide
HS 2-5
Create and make available an Emergency Response Toolkit offering tips and suggestions for residents to increase their emergency preparedness. Develop
City-based program to support individuals and families who cannot afford to purchase supplies for household emergency preparedness kits to adequately
prepare their homes.Study and Report
LF 1-4
Study and report on options to incentivize and reward soil best management practice for urban lawns, gardens, landscaping, parks, open spaces, prairies,
environmentally sensitive areas, and agricultural land uses.Study and Report
LF 2-3
Promote and expand public education campaigns to encourage purchasing and supporting restaurants which use locally grown and produced food at the
individual and institutional level (add targeting of disadvantaged, food insecure, and elder populations). Collaborate with under represented groups to
identify culturally preferred foods and advocate for their cultivation and increased availability locally. Review and Decide
LF 4-2
Establish a Green Business Refrigeration upgrade cost sharing incentive program providing a 25% matching grant for qualified buildings and applicants to
switch to green refrigeration practices. Study and ReportLocal Food LF 1-
2
Support existing school and community gardens and provide opportunities to expand community growing spaces with a focus on locating garden
infrastructure to serve youth, immigrant, and people with lower incomes or who are experiencing food insecurity. Community growing and garden Review and Decide (Project)
TL 1-5
Establish a branded communications campaign to promote increased alternative transportation use, with a particular focus on short distance trips (ie <2
miles) including school and other daily commutes.Report and Recommend
TL 3-4
Eliminate parking minimums to reduce surface parking and institute new parking pricing models to maintain 85% utilization (performance-based parking,
off-street parking tax, dynamic pricing, etc.) Report and Recommend
Edina Commission Climate Action Menu: Work Plan options
TL 3-4
Identify underutilized paved areas and incentivize conversion to sustainable green space or infill development. Conversion focus should take into
consideration neighborhood's greenspace, heat island mitigation, affordable housing, and bike/walk mobility needs and prioritize site utilization based on Study and Report
TL 4-5
Develop incentive and educational programs to transition lawn care companies and homeowners from using fuel-burning lawn equipment (e.g., lawn
mowers, blowers) to electric.Study and Report
W 1-3
Study and report on a possible opt-in water reduction program targeting water reduction goals of 20% or more per site. Offer free technical resources to
large institutions and businesses to identify specific opportunities for employees or customers to conserve water and incorporate water efficiency into
internal operations. Study and Report
W 1-6
Conduct a Water Conservation "challenge" campaign ask participants to reduce water consumption through water use behavior change strategies,
irrigation system utilization, and replacement of fixtures like shower heads with WaterSense certified fixtures.Study and Report
Waste WM 1-2
Support collaborative consumption community projects, such as neighborhood compost projects, tool libraries, and repair cafes through mini-grant
programs.Study and Report
WM 2-3
Conduct an organics waste collection pilot project with a sample of City businesses to test the interest, methodology, and amount of commercial food
waste that would need to be accommodated by a commercial organics collection program. Explore possible incentives for food retailers, restaurants, and
institutions to participate in food waste reuse and recycling programs.Study and Report
WM 3-2 Explore a requirement that all waste be recycled or salvaged at large construction sites.Study and Report
WM 4-5 Promote and partner to support a Fix It Fair at the Library and create a resource list for reuse.Review and Decide (Event)
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION OVERVIEW
Sustainability Commission regular meetings are scheduled for the second Tuesday of each month at 7:00pm. The City Staff Liaison to the
Sustainability Commission is Jennifer Fierce.
Charter
Citizen Advisory Sustainability Commission. The Citizen Advisory Sustainability Commission (“CASC”) shall act in an advisory capacity to the City
Council and staff about policies and practices that promote the sustainable development and conservation of Eden Prairie’s air, water, and land
resources; reduction of residential and commercial solid waste; and the more efficient use of energy in the economic activities of both the public
and private sectors, which may include the following.
1. The Commission shall have the following roles and responsibilities:
a. Review, examination and evaluation of the City’s operating policies and practices with the goal of improving performance in this
area through the recommendation of Best Management Practices. The CASC shall recommend the inclusion of appropriate
environmental conservation and protection measures into the planning process. Where environmental policy mandates of the
state and local agencies require the City’s response, the CASC may serve as the body to examine alternatives and make
recommendations to the City Council.
b. Provide recommendations as to oversight and accountability for municipal and private initiatives in the area of environmental
policies that impact Eden Prairie’s energy and natural resources. The Commission shall serve as the liaison and monitoring body
for community events and activities that are relevant to the Commission’s purpose.
c. Educate the community, including Eden Prairie schools and community groups, about the impact of advances in environmental
science, engineering, product development and policies to produce a better-informed citizenry about environmental
conservation.
2. In pursuance of the above stated roles and responsibilities the Commission shall perform the following work tasks:
a. Recommend best practices for energy conservation for Eden Prairie’s citizens, businesses, institutions and City government,
including the 20/40/15 initiative.
b. Encourage energy efficiency through appropriate building code improvements.
c. Recommend opportunities to increase the City’s use of alternative energy.
d. Recommend ways to develop a comprehensive recycling, reuse and municipal solid waste (MSW) reduction program.
e. Recommend ways to improve water quality in Eden Prairie.
f. Promote tree planting, native landscapes and infiltration of water runoff with rain gardens and other techniques to maintain
healthy urban native landscapes and reduce water consumption.
2
g. Recommend ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality in Eden Prairie.
h. Recommend ways to integrate natural resource initiatives and programs into other areas of Eden Prairie government, including
other commissions and groups, to better promote natural resource management and conservation.
i. Educate the public, professional associations, organizations, businesses and industries about improving the community’s
environment, both natural and man-made.
2022 Commission Members
Commission members who served in 2022 included:
Commission Member Appointed Term Expires/Expired
Jeanne DeSanctis 4/2019 3/31/2022
Priya Senthilkumar 4/2019 3/31/2022
Daniel Katzenberger 4/2020 3/31/2023
Cindy Hoffman 4/2021 3/31/2024
Aaron Poock 4/2021 3/31/2024
Emily Eddy-Theis 4/2021 3/31/2024
Jeff Nobleza 4/2021 3/31/2024
Carolyn Wieland 4/2022 3/31/2024
Laura Bishop 4/2022 3/31/2025
Tim Conners 4/2022 3/31/2025
Gretchen Enninga 4/2022 3/31/2025
Student Representative School Year Term
Abi Rajasekaran 2021/2022 Fall 2021/Spring 2022
Amoligha Timma 2021/2022 Fall 2021/Spring 2022
Anna Maristela 2021/2022 Fall 2021/Spring 2022
Augie Stukenborg 2021/2022 Fall 2021/Spring 2022
Julia Harris 2021/2022 Fall 2021/Spring 2022
Muthu Meenakshisundaram 2021/2022 Fall 2021/Spring 2022
Tanvi Bhujle 2022/2023 Fall 2022/Spring 2023
Mia Cain 2022/2023 Fall 2022/Spring 2023
Palak Dhiman 2022/2023 Fall 2022/Spring 2023
Maura Fitzgerald 2022/2023 Fall 2022/Spring 2023
Tyler Little 2022/2023 Fall 2022/Spring 2023
Taylor Oliver 2022/2023 Fall 2022/Spring 2023
Suchita Sah 2022/2023 Fall 2022/Spring 2023
3
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION 2023 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Public Events
Hosted city’s first EV Ride and Drive Event. 25 residents and businesses displayed their vehicles and answered questions from curious potential
EV owners. 300 residents attended to test drive and learn more about how an EV would work for them.
Curbside and Electronics Drop Off Recycling Events – Promoted curbside recycling pick up and two drop off recycling event at the Yard Waste
site. Wrote down the costs for each family by $10 – total write down of $5,600. 564 households participated in the three events.
Held city’s first Fix It Clinic in coordination with Hennepin County to encourage residents to repair items instead of dispose of them.
Participated in EP AM Rotary’s first Eco Expo to share sustainability info with residents and participants.
Sustainable Eden Prairie Awards – Reviewed nominations, selected winners and presented awards.
Programs and Learning
GreenStep Cities – Awarded Step 4 & 5 designation again for 2022.
Sustainable Building Standard - Reviewed proposed Sustainable Building Standard for new development and provided feedback and
recommendation to the City Council.
ReACT Eden Prairie Program Development – Launched educational and recognition program for residential climate action.
Home Electrification – Began program development to promote fuel switching and home beneficial electrification.
Hennepin County Recycling Support – Promoted County food waste challenge and Master Recycler programs.
Home Energy Squad Intercity Challenge – Promoted home energy squad audits as part of a metro competition between cities.
Community Center Solar Garden – Promoted subscriptions for CSG to be built on the Community Center to residents.
Climate Action Plan – Reviewed update and continued to work on implementation actions.
Water Quality & Conservation Update – Reviewed city programming, offered input on conservation best practices.
Organics Recycling Rebate – Promote organics recycling program with up to $50 rebate. $8,700 in rebate funds distributed.
Participated in metro-wide meetings of Environmental Commissions to learn and share best practices.
4
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION 2023 WORK PLAN
Sustainability Commission 2023 Work Plan
Activity 1: Climate Action Plan Implementation
Description Relevant CAP Action and/or Goal Time Frame
1.1 ReACT Eden Prairie – Continue promoting
residential best practice education and
recognition program.
• Promote renewable energy.
• Promote utility renewable energy programs.
• Provide education on green power programs.
• Facilitate development of green neighborhoods/green
teams.
• Promote transit, ride-share, bike transportation options.
• 34% of HH by 2030 participate in energy conservation
program.
• 98% of HH by 2030 participate in energy-saving behavior
change activities.
• 5% of city electricity load met by on-site solar PV by 2025.
• 2.9% of HH by 2030 participate in green power purchase
program.
• 7% reduction in VMT/capita by 2030.
• 30% of passenger vehicles and 15% of light trucks in city
are EV by 2030.
Ongoing
Electrify Everything MN Program – Launch
education and possible cost share program to
support residential building electrification
through electrification measures.
• Explore incentives to promote fuel switching.
• 17% of residential buildings switched from natural gas to
electricity for space/water heating by 2030.
Education
campaign
throughout 2023
5
Sustainability Commission 2023 Work Plan
Host EV Ride and Drive event. 30% of passenger vehicles and 15% of light trucks in city are EV by
2030.
Q3 2023
Review best practices and metrics information
for annual GreenStep Cities reporting.
Expand implementation of GreenStep Cities best practices for
energy efficiency in public buildings.
Q1 2023
Resident Learning Sessions – Resident-led
educational workshops to highlight different
sustainable topics of interest.
Create neighborhood Green Teams/Green Team Academy. Q2-Q4 2023
Green Power Purchase Campaign – Encourage
participation in Xcel or MN Valley green power
purchase programs through marketing
campaign, resident challenge, etc.
• Promote participation in Xcel Energy’s renewable energy
programs such as Windsource & Renewable Connect.
• 2.9% of residents participate by 2030.
Q2 2023
Support outreach to identify eligible properties
for whole-home electrification upgrades
(Federal Congressionally Directed Spending
Allocation)
• Explore incentives to promote fuel switching.
• 17% of residential buildings switched from natural gas to
electricity for space/water heating by 2030.
Q2, Q3 & Q4 2023
Advocacy
• Support efforts at state legislature to
allow cities to adopt a more advanced
energy code for commercial buildings.
• Provide feedback relevant to Climate
Action Plan goal on any utility planning
process as needed.
• Provide feedback on city policies that
impact Climate Action Plan goals.
• Support statewide policies such as energy code updates.
• Enforce current and future energy codes.
• Lobby for stretch energy code legislation.
• Prepare for grid modernization and battery systems.
Q1 & Q2 2023
6
Sustainability Commission 2023 Work Plan
Activity 2: Waste and Recycling
Description Relevant City/County/State Goals Time Frame
Support drop-off and curbside bulk recycling
events. Educate pubic on proper disposal for
construction waste.
Recycle 75% of waste and send zero waste to landfills by 2030.
(Hennepin County)
Q2 2023
Continue community education around
recycling, including promotion and education
around organics recycling and rebate program.
Evaluate opportunity for online education
forums or in-person events.
Recycle 75% of waste and send zero waste to landfills by 2030.
(Hennepin County)
Ongoing
Host a Fix It Clinic event. Recycle 75% of waste and send zero waste to landfills by 2030.
(Hennepin County)
Q2 2023
Encourage zero waste community events where
possible.
Recycle 75% of waste and send zero waste to landfills by 2030.
(Hennepin County)
Ongoing
Plate to Garden Compost Promotion at Arbor
Day
Recycle 75% of waste and send zero waste to landfills by 2030.
(Hennepin County)
Q2 2023
Garden Tool Swap at Arbor Day Recycle 75% of waste and send zero waste to landfills by 2030.
(Hennepin County)
Q2 2023
Food-based Business Front End Composting
Promotion
Recycle 75% of waste and send zero waste to landfills by 2030.
(Hennepin County)
Q2 2023
MF Residential Recycling Support Recycle 75% of waste and send zero waste to landfills by 2030.
(Hennepin County)
Q3 2023
7
Sustainability Commission 2023 Work Plan
Activity 3: Water Quality
Description Relevant City/County/State Goals Time Frame
Receive a water resources update (geese
management, lake management, clean up, lake
monitoring results, etc.)
Preserved and Beautiful Environment (Eden Prairie) Q3 2023
Support and promote city water conservation
and quality rebate programs.
Innovative and Sustainable Practices (Eden Prairie) Q2 and Q3 2023
Promote Adopt-a-Drain, pet waste, and smart
salting strategies.
Preserved and Beautiful Environment (Eden Prairie) Q2 and Q3 2023
Promote turf removal and native pollinator
plantings in residential and commercial
properties.
Preserved and Beautiful Environment (Eden Prairie) Q2 and Q3 2023
Activity 4: Education and Community Events
Description Relevant City/County/State Goals Time Frame
Promote utility programs and rebates that
support Climate Action Plan goals.
Communitywide carbon neutrality by 2050. (Eden Prairie) Ongoing
Participate in metro-wide learning
opportunities with Commission members from
other cities.
Innovative and Sustainable Practices (Eden Prairie) Ongoing
Participate in community organization planned
events to promote relevant Sustainable Eden
Prairie initiatives to attendees.
Sense of Community (Eden Prairie) Q1 or Q2 2023
8
Sustainability Commission 2023 Work Plan
Participate in Arbor Day event to promote
relevant Sustainable Eden Prairie initiatives to
attendees. Support student commissioners with
project promotional booths.
Sense of Community (Eden Prairie) Q2 2023
Participate in Spring Park Clean Up Day as a
group.
Preserved and Beautiful Environment (Eden Prairie) Q2 2023
Participate in Citywide Open House to promote
Sustainable Eden Prairie initiatives.
Sense of Community (Eden Prairie) Q4 2023
Review and award annual Sustainable Eden
Prairie Award recipients.
Innovative and Sustainable Practices (Eden Prairie) Q3 2023
Explore idea of Sustainable Eden Prairie Home
tour to educate residents on energy
technology, pollinator gardens, etc.
Innovative and Sustainable Practices (Eden Prairie) Q3 2023
Date: July 13, 2023 Agenda Item #: VI.B.
To:Energy and Environment Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager
Item Activity:
Subject:Staff Report for Comment: Carryout bag fee
proposal
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None, discussion only.
INTRODUCTION:
In 2022, City Council approved a work plan initiative for Edina's resident volunteer Energy & Environment
Commission(External link) (EEC) to “Revise and update EEC’s 2017 report on possible recommendations for a
plastic bag ordinance” with a deliverable of an “updated report with recommendation.”
The EEC recommended to City Council at their February 7, 2023 meeting that "the City require that merchants
charge a $.05 fee to customers for carryout bags. EEC asks Council to direct staff to write an ordinance that
updates City Code to include this requirement and implement an outreach plan to inform residents and businesses
of this requirement." Council received this recommendation and directed staff to draft an ordinance and seek
public feedback based on an April, 2023 Council-approved public input plan implemented via
https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/carryout-bag-ordinance.
Staff will present this report to Council on July 18 at their work session. EEC is invited to provide comment to be
shared with Council at this meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report - Carryout Bag Fee Proposal
EEC Feb 2023 Report
Public Participation Plan Apr 2023
Summary Public Participation Report Jun23
Public Health Waste Snapshot Spring 2023
CAP Waste Management Actions
Comments - EEC Chair and EEC Working Group
July 18, 2023
Mayor and City Council
Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager
Proposed Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance
Information / Background:
City Council approved a 2022 work plan initiative for Edina's resident volunteer Energy & Environment
Commission (EEC) to “Revise and update EEC’s 2017 report on possible recommendations for a plastic bag
ordinance” with a deliverable of an “updated report with recommendation.”
The EEC recommended to City Council at their February 7, 2023 meeting that "the City require that
merchants charge a $.05 fee to customers for carryout bags. EEC asks Council to direct staff to write an ordinance
that updates City Code to include this requirement and implement an outreach plan to inform residents and
businesses of this requirement." Council received this recommendation and directed staff to draft an ordinance
and seek public feedback. Council approved a public participation plan to support staff work at their April
18th regular meeting.
Executive Summary:
Staff conducted a public input process based on the Council-approved public participation plan from mid-
April to mid-June. Staff also reviewed the draft Hennepin County Zero Waste Plan and the draft MPCA
Metro Solid Waste Management Plan, released to the public this spring. Staff interviewed implementors of
carryout bag fee ordinances in both Minneapolis and Duluth along with the lead author of the Hennepin
County Zero Waste Plan, and conferred internally with City departments that are affected by this
discussion.
Staff does not recommend that Council implement a carryout bag fee ordinance for the following reasons:
It has a low impact on the broader goal to reduce solid waste according to solid waste experts at
the county and state level.
A carryout bag fee only indirectly contributes to Edina’s climate action to “eliminate petroleum-based,
single use products through the phasing out of single-use plastics including plastic bags by 2025” since
shoppers can pay to still use a carryout bag.
Public input received does not support implementation of a carryout bag fee.
STAFF REPORT Page 2
And, it would require significant City resources to effectively implement, thanks to the need to
regulate a new segment of Edina businesses – retail - who are not currently licensed or inspected on
any regular basis.
To meet Edina’s waste reduction goals, the City should pursue organized trash collection, implement a yard
waste collection program, increase participation in the existing organics recycling program, and advocate for
a repeal of the ban on bag bans with the state legislature. Further, the City should implement a holistic
awareness and action campaign to help residents use less and reuse more, in order to reduce the amount of
waste generated and the demand for extraction and production of new products. These activities are
challenging, but are the highest impact actions City leadership can take to effectively pivot Edina toward a
zero waste community and meet its climate action goals.
Discussion:
Climate Action Plan Waste Management goals:
Decrease total per capita municipal solid waste handled 5% by 2030. (Based on Edina’s 2021 GHG
inventory, residents generated ~1,000 lbs. of waste per capita.)
o Eliminate petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing out the use of single-use
plastics including plastic bags by 2025. Require food service retailers to use re-usable,
biodegradable, compostable or recyclable packaging and utensils (including for take-out).
Explore the feasibility of establishing a reusable takeout container service.
Achieve 70% organics landfill waste diversion by 2030
Increase recycling from 32% to 35% of total MSW handled by 2030
Increase diversion of potential recoverables by 15% by 2030
What’s the problem we’re trying to solve?
Both the Climate Action Plan and the specific recommendation from the EEC recommending a carryout bag
fee aim to reduce waste. When an item is wasted, the resources used to produce it are lost, yet its impact
on the planet and on people continues whether it’s burned or buried. Edina’s 2021 greenhouse gas inventory
estimates that 2% of the community’s emissions profile comes from solid waste. Solid waste emits
greenhouse gases in two main ways. First, solid waste contains organic materials – for example, paper towels
and banana peels – which release GHGs like CO2, N2O, and CH4 as they break down over time. This
process usually occurs within landfills or compost facilities. Second, the process of managing solid waste also
releases GHGs, because transporting waste in fossil-fuel powered vehicles and combusting waste to
generate electricity releases GHGs, particularly CO2 (Met Council, 2023). But emissions associated with the
waste itself is just one part of the challenge of overconsumption and irresponsible disposal; the full lifecycle
of an item has a planetary impact: from raw materials extraction to processing, manufacturing,
transportation and disposal.
Carryout bags are a microcosm of this larger issue. The EEC’s February 2023 report describes the
environmental issues of single or short-term use bags, whether they are made of paper, plastic or other
materials. Microplastics from plastic bags is a contaminant of emerging concern in Edina’s draft Clean Water
Strategy. Methane from paper bags rotting in landfills rapidly warms the planet and increases demand for
deforestation when not property recycled. It’s costly when plastic bags are incorrectly placed in a recycling
bin, as they cause recycling equipment to snarl and require time-consuming equipment shutdown and
constant maintenance.
STAFF REPORT Page 3
At both the large and small scale, waste management affects people’s health and well-being in inequitable
ways. People living near waste disposal sites contend with high truck traffic and the noise and pollution that
come with it. When waste is burned, particulate matter is released into the air in sizes small enough to
enter people’s respiratory systems and cause asthma rates in surrounding neighborhoods that are higher
than the average for that community. Unsurprisingly, proximity to waste disposal sites depresses property
values, resulting in lower-income people living by them, and a reduced ability to move away or sell their
property for a fair price. Waste disposal sites are often sited in areas where land is cheap, which results in
many sites being placed in Black, Indigenous and other communities of color thanks to a history of racist
land valuation practices such as redlining. The modern environmental justice movement began as a waste
disposal protest.
A progressive waste reduction strategy is not only an environmental imperative but provides a way for the
City to improve equity outcomes for residents in Edina and for community members in neighboring
communities who receive Edina’s waste.
Would a carryout bag fee solve this problem?
Consideration #1: Not compared to other waste reduction actions. Comparatively, it has a low impact on the broader
goal to reduce solid waste according to solid waste experts at the county and state level.
Edina needs to use less, and waste less. Where waste is
generated, it should be recycled in some way. So, what is the
biggest source of waste in Edina’s trash? Without an organized
trash collection system, Edina must rely on county-wide
statistics to estimate this. Hennepin County’s Zero Waste Plan
shows that recyclable plastic bags and film make up less than
1% of items in the trash, but organics and other recyclables –
programs Edina already has in place – make up nearly 40% of
what is put in the trash. Helping residents and businesses
effectively recycle and participate in organics recycling
would have an outsized impact on reducing trash in
Edina without introducing a new program or
regulatory procedure.
In late spring, 2023, the Edina Health Division conducted a limited waste characterization study to build a
demonstrative sample of what makes up waste in Edina’s bins. The results of this study can be reviewed in
the appendix of this report.
Consideration #2: A carryout bag fee only indirectly contributes to Edina’s climate action to “eliminate petroleum-
based, single use products through the phasing out of single-use plastics including plastic bags by 2025” since
shoppers can pay to still use a carryout bag.
STAFF REPORT Page 4
The full climate action referenced here states “Eliminate petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing
out the use of single-use plastics including plastic bags by 2025. Require food service retailers to use re-usable,
biodegradable, compostable or recyclable packaging and utensils (including for take-out). Explore the feasibility of
establishing a reusable takeout container service.” A fee on carryout bags does not eliminate petroleum-based
single-use products. Removing plastic bags from the supply chain is what’s needed to phase out single-use
plastic bags. The Council showed foresight and leadership when it adopted EEC’s 2021 recommended Green
To Go ordinance, which requires that takeout food materials be recyclable or compostable. This ordinance
is expected to reduce petroleum-based single use products, without putting the onus on individual
consumers to make environmentally-friendly decisions. Advocating with state legislators to repeal the
ban on bag bans would pave the way for governments to take meaningful action here.
Consideration #3: Public input received does not support implementation of a carryout bag fee.
The City’s public input process included two primary invitations for input – an online survey geared toward
residents, and a series of 30-minute interviews with businesses. 201 residents completed the survey, while 5
businesses completed the survey and 24 businesses were interviewed along with two special-interest
organizations, Hospitality Minnesota and the MN Retailers Association. A summary of the public input
process can be reviewed in the appendix “City of Edina Community Engagement Summary;” a complete
catalog of all responses can be viewed in the “Helpful Documents” section of the Better Together Edina
project page. In general, neither resident respondents nor business representatives favor a carryout bag fee.
For residents, one of the primary concerns was that merchants would retain the fee without guaranteeing
that the fee revenue would go toward environmental action. The City cannot retain the fee except if needed
to administer the ordinance, nor can it direct fee use by the merchant. If a bag fee were required, the
preference by survey respondents was for it to only apply to plastic bags. Finally, when asked, residents
commented most often that the City could reach its waste goals by banning plastic bags, offering weekly
recycling, and providing more education.
For businesses interviewed, one of the primary concerns was business worker experience if customers were
unkind when charged for a bag. While implementation of a point-of-sale system change was not considered a
significant hurdle, businesses expressed concern around employee training and any reporting requirement.
Smaller and more independent businesses were especially unsupportive of such an ordinance.
Public input should not be the sole guide when developing City policies, it should be considered in the
context of science-backed research such as that which informs the County and State draft solid waste
management plans. In this case, the public input received provides a sense of community support or
lack thereof, and gives City decision-makers an idea of ways that constituents would prefer
that the City address waste issues.
Consideration #4: The proposed carryout bag fee would require significant City resources to effectively implement,
thanks to the need to regulate a new segment of Edina businesses – retail sales. These businesses are not currently
licensed or inspected by the City, so there would be a the need to coordinate with state regulatory agencies like the
MN Department of Agriculture (MDA), which regulates grocery stores.
The City regularly inspects and licenses food establishments, like restaurants. Other entities that distribute
carryout bags are regulated by the MDA; these include grocery stores, convenience stores, bakeries, and
meat markets. The City does not offer a general business license for other entities that might distribute
carryout bags, such as a retail store, and does not inspect these businesses on a regular basis. Any regulation
STAFF REPORT Page 5
of carryout bags in these facilities would be an additional responsibility for City staff and may require
additional FTE’s.
Broadly, effective implementation of any new regulation requires staff for:
Communications: Develop and implement a plan to raise awareness, communicate requirements and
answer questions.
Implementation: Access the staff capacity, technical resources and expertise to manage the day-to-
day of engaging regulated entities and ensuring compliance.
Enforcement: Develop and implement an enforcement plan with non-compliant entities.
Evaluation: Assess success of the regulation. Identify regulation goals that originally motivated
passage and measure progress on these goals, usually through some kind of data gathering and
reporting.
Edina Sustainability Manager interviewed implementors of carryout bag fee ordinances in both Minneapolis
and Duluth along with the lead author of the Hennepin County Zero Waste Plan. The two cities in
Minnesota with a current bag fee have some similarities related to this topic. In both cases, cities passed an
ordinance without any resources or formal plan to communicate, implement, enforce and evaluate it. In
particular:
Neither city dedicated measurable resources to a communications campaign when the ordinance
was passed. There is no ongoing education or awareness.
Neither city took action on new staffing needs when the ordinance was passed.
Because of the low resourcing related to education and implementation, the ordinance is not
meaningfully enforced. When a complaint is made to either City, the complaint is investigated by staff,
meaning a visit is made to the business or a letter is mailed. However, both city representatives
commented that rarely is a step taken in enforcement.
Neither city requires any kind of regular reporting by businesses to measure effectiveness of the
ordinance on reaching stated goals.
The City of Edina should pass ordinances that are backed by research showing they will
meaningfully help the City reach its goals, and should include approval of needed resources in
order to effectively implement and measure success. If the City were to pass a carryout bag fee
ordinance, it would need:
A new general business license that applies to retail entities and adequate expansion of existing
software resources to manage it. The City Attorney would need to advise on adding any new
business licenses.
Up to two dedicated staff to administer the day-to-day implementation. With 300+ retailers and
120+ restaurants in Edina, staff would be needed to help educate business workers and owners,
proactively inspect businesses for compliance, respond to resident complaints regarding non-
compliance, and to gather a regular (likely annual) report from businesses to analyze and evaluate
for progress on stated goals.
Financial resources and staff time, or time from a contractor, to develop and implement an
awareness campaign that is multi-lingual and tailored for multiple audiences including business
owners, workers, residents and shoppers.
The above resources are estimated to cost up to $600,000 annually (two staff, expanded software
and communication support).
Consideration #5: Are there more targeted ways to fee carryout bags beyond a blanket ordinance?
STAFF REPORT Page 6
18 interviewed businesses provided an estimated number of bags distributed on a monthly basis. Slightly
more paper (~55%) than plastic (~45%) bags are distributed from these businesses, which are generally
representative of the kind of commerce in Edina from small and large restaurant, retail and grocery
businesses.
The City estimates there are 120 restaurants in Edina; based on the reported bag distribution by
interviewed restaurants, roughly 360,000 bags are estimated to be distributed monthly by restaurants across
Edina. The City estimates there are 300 retailers in Edina; based on the reported bag distribution by
interviewed retailers (excluding groceries), roughly 366,000 bags are estimated to be distributed monthly by
retailers across Edina. There are around six grocery stores in Edina; based on reporting from two, roughly
600,000 bags are estimated to be distributed monthly at grocery stores across Edina. Across these three
sectors, then, around 1,300,000 bags are distributed monthly in Edina. If $0.05 were charged per bag, this
carryout bag fee would result in ~$65,000 in new revenue for these businesses monthly, or $780,000
annually. With an estimated implementation cost of $600,000, the City would need to retain $0.04/bag
distributed to administer the ordinance. If bag use reduced over time, as would be the intent, the City would
need to find other sources of funding to support ongoing ordinance enforcement.
Staff identified a few policy options if Council wished to pursue a carryout bag fee that is more targeted than
the original EEC recommendation to fee all carryout bags. In all cases, the City should retain 80% of the fee
to implement the ordinance:
1. Only put a fee on plastic bags, applied to all businesses in Edina.
a. Benefits:
i. Residents prefer – based on survey results – a fee on plastic bags over a broad fee
that affects all kinds of bags.
ii. This would affect around half the bags that are distributed in Edina monthly
b. Risks:
i. Retailers may simply switch to free paper bags, so bag use might not actually
diminish.
ii. The City does not regulate grocery or retail stores, so would need to implement a
new process with new resources to do so.
2. Only put a fee on bags distributed from grocery stores.
a. Benefits:
i. This would affect around half the bags distributed in Edina monthly, but would
require regulation on fewer than 10 entities in Edina.
ii. Most grocery stores operating in Edina already implement a bag fee in other
Minnesota cities.
b. Risks:
i. This could concentrate the fee on basic shopper needs, food.
ii. It could cause customer confusion about when to pay for a bag or not, resulting in
poor treatment of grocery workers and resident complaints.
iii. The City does not regulate grocery stores, so would need to implement a new
process with new resources to do so.
STAFF REPORT Page 7
3. Amend Edina’s Green to Go ordinance to require that restaurant carryout bags also be recyclable
or compostable.
a. Benefits:
i. The City regulates restaurants, and already has an ordinance in place to regulate
take-out food implements.
b. Risks
i. Would have limited to no effect on the issue of carryout bags:
1. Around 25% of monthly bag distribution comes from restaurants.
2. This likely would not reduce carryout bag use, since customers would still
receive a bag for their take-out order.
3. Restauranteurs could argue that plastic bags are recyclable, along with paper
bags. Thus, bag type may not change.
While these are more targeted pathways to put a fee on carryout bags, staff are skeptical that options #1
and #3 would meaningfully reduce carryout bag use and meet the intent of the fee proposal. Option #2 has
the best chance of meaningfully reducing carryout bag use in a cost-effective manner, but disproportionally
affects shoppers’ necessary spending (food) versus discretionary (restaurants and retail). Any option
would require new resource investments and processes from the City to be successful.
How might a carryout bag fee affect equity outcomes in Edina?
1. All of Edina’s waste goes somewhere:
Landfills in Burnsville and Inver Grove Heights
Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) in North Minneapolis
Recycling goes to various materials recovery facilities in Minnesota, such as in Eureka, MN
Organics recycling goes to Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Organics Recycling
Facility
These communities experience the detrimental impacts of Edina’s waste although they did not
produce it, including noise and air pollution from trucks transporting waste, particulate matter air
pollution that can affect people’s health living near facilities, along with general nuisance issues like
odor. A carryout bag fee would not meaningfully reduce the amount of waste transported to these
communities from Edina.
2. A carryout bag fee would be felt unevenly by shoppers since it is a flat fee no matter the shoppers’
economic circumstances. Some ordinance provisions such as exempting shoppers who use SNAP or
WIC can help offset this issue, along with the fact that this fee can be avoided if a shopper refuses a
bag. A carryout bag fee should also be considered in context of other new taxes being assessed on
shoppers.
How else could the City meet its goals?
Through its Climate Action Plan, the City has goals to reduce overall waste and increase the share of that
waste which is recycled or managed through organics recycling. These goals – reduce and recycle – begin to
reflect the MPCA’s hierarchy of preferred waste management methods:
STAFF REPORT Page 8
Using this waste hierarchy as a framework, the City can:
Reduce
o Edina relies on Hennepin County data to estimate its current waste load. Without accurate
figures, the City has a limited ability to set a waste reduction goal and measure progress.
The City should pursue organized trash collection so that it can accurately gather
information on how much waste is generated in Edina. An additional benefit of implementing
organized trash collection is that the City can add yard waste collection as a service. The
County estimates yard waste – which has an outsized impact on climate change since it is
organic material - makes up 4% of current trash, even though yard waste is required by law
to be separate from solid waste.
The County’s draft Zero Waste Plan lists transitioning to an organized system as
one of the highest impact actions a city can take.
o The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce provides no-cost waste audits to businesses through
its Waste Wise program. Hennepin County supports restaurants and businesses to
incentivize reducing single-waste plastics through its MNimize program, and offers grants to
businesses to implement waste reduction solutions. The City should ensure these
programs are known and embraced by Edina businesses, to help them reduce
waste, save money and participate in achieving Edina’s goals.
o The draft Hennepin County Zero Waste Plan recommends advocacy to repeal the state’s
ban on bag bans, in order to reduce waste. The City should support this advocacy
effort.
o One area of increased waste in recent years is the waste associated with online ordering:
the packaging items are mailed in along with the additional vehicle miles traveled by delivery
trucks. Residents can reduce their consumption waste as well as the GHGs associated with
consumption by supporting the local economy and buying local. The City should
emphasize the value of buying nothing, buying less and buying local through a
targeted messaging campaign.
Reuse
o When an item has already been produced, it should be reused before being wasted. The
City has some existing programming to promote reuse, such as its successful Earth Day
STAFF REPORT Page 9
Clothing Swap. Additionally, “Buy Nothing” groups are prevalent in Edina, where neighbors
organize to share items among themselves to prolong an item’s life and avoid buying new.
The Hennepin County Library system offers regular “Fix It” clinics to promote repair rather
than waste. The City should tighten connections with these partners to promote
reuse programs, and consider whether new high impact programming to promote reuse
is warranted, such as a community garage sale or providing a tool library, as suggested in the
draft Hennepin County Zero Waste Plan.
Recycle
o The City’s Green to Go ordinance requires that all take-out containers be recyclable or
compostable. Edina staff have used the last year to alert restaurants to the requirement and
advise on compliance. In its second year, the City should continue to robustly support
the implementation of its Green to Go ordinance to reduce unnecessary waste and
increase recycling rates.
o Hennepin County estimates that 14% of waste currently trashed is actually recyclable. The
City of Minneapolis recently found through a community waste sort that only 50% of
aluminum cans are recycled, while less than 50% of cardboard is recycled. Minneapolis also
found that households who participate in organics recycling are more accurate recyclers.
The success of these programs are tied together.
Organics Recycling
o Hennepin County estimates that 25% of waste currently trashed could be processed
through organics recycling. This not only represents an opportunity to increase Edina’s
organics recycling rate and the valuable end product of compost, but it demonstrates the
need to reduce food waste in the first place and avoid wasting all of the resources that go
into food production. The City should invest in more education and deep
engagement to drive participation in these existing programs.
To reduce waste and increase participation in organics and recycling, the City should develop and implement
a communication campaign to raise awareness of the problem of waste, and connect community members
with programs they can participate in to make a difference. This can and should include a “bring your own
bag” message to encourage shoppers to refuse a disposable bag when shopping, along with other messages
detailed in above points.
Conclusion:
A carryout bag fee would have a low impact on Edina’s waste-reduction goals but would require a large
amount of new resources to implement. There are other actions the City can take which have a higher
impact to meet its goals.
To meet Edina’s waste reduction goals, the City should pursue organized trash collection, implement a yard
waste collection program, increase participation in the organics recycling program, and advocate for a repeal
of the ban on bag bans with the state legislature. Further, the City should implement a holistic awareness
and action campaign to help residents use less and reuse more, in order to reduce the amount of waste
generated and the demand for extraction and production of new products. These activities are challenging
but are the highest impact actions City leadership can take can take to effectively pivot Edina toward a zero
waste community and meet its climate action goals.
Appendix:
EEC Feb 2023 report
STAFF REPORT Page 10
Public Participation Plan
Consultant public input process summary
Edina Waste Characterization Study
Climate Action Plan Waste Management Excerpt
Community comments: EEC carryout bag working group and EEC Chair
CITY OF EDINA
PLASTIC BAG WORKING GROUP REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS
DECEMBER 2022
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduc@on and Execu@ve Summary Page 3
Sec@on 1: The Environmental Impact of Merchant Carryout Bags Page 4
Sec@on 2: Ac@ons Taken By Government En@@es in Minnesota and Elsewhere Page 7
Sec@on 3: Strategies for Reducing Merchant Carryout Bags Page 10
Sec@on 4: Conclusions and Recommenda@ons Page 12
Endnotes
Appendices
Appendix A — Memorandum from Dave Kendell and Eric Kvasnicka, Campbell Knutson
A>orneys
Appendix B — Enacted plasAc bag legislaAon by state and select sample of exisAng U.S.
bag regulaAon
.
Appendix C — Stakeholder feedback
Appendix D — Side-by-side merchant carryout bag exempAon comparison with City of
Minneapolis
Appendix E — Proposed outline for educaAon and outreach
2
INTRODUTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Thousands of plasAc bags are used in the United States every second. Most curbside collecAon
programs don’t accept plasAc bags, and only 10% or less are recycled.1 PlasAc bag producAon
and polluAon pose a threat to our land, water, and air on a local, regional, and global scale.
Concerned about the serious and growing environmental impacts of plasAc waste, in 2017 the
Edina Energy and Environment Commission delivered a report to the Edina City Council on the
advisability of regulaAng the use of single use plasAc bags (SUPB) in the City. Although the
Council iniAally postponed acAon on the 2017 EEC report, it approved the creaAon of a PlasAc
Bag Working Group (PBWG) — composed of members of the EEC and City residents — in early
2021. The charge of the PBWG is to build on the iniAal EEC report from 2017, evaluate the pros
and cons of plasAc bag policy opAons, and make a recommendaAon to Council in early 2023.
PBWG Recommenda@on: Establish a small fee for all merchant carryout bags.
The PBWG recommends the City of Edina adopt an ordinance requiring businesses charge a
minimum $0.05 bag fee for all merchant carryout bags (paper, compostable, plasAc of all
thicknesses, and reusable) and coordinate a comprehensive outreach campaign to educate
businesses and patrons about the new requirement. This non-taxable fee would be collected
and retained by merchants to be used at their discreAon. The recommendaAon complies
with a 2017 state statute preempAng an outright ban on plasAc bags.2
This recommendaAon is informed by Edina and Twin CiAes metro business feedback and the
research outlined in this report. It also meets the following goals and is consistent with the City
Council’s approval in December 2021 of the Edina Climate AcAon Plan (CAP):
•Reduce the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. The City is commi>ed to
supporAng the Hennepin County and State of Minnesota greenhouse gas emission goals.
These goals are to be compaAble with the 2015 Paris Agreement and shall target a
reducAon in City operaAons and community-wide emissions of 45% below 2019 levels by
2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.3
•Meet City goals as defined in the Climate Ac@on Plan.4
•Strategy WM 1: Decrease total per capita municipal solid waste handled,5% by
2030.
•AcAon WM 1-5 Eliminate petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing
out the use of single-use plasAcs, including plasAc bags, by 2025.
•Reduce nega@ve impacts on health and the environment. All merchant carry out bags,
regardless of composiAon, produce polluAon that affects our air, land, and water
resources. Reducing our reliance on single-use bags is one way we strive to lessen those
negaAve effects and the impacts of climate change.
3
•Inspire merchant and consumer behavior change. Behavior change is difficult but not
impossible. Offering and implemenAng effecAve strategies that assist both customers
and merchants in making successful, long-lasAng change is essenAal.
The remainder of this report explains the raAonale and supporAng research for the PBWG
recommendaAon. It is organized in four parts:
First, the report examines the adverse environmental impacts of all plasAc bags, as well as the
impacts of other bags such as paper bags, compostable bags, and reusable bags.
Second, the report summarizes the acAons taken by other governmental enAAes in Minnesota
and elsewhere to address this issue.
Third, the report idenAfies several acAons that may help to address this issue and discusses
which acAons are viable for our City.
Finally, the report explains our recommendaAon to establish a merchant carryout bag fee along
with supporAng efforts and tacAcs for reaching CAP goals.
1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MERCHANT CARRYOUT BAGS
Plas@c Bags Harm Both Our Land, Water, and Air Resources
PlasAc doesn’t biodegrade. Instead, it breaks up into smaller pieces called microplasAcs. These
Any plasAc pieces less than 5 mm in size accumulate in the environment and have devastaAng
consequences on wildlife and the natural environment. MicroplasAcs are mistaken for food and
ingested by fish and other wildlife, and plasAc polluAon is a pervasive issue for many
communiAes along the river.5 While plasAc bag li>er is not an overwhelming issue for the City
of Edina, the City is part of both the Nile Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek watersheds; those
creeks ulAmately flow into the Mississippi River, and plasAc waste and other li>er that travels
through storm drains will ulAmately end up in there.
As the second longest river in North America, the Mississippi River is an essenAal inland
waterway for commerce, contribuAng $400 billion a year to the U.S. economy. It also provides
drinking water to more than 20 million people in 50 ciAes in 10 states and provides habitat for a
wide range of plant and animal species.6 As it makes its 2,320-mile-long journey from
headwaters in northern Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico, it is a major conduit for plasAc waste
— both solid and in the form of microplasAcs — and other li>er to reach the ocean. Every year
oceans take in an esAmated 5 million to 13 million tons of plasAc from land-based sources, and
on our current trajectory there will be more plasAc than fish (by weight) in the oceans by 2050,
pushing some marine species to the brink of exAncAon.7
4
As destrucAve as microplasAcs are to our coastal areas and oceans, emerging research suggests
that terrestrial microplasAc polluAon is an even greater issue. PlasAcs in landfills, including bags,
can take up to 1,000 years to decompose. In doing so, they leach potenAally toxic substances
into soil, sediments, and freshwater causing harm to both wildlife and humans.8
PlasAc bags are made from fossil fuels, specifically ethylene from natural gas, and fossil fuel
extracAon, transportaAon and refining is greenhouse gas intensive. According to a May 2019
report released by the Center for InternaAonal Environmental Law, it is esAmated that ”12.5 to
13.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent are emi>ed per year while extracAng and
transporAng natural gas to create feedstocks for plasAcs in the United States.”9 Although other
merchant carry out bags, such as paper and compostable bags, do not use fossil fuels for their
producAon, they sAll emit greenhouse gases in some quanAty — or even more than plasAc bags
— during the various phases of their life cycle. Therefore, the PBWG recognizes the need to
consider all types of merchant carryout bags in a bag ordinance, not only plasAc, when striving
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Plas@c Bags Are Rarely Recycled and Interfere with Recycling Equipment
As menAoned in the opening paragraph of this report, less than 10% of plasAc bags are
recycled. A major reason for this low recycling rate is that plasAc bags are not accepted in
curbside recycling programs in the Twin CiAes and in most programs around the country. PlasAc
— in its numerous types and forms — is expensive to collect and sort and it degrades aler just a
few uses.10 However, a powerful and persuasive effort by the plasAcs industry coupled with
years of public service announcements around the benefits of recycling lead many people to
sAll try to include plasAc bags and other soiled items in their regular recycling cans — a pracAce
known as “wish-cycling.”
Republic, the City of Edina’s curbside recycling partner, states that “wish cycled ” items,
including plasAc bags and films, make up an average of 22% of the materials set out by
consumers for recycling.11 PlasAc films like bags, bubble wrap, zip locks, newspaper and bread
bags, outer wrapping, and produce bags cause wrapping and fouling of recycling and sorAng
equipment, which leads to unscheduled maintenance and line stoppage while repairs are made.
Along with the costs of the downAme, which can run in the thousands of dollars annually,
recycling faciliAes incur costs associated with running longer to process materials and a safety
risk that comes along with repair work.
When plasAc waste isn’t recycled, it ends up in waterways, landfills or incinerators, or as li>er.
The City of Edina has a contract with Waste Management which requires waste be brought to
Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC), a trash-to-energy incinerator. HERC, which operates
adjacent to low-income communiAes of color and other incinerators like it, produce toxic air
pollutants that have demonstrated links to asthma, lung disease, high blood pressure, and heart
disease.12 The PBWG argues strongly that plasAc bag use in Edina is an environmental jusAce
5
issue for us and our neighbors in Minneapolis. We are interconnected; the acAons we take have
an impact beyond the boundaries of our City.
Evalua@ng the Environmental Impact of All Single-Use, Reusable Bags (Plas@c, Paper, and
Compostable) – Through Life Cycle Analysis
While it might seem sufficient to focus on SUPBs alone, we know that even the most well-
intenAoned acAons can have unintended, and someAmes negaAve, consequences. Edina
businesses use many thousands of paper and plasAc bags each month. The PBWG learned that
two major grocery stores, Jerry’s and Lunds/Byerlys at 50th and France use a significant number
of paper and plasAc bags each month, with big spikes during the holiday season. Jerry’s
averages 35,000 paper bags and 25,000 plasAc bags each month, with a 10% increase during
the November-December holiday period; Lunds/Byerlys averages 60,000 paper bags and 25,000
plasAc bags per month, with an increase to 250,000 paper bags and 75,000 plasAc bags during
the November-December holiday period. Because the total number of paper and plasAc bags
used throughout Edina and other communiAes each year is so significant, it is important to
consider Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) on plasAc, paper, and reusable bags to evaluate their full
environmental impact.
LCAs explore the environmental impacts throughout all stages of the product’s life: from
material extracAon, manufacturing, transportaAon, uAlizaAon, recycling, and disposal. While
results from these studies can vary depending on the locaAon, parameters, or report sponsor,
the most frequently cited LCAs have determined that creaAon, recycling, and disposal of paper
and plasAc, reusable and compostable bags all require significant resources and energy.
Favoring one type of merchant bag over another does not necessarily result in the least impact
on the environment.
Having examined several studies, the PBWG believes that a 2020 meta-analysis report from the
United NaAons which examined seven LCAs published in English since 2010 is an excellent
resource for understanding the complexiAes associated with single use bags.
For example, paper bags that end up in landfills cause emissions of methane with high climate
change effect, while plasAc bags are relaAvely inert. Paper bags contribute less to the impacts of
li>ering but in most cases have a larger impact on the climate, eutrophicaAon and acidificaAon,
compared to SUPBs, unless the paper bags are reused mulAple Ames, and/or are incinerated
rather than deposited in landfills. On the other hand, incineraAon of used plasAc bags affects
the climate through emissions of fossil carbon dioxide (CO2), while the CO2 emi>ed from
incineraAon of paper bags is part of the natural carbon cycle.13
The UN report concluded that: “reducing environmental impacts of bags is not just about
choosing, banning, recommending or prescribing specific materials or bags, but also about
6
changing consumer behavior to increase the reuse rate and to avoid li>ering. The shopping bag
that has the least impact on the environment is the bag the consumer already has at home.”14
Figure 1: Environmental Impact Category in the Life Cycle of the Bags.
Source: UN Environmental Programme Report "Single-use PlasAc Bags and Their AlternaAves:
RecommendaAons from Life Cycle Assessments” (2020)
2. ACTIONS TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IN MINNESOTA AND ELSEWHERE While the City of Edina has not yet implemented a specific acAon addressing merchant carryout
bags, the CAP calls for an eliminaAon of petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing
out the use of single-use plasAcs, including plasAc bags, by 2025. AddiAonally, the Energy and
Environment secAon of the City’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan, which was formally adopted by the
City Council in August 2020, calls for not only intenAon around environmental sustainability but
demonstrated acAon and results, including learning about environmental best pracAces and
integraAng those into acAon plans and educaAng the community about the environment and
sustainability.15 TargeAng a reducAon in merchant carry out bags through a City ordinance
addresses these goals in same way that the green-to-go-packaging ordinance does.
7
Although the City has commi>ed to phasing out SUPBs, Minnesota is one of 18 states that, as of
2021, have passed preempAve legislaAon restricAng SUPB regulaAon. In contrast, eight states
have banned plasAc bags (Appendix B). As a result of the Minnesota state law preempAng a
ban, the PBWG requested the City of Edina’s a>orneys address the impact of state preempAon
on several policy opAons we were considering to address plasAc bags. The feasibility and legality
of these opAons are discussed in SecAon 3 of this report, and the a>orneys’ memorandum can
be found in Appendix A.
In Minnesota, Minneapolis and Duluth have taken acAon to regulate bags. In Minneapolis, there
is a $0.05 fee on paper and plasAc carryout bags and in Duluth there is a $0.05 on plasAc
carryout bags.16, 17
The PBWG consulted several Edina and Minneapolis merchants for feedback on bag regulaAon.
Minneapolis merchants noted that most customers were fine with the five-cent fee for a bag,
and in some cases would opt not to get a bag. There have not been any significant barriers for
merchants to implement the ordinance. Because customers expect to be charged a fee at all
stores in Minneapolis from chain grocery stores to locally owned retailers, most do not have a
problem with it. Owners of businesses in Edina noted that while they might prefer a voluntary
program, they understood the raAonale behind an ordinance aimed at reducing single-use bags.
Specific merchant feedback can be found in Appendix C.
Overwhelmingly, the towns and ciAes where SUPB bans or fees are in effect are located on the
coasts or near large inland bodies of water. Proponents frequently cite li>er and water resource
protecAon in their raAonale in support of regulaAon. That said, having encountered unintended
consequences, some municipaliAes that previously enacted only SUPB bans or a hybrid ban on
plasAc bags with a fee for other merchant carryout bags (paper or compostable) are now
exploring mandated fees for all merchant carryout bags. According to plasAcbaglaws.org, best
pracAces for bag regulaAon laws are those that have a fee mandated for all carryout bags as this
addresses all bag types and is most effecAve at changing consumer and business behavior.18
The ciAes of Chicago and Evanston, both located along Lake Michigan in Illinois, recently
evaluated the effecAveness of their efforts to address plasAc bags.
A 2021 report “Skipping the Bag: The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Disposable
Bag RegulaAon” explores two regulaAons in Chicago: a ban on plasAc bags (which went into
effect in 2015) and then, aler the ban was repealed in 2017, a $0.07 tax on all disposable bags
(paper and plasAc of all thicknesses). The tax went into effect one month aler the repeal. The
authors’ analysis indicates that the tax was significantly more effecAve than the ban at reducing
disposable bag use: during the first year of the tax, Chicagoans reduced their disposable bag
usage from 2.3 bags per trip to 1.8 bags per trip —a nearly 28% difference.19
8
More recently, the City of Evanston has decided to evaluate its ban on plasAc bags. The current
ordinance, approved in 2014, prohibits stores 10,000 square feet or larger from distribuAng
disposable plasAc bags to customers. However, as of June 2022, the City is exploring an opAon
to replace that ordinance with a $0.10 tax on all point-of-sale bags, including paper and
reusable ones. According to Alison Leipsiger, Evanston’s Policy Coordinator, and Brian
Zimmerman, the city’s Solid Waste Coordinator: “Bag taxes have been shown to curb behavior
while allowing enough flexibility for individuals who do, at the moment, need a plasAc bag. This
proposed bag tax will help generate a greater behavior change, as was seen in Chicago aler
implemenAng a bag tax, will address more point-of-sale types of bags, and expand the number
of parAcipaAng retailers.”20
Several other ciAes have seen compelling results aler enacAng similar bag regulaAon
legislaAon, including San Jose, CA (reusable bag use increased from 4% to 62% and bag li>er
decreased 59% on streets, 60% in creeks and rivers, and 89% in storm drains)21; Washington,
D.C. (60% reducAon in single-use carryout bag consumpAon in the first year)22, and Sea>le, WA
(48% reducAon of plasAc bags in residenAal waste and 76% reducAon of plasAc bags in
commercial waste).23
On a global scale, according to a 2021 report from the UN, 77 countries have passed some sort
of full or parAal ban on plasAc bags. See Figure 2. More recently both China and Canada have
announced plans to significantly reduce single-use plasAcs. By the end of 2022, all non-
degradable bags will be banned in China, and the manufacture and import of single-use plasAcs
will be banned in Canada.24, 25
9
Figure 2: Global Overview of Countries with Manufacture, Free DistribuAon, and
ImportaAon of PlasAc Bags. Source: UN Environmental Programme Report “Legal
Limits on Single Use PlasAcs and MicroplasAcs: A Global Review of NaAonal Laws and
RegulaAons (2021)
3. STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING MERCHANT CARRYOUT BAGS
When it’s easy to access new bags, regardless of their composiAon, consumers are not likely to
change their behavior. And yet we know a reducAon in consumpAon of materials that
frequently get discarded, like single-use paper, plasAc, and reusable bags, means less energy
being used to make those materials. In fact, the greatest environmental benefit occurs when we
displace the need to extract virgin materials for producAon or the need to produce new
products at all.26
The Minnesota Waste Management Act established criteria for managing solid waste. The waste
management hierarchy prioriAzes waste reducAon and reuse before all other waste
10
management strategies. Placing a fee on all carry out merchant bags is consistent with the goals
of the waste hierarchy and the goals of bag legislaAon.27
The PBWG evaluated the following strategies as possible opAons to reduce single use bag
consumpAon, taking into consideraAon the preempAve legislaAon at the State level as well as
the goals set out in the City CAP adopted in December 2021. These strategies are not mutually
exclusive. No single acAon will fix our exisAng environmental challenges; we need acAon at
mulAple levels. The strategies include:
1.A ban on single-use plas@c bags. As noted earlier, eight states currently have some sort of
plasAc bag ban in effect. Although Minnesota state law currently prohibits local
government bans on single use plasAc or paper bags, the PBWG believes it is worthwhile to
include language in any ordinance that would allow for a complete ban on SUPB and
maintain a fee for other types of merchant carryout bags, such as paper, should the state
law change someAme in the future.
2. A fee for all merchant carryout bags. Charging a modest fee for merchant carryout bags is
an effecAve way to lessen reliance on them — a concept known as loss aversion in cogniAve
psychology, decision theory, and behavioral economics; the painful experience of loss is
more effecAve at changing habits than a posiAve gain. People are less eager to pay for
something they see as valueless, and data from ciAes across the U.S. and internaAonally
support this claim. 28, 29
3. Ban on single-use plas@c bags and fee for other merchant carryout bags. Known as “second
generaAon” bag laws, this strategy combines both banning thin plasAc bags and placing fees
on all other carryout bags (paper, reusable, compostable). Aler straight plasAc bag bans
failed to result in the desired consumer behavioral change (customers bringing in their own
bags), ciAes kept the ban on thin plasAc bags and added a fee to all other carryout bags.
4. Educa@onal “bring your own bag” campaigns, credits, and incen@ves. EducaAonal
iniAaAves aimed at voluntary reducAon of disposable bags can drive customer behavior by
raising awareness of the environmental, equity, and economic impacts associated with
merchant carryout bags. While voluntary "bring your own bag” iniAaAves have an important
role in educaAng, promoAng, and encouraging the reducAon of single use bags, they are not
as effecAve in reducing single use bags as a fee. Some stores already have programs in place,
and these should conAnue to be pursued and expanded alongside other reducAon acAons.
11
The PBWG also sees an opportunity for a “borrow a bag” or “boomerang bag” iniAaAve
modeled aler the Don’t Waste Durham iniAaAve which aims to make free and equitable
access to reusable bags a city-wide norm.30
5. A recycling bag program to decrease use of bags. Some towns and ciAes require businesses
and/or bag manufacturers to provide customers with opAons for plasAc bag recycling.
Recycling requirements can be standalone or coupled with a bag ban or fee to increase the
effecAveness of merchant carryout bag reducAon opAons. Recycling programs sAll come
with costs associated with energy and resources used to manufacture and transport bags.
Also, as noted earlier, only about 10% of plasAc bags in circulaAon are actually recycled.
Proper disposal and recycling of SUPBs is important, and there are ways to make customers
more aware of opportuniAes through programs like plasAcfilmrecyling.org, TerraCycle,
Ridwell, and Hennepin County Green Recycling. However, the PBWG suggests that greater
emphasis be spent on lessening consumpAon of merchant carryout bags in the first place.
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our City strives to be a community where all are welcome and we are a producAve and
collaboraAve partner to neighboring towns and ciAes. The PBWG believes that based on the
City’s expressed leadership in the area of sustainability, the goals set out in the CAP, the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, the recent adopAon of the Green-to-Go packaging ordinance, and the
PBWG’s 9 month-long effort to research the pros and cons of bag regulaAon, this is a moment to
take acAon on all merchant carry out bags, regardless of their composiAon.
Edina’s CAP notes “ConAnuing to establish policies and operaAonal refinements to advance
meaningful landfill diversion and beneficial use of waste streams represents a significant
environmental opportunity for Edina.” Because deciding which bag is be>er for the environment
is not as simple as choosing, banning, recommending or prescribing specific materials or bags,
we recommend not favoring any one parAcular type of merchant carryout bag. Rather, we
should focus our efforts on reducAon of all merchant carryout bags and reuse and proper
recycling of those that are in circulaAon.
It is the PBWG’s recommendaAon that the City of Edina adopt an ordinance aimed at reducing
the number of merchant carryout bags used by customers and businesses. This acAon will
reduce green house gases resource use, waste and li>er. Other posiAve impacts include paving
the way for other waste reducAon measures, increasing awareness and prompAng customers
and businesses to take direct acAon. In addiAon, Edina further demonstrates its commitment to
being a leader in the area of environmental sustainability and jusAce.
12
While lessening our consumpAon of merchant carryout bags will not solve all environmental
problems, it is a significant step we can take to protect our environment and minimize impacts
to human health. Our recommendaAons are as follows:
1.Assess a Modest Fee for all Merchant Carryout Bags to Lessen Reliance on Those Bags and
Incen@vize a Low-Waste Lifestyle.
We strongly recommend a minimum $0.05 bag fee for all merchant carryout bags (paper,
compostable, and plasAc of all thicknesses), with limited excepAons. The fee would be collected
and retained by the retailer, who can apply it to cover the cost of the bags, used for other
expenses, such as green-to-go packaging, or a reusable bag program, or donated to charity. The
fee would not be taxable.
Although PBWG recognizes the raAonale behind some bag exempAons such as prescripAon drug
bags, produce bags, and dry cleaner bags, we believe there should be few exempAons for
businesses - as long as a business has a point of sale, there should not be an exempAon. We also
recommend that the ordinance exempt anyone with a voucher or electronic benefit card issued
under the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) support programs, or the federal Supplemental NutriAon Assistance Program (SNAP, also
known as Basic Food), or a recognized Minnesota food assistance program. For a recommended
exempAon list compared with Minneapolis please see Appendix E.
We also recommend that enforcement of this ordinance rely on voluntary compliance. Where
there is slow or no compliance, merchants will feel social pushback from consumers who expect
Edina retailers to abide by ordinances that support the Climate AcAon Plan and the
environmental goals of the community. Similar policies, such as compostable leaf bags and no-
smoking policies, have proven to be self-enforcing as customers embrace the change over Ame.
The PBWG appreciates the effect the current economic climate has on some residents and
shoppers in Edina and recommends that several months of robust community and business
engagement and educaAon precede implementaAon of a fee for merchant carryout bags.
2.Create a Robust Educa@on and Outreach Program and Incen@ves to Develop Low-Waste
Habits.
If we all work to implement changes in our consumpAon, we can create a ripple effect that has a
posiAve impact reaching beyond our community. Our research and analysis of merchant
carryout bag regulaAon across the U.S. and globally leads us to the conclusion that the City of
Edina needs to take steps to drasAcally reduce consumer and business reliance on merchant
carryout bags and plasAc packaging of any kind.
13
We envision a bold, visible promoAonal and educaAonal campaign to generate awareness
before and aler the ordinance takes effect with extensions to other CAP iniAaAves. While City
resources will be needed to develop and implement materials related to such a markeAng
campaign, there are many excellent resources and campaigns already in existence; some of
those may be a model for Edina, and volunteers and commissioners should be leveraged to do
research and make recommendaAons to staff. Please see Appendix F for preliminary research
and suggesAons offered by the PBWG.
Another component in the outreach effort should be the development of programs that allow
customers to take and return reusable bags from businesses and other points around the City to
create an ongoing cycle of use. Such a “borrow a bag” or “boomerang bag” program would help
ease the economic burden that some consumers might experience from a fee on merchant
carryout bags. It is worth exploring how merchants that offer these types of programs might be
recognized for their efforts. Finally, while we recommend that stores conAnue with or establish
in-store recycling programs that provide opportuniAes for consumers to return clean plasAc
bags for recycling, we would prioriAze reducAon strategies. ENDNOTES
1. Environmental ProtecAon Agency. h>ps://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-
waste-and-recycling/frequent-quesAons-regarding-epas-facts-and#PlasAcBags. Accessed
10/28/22.
2. Minnesota Legislature Office of the Revisor of Statues. h>ps://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/
cite/471.9998. Accessed 10/28/22.
3. City of Edina Sustainability. h>ps://www.edinamn.gov/458/Sustainability. Accessed
11/23/22.
4. Edina Climate AcAon Plan. h>ps://www.edinamn.gov/1779/Climate-AcAon. Accessed
10/28/22.
14
5. Environmental ProtecAon Agency Trash Free Waters ArAcle Series. PlasAc PolluAon in the
Mississippi River – Regional CooperaAon for a Transboundary Problem. h>ps://www.epa.gov/
sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/
trash_free_waters_mississippi_river_plasAcs_arAcle.pdf. Accessed 10/28/22.
6. Mississippi River PlasAc PolluAon IniAaAve Factsheet. h>ps://www.unep.org/resources/
factsheet/mississippi-river-plasAc-polluAon-iniAaAve-factsheet. Accessed 10/28/22.
7. World Economic Forum. Ocean plasAc polluAon threatens marine exAncAon says new study.
h>ps://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/exAncAon-threat-ocean-plasAc-polluAon/
8. NaAonal Library of Medicine. MicroplasAcs as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems.
h>ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arAcles/PMC5834940/. Accessed 10/28/22.
9. Center for InternaAonal Environmental Law. “PlasAc & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a PlasAc
Planet.” h>ps://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/PlasAc-and-Climate-
FINAL-2019.pdf. Accessed 11/22/22.
10. NPR “Recycling plasAc is pracAcally impossible — and the problem is only gevng worse"
10/24/22. h>ps://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plasAc-is-pracAcally-
impossible-and-the-problem-is-gevng-worse. Accessed 10/29/22.
11. Republic Services 2020 Sustainability Report (see page 36): h>ps://
www.republicservices.com/cms/documents/sustainability_reports/2020-Republic-Services-
Sustainability-Report.pdf Accessed 10/29/22.
12. Sahan Journal “Environmental jusAce advocates push for zero waste aler new report
highlights shortcomings in plasAcs recycling” 8/12/21. h>ps://sahanjournal.com/climate/
plasAc-waste-minneapolis/. Accessed 10/29/22.
13. LCA Source United NaAons Environment Programme (2020). Single-use plasAc bags and
their alternaAves — RecommendaAons from Life Cycle Assessments: h>ps://wedocs.unep.org/
handle/20.500.11822/31932. Accessed 11/3/22.
14. LCA Source United NaAons Environment Programme (2020). Single-use plasAc bags and
their alternaAves — RecommendaAons from Life Cycle Assessments: h>ps://wedocs.unep.org/
handle/20.500.11822/31932. Accessed 11/3/22.
15. Edina Comprehensive Plan Energy and Environment Chapter (see 8-3, 8-4). h>ps://
www.edinamn.gov/647/Comprehensive-Plan. Accessed 10/30/22.
16. Minneapolis Bring Your Own Bag. h>ps://www2.minneapolismn.gov/business-services/
licenses-permits-inspecAons/business-licenses/bring-your-own-bag/. Accessed 11/24/22.
15
17. Duluth PlasAc Carryout Bag Fees. h>ps://duluthmn.gov/city-clerk/plasAc-carryout-bag-fee/
about-plasAc-carryout-bag-fees/. Accessed 11/24/22.
18. PlasAc Bag Laws. PlasAc Bag LegislaAon. h>ps://www.plasAcbaglaws.org/legislaAon.
Accessed 10/29/22.
19. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. “Skipping the Bag: The Intended and
Unintended Consequences of Disposable Bag RegulaAon” 2/10/22. h>ps://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22325. Accessed 10/29/22.
20. Evanston Roundtable. “Evanston may be ready to dump 2014 plasAc bag ban, replace it with
10-cent tax” 6/1/22. h>ps://evanstonroundtable.com/2022/06/01/evanston-plasAc-bag-ban-
tax/. Accessed 10/29/22.
21. San Jose, CA. h>p://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Commi>eeAgenda/TE/20121203/
TE20121203_d5.pdf. Accessed 10/29/22.
22. Washington DC. “The data proves the the D.C. bag fee is working.” 5/15/15. h>ps://
ggwash.org/view/38159/the-data-proves-the-dc-bag-fee-is-working. Accessed 11/16/22.
23. Sea>le, WA. h>ps://www.reusethisbag.com/arAcles/where-are-plasAc-bags-banned-
around-the-world. Accessed 11/24/22.
24. BBC News “Single-use plasAc: China to ban bags and other items” 1/20/20. h>ps://
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51171491/. Accessed 10/30/22.
25. Government of Canada “Single-use PlasAcs ProhibiAon RegulaAons – Guidance for selecAng
alternaAves”7/14/22. h>ps://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/managing-
plasAc-waste/reducing-plasAc-waste/
Guidance%20for%20SelecAng%20AlternaAves%20to%20Single-use%20PlasAcs_EN.pdfl.
Accessed 10/30/22.
26. Minnesota PolluAon Control Agency. Product Bans & RestricAons: A guide for local
government policy makers. h>ps://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s1-06.pdf
Accessed 11/3/22.
27. Metropolitan Solid Waste ManagementPolicy Plan 2016 – 2036. h>ps://
www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/w-sw7-21.pdf. Accessed 11/22/22.
16
28. CNBC “New York’s plasAc bag ban is a lesson in how consumers treat money” 3/3/20.
h>ps://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/new-york-plasAc-bag-ban-is-a-lesson-in-consumer-money-
issues.html. Accessed 11/3/22.
29. ScienAst AcAon and Advocacy Network. EffecAveness of plasAc regulaAon around the world.
Revised 4/15/19. h>ps://plasAcpolluAoncoaliAonresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/
EffecAveness_of_plasAc_regulaAon_around_the_world_4_pages.pdf. Accessed 11/3/22.
30. Don’t Waste Durham Bull City Boomerang Bag: h>p://www.dontwastedurham.org/
programs. Accessed 11/3/22.
17
APPENDIX A
Memorandum from Dave Kendell and Eric Kvasnicka, Campbell Knutson Aeorneys
SHORT ANSWERS
1.The City could enact an ordinance mandaAng a fee imposed by the retailer and paid by the
consumer for single-use bags because this does not ban the use of the bags and does not
restrict the merchant’s opAons to offer single-use bags.
2.The City could likely require that single-use bags be cerAfied compostable or have a
minimum recycled material content because neither of these requirements restricts the
ability of the retailer to offer plasAc, paper, or reusable bags. The City cannot require the
bags to be biodegradable because distributers cannot sell bags labeled biodegradable in
Minnesota, so this would funcAon as a ban.
3.The City cannot set a limit on the number of single-use bags retailers may offer annually
because this restricts their opAon to provide customers with plasAc and paper bags.
4.The City could likely collect a fee designated for enforcement, but likely cannot collect a fee
designated for educaAon or conservaAon. A fee designated to by collected and retained by
retailers is highly likely to be valid.
DISCUSSION
1.Single Use PlasAc and Paper Bag Fee
Edina could enact an ordinance that establishes fees paid by the consumer and imposed
by the retailer for providing a single use paper or plasAc bag. Two other ciAes in Minnesota have
enacted similar ordinances aler the State Legislature passed Minn. Stat. § 471.9998.
Minneapolis passed an ordinance in 2019, although it did not take effect unAl 2021. It reads, in
relevant part, “Retail establishments shall collect a pass-through charge of not less than five (5)
cents for each carryout bag provided to customers.” Title XI, SecAon 225.930 (a). It has a
number of excepAons, including for those purchasing food using a food assistance program such
as WIC, bags used to purchase item in bulk, bags used at carry-out restaurants, and others. Id. at
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: GRACE HANCOCK
FROM: DAVE KENDALL AND ERIC KVASNICKA
DATE: JUNE 16, 2022
RE: PLASTIC BAGS – EDINA
18
225.920, 225.930 (b). Duluth also passed an ordinance in 2019, although it also did not come
into effect unAl 2021. Duluth’s ordinance reads, in relevant part, “Retail establishments shall
collect a pass-through charge of not less than five cents for each carryout bag provided to
customers.” Duluth’s ordinance also does not apply to certain types of bags. Notably, although
the Minneapolis ordinance requires pass-through charges for plasAc, paper, and reusable bags,
the Duluth ordinance only requires pass-through charges for plasAc bags. Finally, both
ordinances specify that the pass-through charge goes directly to the retailer and is not collected
by the city.
Neither of these ordinances has been subject to a lawsuit, so there is no case law or guidance
on whether they would withstand a challenge in court. If challenges, the ciAes which have these
ordinances could argue in court that the ordinance is legal because it does not operate as a ban.
They are more akin to a tax, which discourages the use of plasAc bags without banning them
enArely. Further, the ordinances are compliant with Minn. Stat. 471.9998, subd. 1, which
requires merchants to have the opAon to provide customers with bags, because the merchants
have the opAon to provide bags, or not, under the ordinances. Edina could follow the path of
Minneapolis and Duluth by passing an ordinance that places fee on the use of single use plasAc
and paper bags.
2.Requirement for Single Use Bag Material
a.CerAfied Compostable or Minimum Recycled Content
Under Minn. Stat. § 325E.046, subd. 2, compostable bags must meet the ASTM Standard
for Compostable PlasAcs. Bags conforming to this standard are currently sold in Minnesota.
Some Minnesota municipaliAes have enacted ordinances on zero-waste packaging. For example,
St. Louis Park requires food establishments to use zero-waste packing, which includes reusable
containers, single-use recyclable containers, and single-use compostable containers. St. Louis
Park City Code §§ 12-202, 12-203. This seems legally analogous to the proposed opAon for
Edina: requiring cerAfied compostable plasAc bags or that plasAc bag materials have a minimum
recycled content. Minn. Stat. § 471.9998, subd. 1 may, however, foreclose this opAon. Under
the statute, merchants must have the opAon to provide customers with a paper, plasAc, or
reusable bag. A court is required to effectuate the intent of the legislature by following the plain
language meaning of the statute. City of Waconia v. Dock, 961 N.W.2d 220, 229 (Minn. 2021).
Courts interpret words by their common definiAon, which can be determined by using a
dicAonary.
Perham Hosp. Dist. V. Cnty. Of O<er Tail, 969 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn. 2022). The plain language
of Minn. Stat. § 471.9998, subd. 1 suggests that municipaliAes cannot restrict merchants from
offering plasAc, paper, or reusable bags. “PlasAcs” are “any of numerous organic syntheAc or
processed materials that are mostly thermoplasAc or thermosevng polymers of high molecular
19
weight.” Most compostable plasAcs are made of polylacAc acid. PolylacAc acid is a 1 2
“thermoplasAc polymer.” Under these common use definiAons, a compostable plasAc bag is a 3
plasAc bag. Therefore, the City would not be restricAng the ability of merchants to offer plasAc
bags if the City places a requirement on merchants to use cerAfied compostable bags. This
analysis applies to single-use plasAc bags containing a certain minimum amount of recycled
material: the nature of the bag as a paper or plasAc bag would not change because it used
recycled material. The City could likely enact an Ordinance requiring single-use bags to be
cerAfied compostable or made of a minimum amount of recycled material.
b.Biodegradability Standard
The City cannot enact a requirement that plasAc bags conform to a biodegradability
standard. Under Minn. Stat. § 325E.046, subd. 1, manufacturers, distributers, and wholesalers
cannot sell plasAc bags labeled “biodegradable” or “degradable” unless there is a scienAfically
based standard developed and the plasAc bags conform to that standard. Currently, although
there is a widely accepted scienAfic standard for compostable plasAcs, there is not a standard
for biodegradable plasAcs. Thus, to require single use plasAc bags to meet a minimum
biodegradability standard would be to ban the bags, because vendors could not purchase bags
to saAsfy the requirement.
3.Sevng a Limit on the Number of Single-Use PlasAc and Paper Bags
The City cannot set a limit on the number of single-use plasAc and paper bags retailers
may provide annually. A court might find that an annual limit does not funcAon as a ban,
because it does not eliminate the ability of retailers to offer paper and plasAc bags. However, a
court also might find that an annual limit does funcAon as a ban at the end of each year when
the merchant may no longer offer plasAc or paper bags. Minn. Stat. § 471.9998, subd. 2. More
importantly, aler the annual limit has been exceeded, retailers no longer have the opAon to
provide customers with plasAc or paper bags, but instead must offer only reusable bags—
directly in violaAon of Minn. Stat. § 471.9998, subd. 1 (“all merchants . . . shall have the opAon
to provide customers a paper, plasAc, or reusable bag”). Although there is no case law on this
point, a court is unlikely to find an annual limit on paper and plasAc bags to be permissible
under the statute.
Plastic, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plastic.1
Robert Sanders, New Process Makes ‘Biodegradable’ Plastics Truly Compostable, Berkeley News (Apr. 21, 2021), 2
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/04/21/new-process-makes-biodegradable-plastics-truly-compostable/.
Vidhya Nagarajan et al., Perspective on Polylactic Acid (PLA) Based Sustainable Materials for Durable 3
Applications: Focus on Toughness and Heat Resistance, 2016 ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Eng’g 2899, 2899 (May 17, 2016).
20
4.DesignaAng the DesAnaAon of the Fee
a.To the City
The City may be able to collect the fee, if the City designates that the fee may only be
used by the City for enforcement. CiAes may raise funds for specific local improvement projects
under their limited taxing power. First BapAst Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul, 884 N.W.2d
355, 359 (Minn. 2016). When a charge is imposed under a city’s police power, however, the
charge is a fee and not a tax. Id. “Although broad, a municipality’s police power does not
‘extend[] to permit revenue raising measures.’” Id. (quoAng County Joe, Inc., v. City of Eagan,
560 N.W.2d 681, 686 (Minn. 1997). To determine whether a charge is a tax or a fee, Minnesota
courts look to the primary purpose of the charge—if the charge is to recover the cost of
regulaAon, it is a fee; if the charge is to raise funds, it is a tax. Id. “The crucial quesAon is not
what power a city exercises when it uses the funds collected, but rather what power a city
exercises when it collects the funds.” Id. at 361 (emphasis in original).
In this case, a charge collected by the City would have to fall under the City’s police
power and be a fee in order for the ordinance to comply with Minnesota law. If the City does
not uAlilze the money to reimburse the City for enforcement costs, a court would deem the fee
a tax and invalidate it on that basis. Therefore, the City likely cannot designate the collected
money for educaAon or conservaAon, as those are revenue-raising measures to benefit the
people of the City. If the City designates the funds for enforcement, the collected money is
more likely to be deemed a fee for the service the City provides in enforcement.
b.To the retailer
A fee that is collected and retained by the retailer is not a charge going to the City.
Therefore, it is not a fee paid to the City for services nor is it a tax paid to the City to raise
revenues. This avoids the issues discussed in the previous paragraph. Both Duluth and
Minneapolis designate the charge collected by the retailer for the single-use bags shall be
retained by the retailer to cover their costs. This pracAce has not been challenged in court and
therefore appears to be permissible, unless and unAl it is challenged.
CONCLUSION
Edina has the opAon to pass an ordinance similar to those passed by the ciAes of
Minneapolis and Duluth, subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statute and cases governing
city powers to collect fees and taxes.
21
APPENDIX B
Enacted plas@c bag legisla@on by state and select sample of exis@ng U.S. bag regula@on
Enacted PlasAc Bag LegislaAon by State. Source NaAonal Conference of State Legislatures (2021)
22
City/
Town
Popula@
on
(2020)
Effec@ve
Date
Ordinance Overview and
Ra@onale
Addi@onal Informa@on
Louisville,
CO
21,226 January 1,
2022
All retail stores in Louisville
are required to charge
$0.25 cents for every plasAc
or paper bag used at
checkout.
h>ps://www.louisvilleco.gov/home/
showpublisheddocument/
30323/637503628614900000
Edwardsvi
lle, IL
25,332 July 12,
2021
Requires a $0.10 per bag
fee for disposable plasAc
and paper checkout bags at
all retail businesses greater
than 7,000 sq. l. in the City
of Edwardsville.
h>ps://www.cityofedwardsville.com/571/
Single-Use-Bag-Fee
Newton,
MA
88,923 January 8,
2020 (for
stores
3,500
square feet
or larger)
July 8,
2020 (for
stores less
than 3,500
square
feet)
If bags are provided to
customers, the bag shall be
either recyclable paper bag
or a reusable checkout bag
(see ordinance for a
definiAon of each)
A retail establishment that
provides any type of
checkout bag shall sell it for
no less than ten cents
($0.10). All moneys
collected pursuant to this
ordinance shall be retained
by the retail establishment.
h>ps://www.newtonma.gov/government/
health-human-services/inspector-of-weights-
measures/plasAc-bag-reducAon-ordinance
Boulder,
CO
108,777 July 1,
2013
$0.10 fee on all disposable
plasAc and paper checkout
bags at grocery stores in the
city. This fee is intended to
address the impact of
disposable bags in the
community and encourage
the use of reusable bags.
h>ps:// bouldercolorado.g ov/media/5858/
download?inline
23
Minneapo
lis,
MN
429,954 October 1,
2021
Retailers must charge a
minimum $0.05 fee per
carryout bag. The fee is
kept by the retailer and is
not a tax. It can be put
towards the cost of the
bags, used for other
expenses, or donated to
charity. These fees are not
taxable. Unless a
transacAon is specifically
exempt, a retailer must
charge the fee to
customers, and can’t
choose to absorb the cost.
In general, non-profits are
not exempt from the fee.
h>ps://
www2.minneapolis mn.gov/
businessservices/
licensespermitsinspecAons/ business-
licenses/ bring-your-ownbag/
Denver,
CO
715,878 July 1,
2021
Encourages shoppers to
switch to reusable bags and
requires retail stores in
Denver to charge $0.10 for
each disposable bag
(plasAc, paper, or other
material including but not
limited to compostable
material) provided to
customers at checkout.
h>ps:// denvergov.org/
Government/
AgenciesDepartments-
Offices/Agencies-
Departments-
Offices-Directory/
Climate-AcAon-
SustainabilityResiliency/ZeroWaste/Bring-
YourOwn-Bag-Program
24
APPENDIX C
Stakeholder feedback
Minneapolis businesses
Two Hardware store.
•Smaller volume store saw the charge as a way to make up for the cost of bags and other
expenses.
•Larger store charges for bags around 80% of the Ame. Not many people get upset.
•Some customers will ask if there is a charge for bags, and will refuse a bag if so.
•Some customers will accept the 5 cent charge for convenience.
Toy Store
•They charge their customers for carry out bags, and are supporAve of the iniAate.
•Customers do not seem to get upset.
•Some will refuse a bag if they are told of the charge.
Liquor Store — they do not generally charge customers.
Grocery Store
•They charge their customers for carry out bags — not always informing the customer of the
charge, because the ordinance has been in effect for a while now.
•Most are fine with the fee, either refusing a bag or accepAng the charge.
•They provide a box where customers can both donate used bags and grab a bag with out a
charge.
Garden Center
•They charge their customers for carry out bags.
•Some customers get upset when they are told that it’s 5 cents for a bag.
•Those who do get “annoyed” will usually refuse a bag, which “while it can be frustraAng in
the check-out experience, it is ulAmately the whole point”.
25
Edina’s Green Recognized businesses
Clothing store.
As a store, they have go>en rid of plasAc bags and sell a reusable bag. Most customers are
“pleased with the decision”. However, the owner does not favor an ordinance. “I do not like the
idea of having the city require businesses to charge for any kind of carry out bag. I think this is
one more thing that small business owners would have to ensure is happening and manage”.
Grocery store
They would prefer a voluntary program, similar to what they are currently doing: for those
customers who voluntarily bring in their bags, the store donates money to a charity.
BouAque clothing and gil shop
“We purposely sourced paper bags that are not coated for this very reason that are blank so
they can be reused again and again, for giling, etc.”
“If the city were to impose a $.05 fee for all bags unilaterally to all stores it wouldn’t be a huge
deal, as customers would come to expect it from everyone.”
PR firm
“Generally, we are very supporAve of an ordinance that would seek to reduce the amount of
single-use plasAc use across the city of Edina. Bellmont Partners would not be affected by this
type of ordinance in our business operaAons, but we have a strong value of sustainability and
would love to see less li>er and microplasAc polluAon throughout our community. We’re proud
to see Edina taking a leading stance on this topic.
“We support a $.05 fee on all carry-out bags, as it seems to be a largely symbolic fee that is
likely to not be cost-prohibiAve to most customers, but we would also support nuances or
exempAons that would make it easier for businesses to comply (parAcularly small/local
businesses), and/or for lower-income customers to afford the fee.”
Edina Residents
•This is the Energy and Environment’s third a>empt to regulate plasAc bags. This iniAaAve
has been taken up by three different groups of Energy and Environment Commissioners,
illustraAng that it is, and has been a prominent environmental issue for many Edina
residents.
•Hometown Hero Fartun Ismail, founder of the Somali American Women AcAon Center
(SAWAC), engages many seam stresses in Edina to create reusable tote bags called
"Dambiil". It is important to these Edina residents to fight the impacts of plasAc bags
because they have “been climate refugees once, and we don’t want to be climate refugees
again”.
•Edina students from both middle school and high school have repeatedly tried to bring the
negaAve impacts of plasAc bags to the forefront of Edina policy.
26
APPENDIX D
Side-by-side merchant carryout bag exemp@on comparison with City of Minneapolis
Minneapolis Edina (Proposed)
Types of bags that are
exempt:
Produce and bulk
goods bags
Produce and bulk
goods bags
Restaurant carryout
bags
Dry cleaning bags Dry cleaning bags
Newspaper and door
hanger bags
Newspaper and door
hanger bags
Litter clean up bags Litter clean up bags
Secondhand bags Secondhand bags
Personal belonging
bags
Personal belonging
bags
Flower wrap bags Flower wrap bags
Prescription drug bags Prescription drug bags
Bags brought by a
customer
Bags brought by a
customer
Bags in packages with
multiple bags
Bags in packages with
multiple bags
Types of
establishments that
are exempt:
Those without a point of
sale system
Those without a point of
sale system
Farmers markets
Food banks Food banks
Car dealerships & car
washes
27
Types of customers
that are exempt
Anyone with a voucher or
electronic benefit card
issued under the Women,
Infants and Children (WIC)
or Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF)
support programs, or the
federal Supplemental
NutriAon Assistance
Program (SNAP, also
known as Basic Food), or a
recognized Minnesota
food assistance program
Anyone with a voucher or
electronic benefit card
issued under the Women,
Infants and Children (WIC)
or Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF)
support programs, or the
federal Supplemental
NutriAon Assistance
Program (SNAP, also
known as Basic Food), or a
recognized Minnesota
food assistance program
Minneapolis Edina (Proposed)
28
APPENDIX E
Proposed outline for educa@on and outreach
Implementation Planning for Single Use Bag Fees
Once the single use bag fee is approved by the City Council, a detailed implementation
plan and timeline is necessary to make sure that residents, visitors, and retailers all
understand the importance of the Single Use Bag Fee and how to comply.
Examples from other cities:
· City of Philadelphia
· City of Denver
· City of Edwardsville, IL
· State of New Jersey
Key Elements of the Implementation Plan
I.Timeline that allows adequate time from ordinance approval to implementation.
II.Impacted Businesses communication via information sessions, mail, and email.
III.Direct to Resident communication via mail, email, social media, and city
publications.
IV.Website to include important resources for residents and businesses including
approved ordinance, FAQs, communications materials for business use.
V.Other Considerations
I.Developing a reasonable Implementation Timeline is key to a successful rollout.
Most timelines are 6-18 months from ordinance approval to full implementation.
Example of an implementation timeline from City of Philadelphia:
A.Approximately 6 months before Ordinance goes into effect. The City of
Philadelphia approved a ban in late 2019 and created a timeline to implement
the fee in 2020. Though the plan was significantly delayed due to the
Coronavirus pandemic, here is the timeline as implemented in 2021.
B.This timeline allows for residents and businesses to learn about the new policy in
advance of the ban taking effect. It requires that businesses begin posting
signage to communicate when the program will begin and exactly what the
program entails.
II.Communication with Impacted Businesses
A.Info Sessions for Impacted Businesses. The City of Philadelphia hosted several
virtual information sessions for businesses that would be impacted by the new
ordinance. It was a forum for businesses to learn more about the coming ban
and ask any questions they had regarding the ordinance. The sessions were
scheduled after the ordinance was passed, but prior to when it went into affect.
29
Example of Virtual Info Session Content
Example of Training for Businesses
NJ Video
B.Materials for impacted Businesses. Provide signage and communication tools
to impacted businesses. To assist businesses through this transition, the City of
Philadelphia is providing various resources, all of which are available on a new
webpage. Resources available include:
1.Signage—in multiple languages—that businesses can download, print, or
order.
a)Window signs/clings
b)Point of Sale signs (at check out)
c)“Bring your Bag” signs for parking areas
2.Flyers about the ban.
3.Training materials for employees regarding the fee Lousiville Colorado
4.Virtual business information sessions available to watch online
III.Direct Communication to Residents
A.Postcards mailed to city residents
B.Email communication via City Communications (Newsletters)
C.Social media notifications (Twitter/Facebook)
D.Yard signs
E.Press Releases to local media (TV, newspaper, radio)
IV.Website
A.In depth rationale for the single use bag fee
B.Complete Ordnance
C.Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
D.Contacts for more information
E.Resources for businesses
F.Place to report violations
V.Other Considerations
A.Distribution of Reusable Bags to Residents and/or Retailers
B.Bag Exchange Programs. Examples:
1.Bull City Boomerang Bag
2.DC Share a Bag
3.Goatote
C.Communication to schools
D.Signage with scannable QR code
30
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN I CARRYOUT BAG FEE ORDINANCE PROPOSAL I CITY OF EDINA 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
CARRYOUT BAG ORDINANCE PROPOSAL
DATE: April 18, 2023
PREPARED BY: Grace Hancock, Sustainability Manager
PROJECT TIMELINE: April –June, 2023
PLAN
DECISION TO BE MADE
- Should City Council approve a new ordinance to regulate carryout bags, if it helps Edina meet certain
community goals?
- How should carryout bags (plastic, paper, compostable or reusable bags received by customers at the
point-of-sale) be regulated in Edina?
TIMELINE
- City Council receives Report & Recommendation from EEC – Feb, 2023
- City Council directs staff to draft an ordinance, with public input, and present to Council – Feb, 2023
- Staff launches public input plan with consultant – April, 2023
- Staff drafts ordinance based on public input – June, 2023
- Council receives ordinance recommendation from staff – June-July, 2023
- Council decision – July, 2023
PARTICIPATON LEVEL
The Public Participation Plan will interact with community members at the “Consult” level.
CONSULT
- Goal: Provide public education and obtain public feedback on ordinance proposal.
- Promise: We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and provide feedback on how
public input influenced the decision.
STAKEHOLDERS
- Residents (residents can provide input on
the challenges of implementation, and
provide creative ideas of how to address
- Business owners and workers (business owners
can inform bag fee level, implementation timing,
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN I CARRYOUT BAG FEE ORDINANCE PROPOSAL I CITY OF EDINA 2
challenges. They can also inform how
robust an ordinance the City proposes)
- City Council
can provide information on what is needed for
them to implement)
- Staff (determining enforcement recommendation)
IN SCOPE (WHAT WE KNOW)
Council received a report and recommendation from EEC that the City should regulate all carryout bags, via a bag
fee at the point of sale. Council directed staff to draft an ordinance and gather public input before presenting an
ordinance to Council later in 2023.
OUT OF SCOPE
1. Banning carryout bags (MN state statute does not allow plastic bag bans)
2. Not regulating carryout bags (Council directed staff to write an ordinance that regulates carryout bags)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Gathering a multitude of ideas from community members that are from different age ranges, backgrounds and
other characteristic demographics to get a pulse of what the needs are from their perspectives.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
- Understand existing conditions in Edina. How many bags do businesses already use, why type, where are
they sourced from and how much do they cost businesses?
- Understand what is needed by businesses to implement a regulation like this: i.e. what training, software,
cost would this require?
- Understand the public’s support or opposition to such an ordinance
- Educate the public on carryout bag environment impact
TECHNIQUES – PUBLIC – SHARE INFORMATION & COLLECT AND COMPILE INPUT
CONSULT
Public Input Plan – Edina staff will partner with consultant to accomplish the following:
1. Better Together Edina Project Page
April 21 – May 1
Tools: Feedback Survey, Q & A, Project Updates
2. Online Surveys: Resident and Business versions (2)
10-minute survey
Open April 21 – May 12, 2023
3. Virtual Roundtables
Three, one in the morning, noon and evening.
Roundtables help weeks of April 24, May 1 and May 8
Questions asked at roundtable will mirror survey questions
4. Business interviews
Conduct 30-minute phone interviews with 20 businesses across Edina, choosing participants who
represent a variety of business types, sizes and longevity in Edina.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN I CARRYOUT BAG FEE ORDINANCE PROPOSAL I CITY OF EDINA 3
INVOLVE
EEC Working Group responsibility: EEC workplan item: Partner with City staff to implement an awareness and
outreach plan to inform residents and businesses of merchant bag fee requirement. Gather stakeholder input in
early 2023 to inform ordinance development, once passed the EEC will contribute to a promotional campaign to
raise awareness and support businesses to integrate the new requirement ahead of 2024 effective date.
1. Provide input on questions to be asked of businesses, workers and residents during public input plan.
2. Receive public input report and provide comment
3. Receive ordinance proposal drafted by staff and provide comment
4. Research education and outreach examples from other communities, to inform outreach and education
campaign if Council approves an ordinance.
5. Support campaign implementation, as needed.
INITIAL STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS TO GUIDE OUTREACH
IF BUSINESS
a) Establish baseline conditions:
1) What is the name of the Edina business you are affiliated with?
2) What kind, and how many, carryout bags does your business typically provide to customers on a
monthly basis?
3) Does your business offer carryout bags made of other materials to customers?
4) Does your business use more bags than indicated above during the holiday months (November-
December)?
5) Where do you purchase your business's carryout bags? Is it from a MN source or elsewhere?
6) What was your average per bag cost in 2022?
7) Do you offer bag recycling on site?
8) Is your business currently involved in any regular environmental activities?
b) Gather input:
1) Have you had any experience with this kind of requirement in other communities?
2) What is hardest to comply with and what is easy about this proposed requirement?
a. Employee training
b. Systems update
c. Cost
d. Ability to track/report
e. Customer response
3) What do you want to see from the city, to help smooth conversation with customers?
a. i.e. signage provision and guidance
b. what else?
4) Continued monitoring: what information would be most useful for you to track on a regular basis, to
see how this new requirement affects your business?
a. Examples: fee revenue, where you decide to use it, # of bags purchased and distributed
annually.
5) How do you prefer to learn about and stay in-the-know about such policies and their associated
processes?
a. Annual update meeting/training
b. City e-newsletters
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN I CARRYOUT BAG FEE ORDINANCE PROPOSAL I CITY OF EDINA 4
c. Through a business group like a BID, Chamber of Commerce or Rotary
d. Other
6) Would you like to be able to offer customers a discount of $0.05 if they bring their own bag?
7) Should this be required or voluntary?
8) Are you in favor? Yes/no.
a. Why?
9) Open comment
IF RESIDENT
1) What kind, and how many carryout bags do you estimate you in a week or month? What kind?
2) How often do you reuse carryout bags, if at all? i.e. plastic bags for trash liners, paper bags for recycling, etc.
3) Do you use reusable bags? For what kind of trips?
4) What bag fee level would stop you from purchasing a carryout bag? $0.01, $0.05, $0.10, $0.25 or $1.00?
5) How else could the City accomplish its goal of reducing waste in Edina?
6) Are you in favor of requiring that paper bags be certified as coming from sustainable sources? Like FSC.
1
City of Edina
Potential Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance
Community Engagement Summary Report
June 5, 2023
Prepared by Ann Tennes, President, Ann Tennes Communications, LLC
Project Overview
In early 2023, the Edina City Council (Council) directed staff to draft an ordinance proposal
requiring that all City of Edina merchants, including retail establishments and restaurants,
charge a minimum $0.05 fee to customers for all carryout bags. The potential ordinance is
envisioned to:
● Require that merchants charge a minimum $0.05 for all carryout bags, regardless of bag
material
● Allow the retail establishment or restaurant to keep the fee for use at their discretion
● Require businesses to report to the City annually the quantity and type of carryout bags
purchased and distributed customers as well as the fee amount collected
This initiative follows Council’s 2022 approved work plan initiative for Edina's resident volunteer
Energy & Environment Commission (EEC) to “Revise and update EEC’s 2017 report on
possible recommendations for a plastic bag ordinance” with a deliverable of an “updated report
with recommendation.” The potential carryout bag fee ordinance meets several goals
established in the City’s Climate Action Plan approved in December 2021, including:
● Strategy WM 1: Decrease total per-capita municipal solid waste handled 5% by 2030, in
part by:
○ WM 1-5: Eliminate petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing out the
use of single-use plastics, including plastic bags, by 2025
On February 7, 2023, the EEC recommended to Council that "...the City require that merchants
charge a $.05 fee to customers for carryout bags. EEC asks Council to direct staff to write an
ordinance that updates City Code to include this requirement and implement an outreach plan to
inform residents and businesses of this requirement." Council received this recommendation
and directed staff to draft an ordinance and seek public feedback.
During April and May 2023, City staff sought broad-based public feedback from Edina residents
and businesses regarding the potential carryout bag fee ordinance. This report provides a
summary of the community engagement methods employed to elicit public feedback and the
responses, opinions and suggestions received from the Edina community.
2
Community Engagement Outreach Methods and Promotion
City Sustainability Manager Grace Hancock and project consultant Ann Tennes, President, Ann
Tennes Communications, LLC, employed the following public feedback outreach methods
during April and May 2023:
● Better Together Edina webpage to share information on the potential carryout bag fee:
https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/carryout-bag-ordinance
● Online survey modules created and linked from the Better Together Edina project
webpage
○ Posted from April 14 through May 15
○ Initial survey question sorted respondents into either resident, visitor or business
modules
● Virtual roundtable discussions scheduled on May 5, 10 and 11
● One-on-one interviews with Edina business leaders, owners, managers and corporate
representatives
City staff promoted the availability of these public feedback opportunities through the following
outreach platforms:
● Print ad featured on page two of the May 2023 Edition: Edina
● Virtual ads featured in the Edina Chamber of Commerce weekly e-newsletter and both
the Edina Rotary and Morningside Rotary Club weekly e-newsletters
● CivicPlus email to Sustainability newsletter subscribers
● Video segment featured in the early May Agenda: Edina video
● Social media posts featured across City channels
Community Engagement Results
Following is a summary of the participation in and public feedback received from each
community engagement method:
Better Together Edina site
Between April 14 and May 30, the project page received 994 views. 555 visitors interacted with
some part of the project page (clicking on a link, downloading a document), and 215 visitors
engaged with the survey tool.
Surveys
Between April 14 and May 15, a total of 201 residents, five business representatives and four
visitors responded to the surveys linked from the Better Together Edina website. The responses
are summarized in this report, and the entire data sets, with respondent identification
information removed, are attached. (Exhibits 1, 2, 3)
3
Resident Responses - Executive Summary
In general, Edina residents responding to the online survey did not favor a carryout bag fee, with
some support for a voluntary fee and less support for a mandatory carryout bag fee
requirement. Residents expressed a desire for expansion to weekly recycling collection,
concerns about a carryout bag fee being government overreach and the need for the City to
focus more on waste reduction from apartments and schools. Of the three residents who signed
up for the virtual roundtable discussions, two were generally in favor but had specific questions,
and one was opposed. Clearly, the online survey was the most effective method of eliciting
opinions from Edina residents.
Resident Responses - Online Survey
1. How Residents Currently Interact with Carryout Bags
● Survey question: How often do you reuse carryout bags, if at all? Examples include:
plastic bags for trash liners, paper bags for recycling, etc.
○ Possible answers:
■ Never
■ Rarely
■ Sometimes
■ Very Often
■ Always
○ How Edina residents answered:
● Highest incidence of reuse as indicated by ‘Always’ response
○ Brown paper bags - 47 percent
○ Plastic bags - 29 percent
○ Reusable bags - 28 percent
● Lowest incidence of reuse as indicated by ‘Never’ response
○ Compostable bags - 29 percent
○ Reusable bags (plastic bags) - 15 percent
○ Reusable bags (cotton or fabric) - 13 percent
● Survey question and possible answers (Figure 1):
Figure 1
4
In response to this question, some 61 percent of residents reported using reusable bags most
frequently for grocery store trips, least frequently when shopping at multiple locations, and some
19 percent indicated they never use reusable bags.
2. Resident Support for a Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance
● Survey question and possible answers (Figure 2):
Figure 2
Nearly 27 percent of residents said that even a $0.01 fee would preclude them from using a
carryout bag. On the opposite end of the scale, more than 23 percent of residents said the
carryout bag fee would need to reach $1.00 per bag to stop them from purchasing a carryout
bag.
● Survey question and possible answers (Figure 3)
Figure 3
When residents were asked to rank three options from most to least preferable, with one being
their most preferred option and three their least preferred, responses fell in this average-rank
order:
● No carryout bag fee is implemented - 1.74 average ranking, meaning that this
option was the most preferable to residents
5
● A carryout bag fee is implemented that merchants can participate in voluntarily -
2.04 average ranking, indicating that most residents ranked this their second
choice
● A carryout bag fee is implemented with all merchants required to comply - 2.22
average ranking, placing this as the least preferred option by a small margin
● Survey question and possible answers (Figure 4)
Figure 4
● When asked whether a per-bag fee should be implemented for various types of carryout
bags, residents generally:
○ Favored a fee for plastic bags; while plastic bags received the highest number of
yes responses regarding a potential fee, at 96, the number of no responses for
requiring a fee per plastic bags was slightly lower at 88
○ Did not favor a fee for paper, compostable or reusable bags, with only 50, 29 and
50 affirmative responses, respectively
● Survey question and possible answers (Figure 5)
Figure 5
More than 56 percent of residents said they would prefer to patronize a business that provided a
credit or rebate for customers bringing their own bag or bags, with nearly 38 percent saying they
had no preference. In tandem with this, residents were asked to respond yes or no regarding
their willingness to participate in a reusable bag supply or exchange program such as the Bull
City Boomerang Bag initiative. Resident responses evidenced somewhat low interest, with just
over 36 percent of residents saying they would participate and nearly 64 percent indicating they
would not participate.
3. Resident Suggestions for City Education for a Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance
6
● Survey question and possible answers (Figure 6)
Figure 6
When asked to rank five options on how the City might help them prepare if a carryout bag fee
ordinance is passed, with one being their most preferred option and five their least preferred,
responses fell in this average-rank order:
○ Informational signage at grocery stores, malls and other stores - 1.94 average
ranking, placing this as the most desired option
○ Receive a postcard in the mail with notice of the coming change - 2.61 average
ranking
○ Receive a free reusable bag from the City - 2.61 average ranking
○ City presence at events I’m already attending to provide information on the
coming change - 3.44 average ranking
○ City offer a standalone informational event on the coming change - 4.40 average
ranking, placing this as the least preferred option
4. Resident Responses to Open-Ended Questions Regarding a Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance
In addition to the mandatory, multiple-choice or ranking questions, the survey also featured two
open-ended questions, including: How else could the City accomplish its goal of reducing waste
in Edina?
The 138 residents who responded to this question had varied opinions, both in support of and in
opposition to the potential carryout bag fee ordinance, and provided numerous suggestions.
Some of the predominant themes and percentages they were cited include:
● Potential ordinance is government overreach - 23 percent
● Expand to weekly recycling collection, expand recyclables accepted, enhance education
- 23 percent
● Ban plastic bags completely - 12 percent
● Work with businesses on providing incentives for customers to bring their own bags - 10
percent
● Focus on business, school and apartment recycling programs - 8 percent
7
A brief selection of unedited comments received in response to the first open-ended question
includes:
● “Banning plastic bags.”
● “Government over step on the bag issue. People create waste. Taxing bags is not the
answer.”
● “Dedicate time, money, and resources to find innovative ways to reduce waste rather
than simply charging residents more money for everyday activities.”
● “weekly recycling option or place to drop off overage. We fill our recycling each week b/c
we get the paper and recycle everything we can. When we are out of town on a recycling
week, no way can we fit 4 weeks of recycling into one bin.”
● “Recycling every week versus every other week.”
● “support a recycled bag program”
The second open-ended question asked What other questions do you have about this
proposal? Some of the primary themes cited by the 95 residents who responded to this question
includes:
● Government overreach; don’t favor the ordinance - 21 percent
● Concern about businesses retaining bag fees and using it at their sole discretion - 14
percent
● Should ban or impose fees on plastic bags only - 7 percent
● Support expressed for the carryout bag fee - 6 percent
● City should work with big box retailers and delivery services to reduce waste - 5 percent
● Equity concerns regarding impact on residents with lower incomes - 4 percent
● Concern for impact on businesses; will shop outside of Edina - 3 percent
A brief selection of unedited comments in response to the second open-ended question
includes:
● “I do not feel the merchant should keep the bag fee, but that it should be donated to a
local environmental resource. Put that money back into the city.”
● “If the per bag fee passes, it will only push me further to continue to shop in EP. Being in
western Edina it is cheaper for us to shop there (tax levies, bag fees…)”
● “Since we are a first ring suburb, I suggest we adopt a bag ordinance that is the same as
the one that Minneapolis has.”
● “Why not just eliminate plastic bags? Why charge for them and put that on the
consumer? The stores should be responsible for the waste they create by offering poor
choices.”
● “Why include paper bags?”
Visitor Responses
A total of four responses were received from individuals who indicated they do not live or work
in Edina. Note: a total of five responses are included in the attached Visitor Survey Response
Report, but one response was a project administrator survey test. The four visitor responses to
the abbreviated survey module available to them generally evidenced support for the potential
carryout bag fee ordinance, with one dissenting about applying the fee to paper bags and two
8
dissenting about its application to reusable bags. Two responses to the open-ended questions
in the abbreviated survey module centered on equity, with respondents wondering if the fee
would be assessed to individuals utilizing food assistance programs. Two comments stressed
the need for additional education and one supported banning single-use carryout
containers/utensils.
Virtual Roundtable Discussions
Three one-hour, virtual roundtable discussions were scheduled to begin with a brief, educational
presentation followed by open discussion with several question prompts. Due to low enrollment,
only one virtual roundtable discussion occurred, with a second modified to a one-on-one
discussion:
● Business Roundtable, May 5, 7:30 a.m. - canceled due to no enrollment
● Resident Roundtable, May 10, 7 p.m. - two residents participated:
○ Concern about abundance of plastic bags used for carryout/curbside pick up
orders, particularly from Target and grocery stores
○ Suggest the City work with these retailers toward reduced bag usage and
possible pilot initiative
○ Concern about carryout bag fee burden on small businesses; suggested giving
them additional time for compliance
○ Stressed importance of educating small retailers to track and code any bag fees
received as ‘other revenue’ for tax reporting purposes
○ Concern about whether a carryout bag fee will shift consumer spending to other
nearby communities without similar fees
○ Suggest the City increase recycling and composting
○ Suggest the City “get rid of plastic bags”
● Business and Resident Roundtable, May 11, 11:30 a.m. - one resident registered and
participated in one-on-one discussion:
○ “Getting more and more concerned about the processes and excessive taxes.”
○ Concern about the businesses retaining the carryout bag fee revenue: “...could
be used for something not environmental…”
○ If the focus is to reduce, then impose a ban, not a fee
○ Sanitation concerns about bag reuse with carryout food
○ Concern with logistics required of businesses: “Will deter economic development.
New businesses will look at other communities with less regulations.”
○ Concern over required online survey registration compromising anonymity and
questioned whether survey reached all socio-economic sectors of the community
One-on-One Business Interviews and Business Survey Module Responses
Two outreach methods were used to gain insights from the Edina business community
regarding the potential carryout bag fee ordinance. The most successful method of gathering
opinions took place during one-on-one conversations with select business representatives. In
addition, opinions from five business representatives were gained through responses to a
separate online survey module in the Better Together Edina project web page.
9
Business Outreach - Executive Summary
Edina businesses largely do not support implementation of a carryout bag fee. The one-on-one
conversations with Edina business representatives proved the most productive and effective
manner of gaining their insights on the potential ordinance. A few reflections on these
conversations include:
● Large retail businesses, both chain and independent, tend to understand the City’s
interest in a carryout bag fee to further its sustainability goals, and are ready to gear up
for compliance
● Small businesses, particularly upscale, independent retailers, were more likely to oppose
the ordinance, citing reporting requirements as one of the main areas of concern.
● Both large and small businesses expressed concern about the impact of ordinance
compliance on customer relations
● Small businesses in particular are expecting a robust community outreach and education
effort from the City regarding the onset of a carryout bag fee requirement
Opinions received from business representatives through the online survey the largely mirrored
those heard during the one-on-one interviews, with the exception that four out of the five survey
respondents cited preferring a longer lead time of more than 12 months to prepare for
compliance by contrast to shorter preferred lead times cited by interviewed business
representatives as detailed in Figure 12.
The business representatives that participated in the one-on-one interviews were generally
appreciative of the opportunity to express their thoughts and concerns about the potential
carryout bag fee ordinance and its impact on their operations and customer relations efforts.
One-on-One Business Interviews and Business Survey Module Respondent Overview
A total of 24 one-on-one conversations were held with Edina business representatives; 21 of
these conversations lasted between 20 and 40 minutes and three lasted five to 10 minutes. Five
business representatives responded to the online survey module. Businesses and the
representatives participating in the one-on-one interviews included:
● Respondent demographics - interviews
○ 16 women
○ Eight men
● Respondent demographics - online survey
○ Unknown
● Respondent position - interviews
○ Two shopping center managers
○ 10 business owners
■ Four minority business owners
○ Nine business managers
○ Four administrators/managers
10
● Respondent position - online survey
○ Four business owners
○ One business employee
● Business size and longevity in Edina - interviews
○ 15 independent retailers or restaurants
○ Six franchises (one of which included conversations with both local and corporate
representatives)
○ Longevity in Edina ranged from one year to nearly 75 years in business
● Business size and longevity in Edina - online survey
○ Two independent retailers or restaurants
○ Two franchises
○ One institution
○ Longevity in Edina ranged from two years to more than 70 years in business
● Business type - interviews
○ 12 retail stores
○ Five restaurants
○ Four include both restaurant and retail
● Business type - online survey
○ Two retail stores
○ Two restaurants
○ One institution
A list of all businesses contacted for the one-on-one interviews is attached as Exhibit 4. Of the
three very short conversations that took place in addition to the 21 longer interviews, two
business representatives said their firm will comply with whatever the City requires and one was
strongly opposed to a potential carryout bag fee but did not wish to be interviewed.
Managers of two restaurants, one each a franchise and independent, participated in one-on-one
interviews and the owners of those restaurants subsequently took the online survey. The online
survey data attached as Exhibit 2 is presented anonymously.
Amount and Types of Bags Used - Interviews and Online Survey
● Businesses were asked to estimate the type and range of carryout bags
distributed monthly (e.g., 1-100, 101-500, 501-1,000, etc.). Bag types included
plastic, brown paper, paper bags (not brown), compostable bags, reusable bags
(plastic) and reusable bags (cotton or other fabric).
Both business representatives who were interviewed and who responded to the survey
estimated a wide range on the number of bags distributed each month, from 50 to 150,000.
Most of the businesses distribute between 500 and 1,000 per month.
11
A majority of businesses interviewed distribute paper bags, either exclusively or combined.
(Figure 7A)
Type of Bag or Bags Plastic only Paper only Paper and Plastic Paper and Cloth Plastic and Canvas Canvas or Cloth Bags for Sale
Number of Businesses 2 8 6 1 1 3
Independent 6 5 1 1 1
Franchise 2 2 1 2
Figure 7A
A majority of businesses responding to the survey also distribute paper bags, either exclusively
or combined. (Figure 7B)
Type of Bag or Bags Plastic only Paper only Reusable Plastic and Reusable Cloth
Paper, Reusable Plastic and Reusable Cloth
Number of Businesses 1 2 1 1
Independent 1 1 1
Franchise 1 1
Figure 7B
Estimated Seasonal Bag Distribution Increases
● Does your business use more bags than indicated during the holiday months
(November-December).
Business representatives interviewed expressed a range of percentages by which their bag
distribution increases during November and December, ranging from 20 to 75 percent. Of the 13
businesses citing an increase, most estimated 20 or 50 percentage increases, with only two
citing a 75 percent increase and only one each for 25 and 30 percent increases. Several
retailers noted that their seasonal increases occur at other times during the year, such as
around Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, spring graduation season, etc. (Figure 8)
12
Estimated Seasonal Bag Distribution Increases
Type of
Business
20
Percent
25 Percent 30 Percent 50 Percent 50 to 75
Percent
75 to 100
Percent
Independent 2 1 5 1
Franchise 2 1 (mall) 1
Figure 8
Bag Sources and Costs
● Where do you purchase your business’s carryout bags?
Of the retailers that were able to provide information on their bag supplier both during the
interviews and in the online survey responses, the sources broke down as follows: (Figure 9)
Bag Sources by Business Type
Type of Business Local Supplier Domestic but not local Imported
Independent 6 8 2
Franchise 2 1 2
Figure 9
Bag costs for both interviewed businesses and survey respondents varied widely, from $0.05 for
plastic bags to more than $2.53 for custom, imported paper bags. Of those interviewed who
were able to cite bag costs, 11 said they paid less than $1 per bag for both the paper/plastic
bags supplied. A total of six cited per-bag costs of $1 or more.
Recycling Practices
● Businesses were asked to describe any regular environmental or sustainability
activities in which their business currently participates and whether they accept
bags of any type for recycling.
Nearly all of the businesses indicated that they do some measure of recycling on premises.
Most participate in mixed materials recycling, and the larger retailers recycle corrugated
cardboard. A total of four businesses, two interviewed and two survey respondents, accept bags
back for recycling. None charge customers for this recycling opportunity. The two interviewed
businesses include grocery stores (one each independent and franchise) that accept plastic
bags for recycling. The plastic bags are taken back by the bag supplier; one grocery outlet
indicated the bags are recycled into a lumber composite material. The online survey
respondents were both restaurants that accept bags for recycling both distributed only paper
bags, one is an independent and the other is a franchise.
13
Following are additional notes on interviewed business recycling and sustainability efforts:
● Four participate in composting (two each independent and franchise)
● Two donate unsold, prepared foods to Second Harvest (one each independent and
franchise)
● One donates $0.05 to Second Harvest each time a customer brings a reusable bag
(franchise)
● Plastic bags distributed from one independent business are made from recovered ocean
plastic waste
● One women’s retail clothing store invites customers to bring back clothing with their label
that is no longer wanted or useful; the clothes are shipped to a central location,
repurposed as clothing items and returned to the retail outlet for sale at reduced prices
(franchise)
● Another donates unsold prepared foods and scraps to a farming operation for hog feed
(franchise)
● Two stated that in the past few years, they have trained employees to ask if customers
want a bag which has reduced bag distribution (one each independent and franchise)
● In the late fall and winter, a craft store holds gatherings where customers bring in surplus
yarn to knit hats, mittens and scarves for distribution through social service organizations
(independent)
Following are additional notes on recycling and sustainability efforts of businesses responding
to the online survey:
● One franchise composts fruit and vegetable waste
● One independent encourages customers to bring bottles of a cleaning product back for a
low-cost refill
● One franchise reduces the store temperature during off hours, uses tissue paper
sparingly for wrapping and cites a 25 percent reduction in bag use by talking to
customers and promoting less bag usage on social media platforms
Experience with Carryout Bag Fee Requirements
● Businesses were asked to detail any experience they had with transitioning to and
complying with a carryout bag fee requirement in other communities.
Three of the interviewed businesses were able to provide information on how they, or a related
business, had complied with the carryout bag fee requirement in the City of Minneapolis:
● One independent restaurant manager indicated a sister location in Minneapolis had “no
trouble whatsoever” complying with the requirement and that they would react
consistently across the company should a requirement go into effect in Edina
● A retail franchise manager who managed a store for the same chain in Minneapolis
when the ordinance when into effect offered these insights:
○ Cited no problem with rollout
○ Estimated 90 percent drop in bag usage
○ Staff trained to ask “Do you need a bag today for five cents?”
14
○ When it was raining, staff just gave the bags without charging on a ‘don’t ask,
don’t tell’ basis
○ Was not aware of a reporting requirement to Minneapolis
● Another retail franchise manager received information from the chain’s Minneapolis
store, reporting that:
○ While the chain was prepared to report information regarding carryout bag fees,
the City of Minneapolis had not yet requested data
○ Plastic bag usage has gone down and reusable bag sales have increased, but
the retail manager did not have specific data to cite for the trend
None of the businesses responding to the survey had experience with carryout bag fee
requirements; the one affirmative response was part of the site administrator’s test.
Support From the City of Edina
● What support would be helpful for the City of Edina to provide to assist with
transitioning customers to the new per-bag fee?
Business representatives were asked about their interest in/preference for several types of
support the City could provide to help with transitioning customers and staff to a carryout bag
fee ordinance requirement. The options of providing explanatory signage to post, fact sheets to
provide both guidance for staff and information to customers all received similar positive
reactions.
In response to this question, and at other times in the conversations, eight business
representatives spoke to the need for a ‘robust’ education campaign on City’s part. Other
comments received on this questions included:
● “It’s all about communication”
● “Anything to take the blame off of the business”
● “Provide messaging on all City platforms”
● “Market appropriately by City so customers know that small businesses don’t have a
choice”
● “Most important that clerks aren’t first person to tell customer about the fee”
● “Outreach must say ‘why’ this is happening”
● “Fact sheets should provide the City’s phone number and website details for residents
with questions”
● “It would be great if someone from the City could come train onsite employees”
Recommended Bag Exemptions
● Certain bags, including those used for prescriptions, produce and dry cleaning
are likely to be exempt from the requirements. Are there any other bags that you
think should be considered for exemption? Please explain.
Interviewed business representatives were asked what types of bags should be exempt, and
many of them favored exempting reusable bags. Other suggestions included:
15
● Any bags for transactions in excess of $1,000
● Food carryout bags after restaurant check is paid
● Paper and biodegradable bags
● Small bags for jewelry and other small purchases
● Wax bags for soup containers
In response to this question, online survey respondents suggested exempting:
● Food carryout bags, both for customer pick-up and third-party delivery services
● Reusable bags and gift bags
Tracking and Reporting Preferences
● Businesses will likely be required to track and report information on bag
distribution and purchasing changes. What information would be most useful for
you to track the impact of the new requirement?
Business representatives interviewed had strong opinions on potential tracking and reporting
requirements to gauge the impact of a carryout bag fee. Approximately half of the business
representatives said they understood the need for reporting, and equally preferred reporting fee
revenues and/or the number of bags purchased and distributed annually. One corporate
representative said they were unaware of any reporting requirements in other cities and
locations with bag fee ordinances in effect.
While most larger businesses understood the need for reporting, six small retailers took great
exception and consistently expressed that this would just add another ‘stressor’ to small
businesses. One said that reporting was the biggest ‘friction’ for them and would be very
difficult. Another said they already do so much reporting and this would just be another burden
without any benefit to them. One business owner said, “Reporting will be difficult and we will
never do a good job.”
Business representatives responding to the online survey had similar strong opinions. One each
independent and franchise business representatives indicated they would be willing to report the
number of and type of bags purchased annually. The other three, including two independent
and one franchise, said they would not comply as quoted:
● “Uninterested”
● “None. We always ask clients if they want a bag or not, and most, who are being
environmentally conscious say no.”
● “None of the above information will change how I conduct my business nor impact it.”
Carryout Bag Fee Revenue Utilization
● Please detail any initial thoughts on how your business will use the bag fee
revenues.
A majority of the interviewed business representatives said they expected they would simply
utilize the revenue to support continued business operations. A few indicated they would likely
use the revenue to purchase more bags, and two said they might donate the fees to charity.
16
One corporate representative said they were unaware of other jurisdictions with similar
ordinances in which the retailer retained the revenue. Another merchant noted that the fees
would not be considered as revenue. Utilizing correct accounting for carryout bag fee revenues
also was referenced in the May 10 virtual roundtable discussion.
Of the online survey respondents who answered this question, one cited it as a ‘nuisance tax’
that they would not assess, one said they would use fee revenue to cover the point-of-sale
system retrofit cost and another said they were not sure how they would use the revenue.
Possible Customer Refund or Credit
● Would your business give a credit or refund to customers bringing their own bag
or bags?
Business representatives were asked if they would consider giving a credit or refund to
customers bringing their own bag or bags. Of the online survey responses, four said no and one
franchise business representative said it would be up to the corporate system. A number of
interviewed merchants had no opinions on this, but approximately 10 of those interviewed said
‘yes’ or ‘maybe’, with only one indicating they absolutely would not do so. A few other comments
and notes include:
● One merchant gives a $5 to $12 credit for a future purchase to customers bringing their
own bag or bags; the variable credit depends on the initial purchase amount
● One specialty retail store owner said they did not want to encourage customers to bring
their own bags, as their imported, branded bags are an important component of their
marketing efforts
Support for Required or Voluntary Carryout Bag Fee
● Are you in favor of a required bag fee?
● Are you in favor of a voluntary bag fee? Businesses could volunteer to implement
a bag fee rather than being required by the City.
Overall, both business representatives who were interviewed and those who chose to respond
to the online survey were not in favor of a required or voluntary carryout bag fee, as illustrated:
(Figure 10)
Support for a Required or Voluntary Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance
Carryout Bag Fee Yes No Neutral/No Opinion Plastic Bags Only
Required 3 16 7 1
Voluntary 8 11 10
Figure 10
17
Additional comments on a required carryout bag fee include:
● “We are in the middle on this. We are a Green Business but are very concerned how it’s
communicated to the community so it’s not punitive. It shouldn’t be done at the expense
of small business; it will be hard for small business, easier for large business.”
● “We do have to think about alternate ways to get products home.”
● “I’m in favor of getting things out of the landfill. This could be important for retail users of
many bags per week, per year, such as a grocery store.”
● “Super embarrassing to charge for a bag when a customer is making a $500 jeans
purchase. We are not a grocery store.”
● “We take pride in being generous with our customers, and this seems tacky, chintzy.”
● “Not all businesses are the same.”
● “This is a lose/lose situation; customers will view it as a tax and will think businesses are
asking for the program.”
● “People are concerned about fees. It will help the environment but people don’t want to
pay extra money.”
● “I understand the purpose, but am concerned customers will be annoyed.”
● “This will be difficult to implement fairly.”
● “Paper can be recycled.”
● “I invest in my bags and don’t want to push people away from using them.”
Relative to a possible voluntary fee, those who opposed it generally expressed concern over
lack of consistency or a “level playing field” among businesses. One said, “A voluntary fee is just
a stepping stone to a requirement.”
Compliance Concerns
● The online survey module asked businesses to rank various aspects of
compliance from easy to difficult: (Figure 11)
Compliance Issues Ratings by Business Type
Compliance Issue Very Difficult Somewhat Difficult Neutral Easy N/A
Employee Training 1 (Independent) 1 (Chain) 1 (Chain) 1 (Independent) 1 (Independent)
Systems
Update
3
(1 Chain, 2 Independent)
2
(1 Chain, 1 Independent)
Cost 1 (Independent) 1 (Chain) 2 (1 Chain, 1 Independent)
Customer Relations 4 (1 Chain, 3 Independent)
1 (Chain)
Figure 11
18
Expected Impact of a Required Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance
● What do you expect will be the impact of a required fee?
During the interviews, business representatives expressed a variety of strong opinions about
their expectations on how a required carryout bag fee would impact their business. (Figure 12)
Expected Impact of a Required Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance by Business Type
Type of Business Communication Concerns Concerns About Customer Relations Expect Easy Customers Acceptance and Compliance
Independent 5 7 5
Franchise 3 (one mall) 3
Figure 12
Specific comments from business representatives include:
● “There will be a few complainers and then people will get used to it.”
● “This will aggravate consumers who are tired of being nickel and dimed.”
● “This will be harder with high-end purchases, but I expect a mixed bag on how people
feel about it.”
● “There will be less bag usage and customers will understand.”
● “I will have to add a process to track this for little value.”
● “I fear that it’s not a state-wide standard and customers will shop in another town without
a bag fee. We could lose business.”
● I’m concerned that customers will take out their frustrations on employees. We hire
people of all abilities and some might not be able to handle customer frustration.”
● “Most people will support it and it will be a non-issue after the initial adjustment.”
● “I don’t think this will impact consumer behavior.”
● “People won’t freak out, but this will take time for staff to explain and they have limited
time when we are in a rush.”
● “No one will want bags anymore. The change was remarkable at the Minneapolis
location.”
● “Customers will balk, and staff will not support the fee to avoid conflict.”
● “If there is great communication, it will temper concerns. I don’t expect pushback across
all customers. Great marketing is needed.”
● “There will be a good impact. Ultimately, customers will come with their own bags and
maybe we will have reusable bags for purchase.”
● “We will lose customers, and this will not be well received by new customers.”
● “People won’t mind, but I’m worried about how to incorporate this fee with the frequent
DoorDash and Uber Eats orders.”
● “Seniors won’t like it and will be upset.”
● “There will be a certain amount of reduction of plastic bags, but I’m not sure about the
impact if applied to paper bags.”
19
Preferred Amount of Lead Time for Ordinance Compliance
● If a required carryout bag fee is approved, what amount of lead time would your
business need to prepare for implementation?
As with the online business survey module, business representatives were asked about the
amount of time they would need to modify operations for ordinance compliance. Their
responses are summarized as follows: (Figure 13)
Preferred Amount of Lead Time for Ordinance Compliance by Business Type
Amount of Lead Time Less than 30
days
30 days 30 to 45 days 60 days 90 days 120 days + Did Not Respond
Number of Businesses 5 6 1 2 6 4 5
Independent 3 5 1 1 3 3
Franchise 2 1 1 3 1
Figure 13
One interviewed business owner commented, “It should be easy if the City provides
explanations and resources.”
Reusable Bag Exchange Interest
● For businesses offering online order and/or curbside delivery, would you consider
or be open to implementing a reusable bag exchange program?
During the interviews, one franchise business representative expressed interest in a reusable
bag exchange, with one independent saying they might be interested but noted that customers
might be concerned about sanitation. Sanitation concerns were echoed by one independent
business representative who said they would not be interested in a reusable bag exchange
program. The remainder of the business representatives interviewed were not interested or the
question did not apply. None of the businesses that responded to the online survey were
interested in a bag exchange program.
Preferred City Communication Method
● How do you prefer to learn about and stay in-the-know about related City of Edina
policies and their associated processes?
In response to a variety of possible City communications outreach methods to provide
businesses with information on the potential carryout bag fee ordinance, business
representatives interviewed and those who responded to the survey expressed the following
preferences: (Figure 14)
20
Preferred City Communications Method by Business Type
Type of
Business
In-Person
Meeting
Virtual
Meeting
Through a
Business Group
Print
Newsletter
E-Newsletter Business-
Specific Website
Franchise 2 3 3 7 7 4
Independent 6 6 11 15 7
Total 2 9 9 18 22 11
Figure 14
One business representative added that they are only interested in attending a meeting if
feedback will truly be considered. During the interviews, three independent business
representatives noted that electronic communications are preferred for sustainability reasons,
one saying “due to the spirit of the initiative.” One independent business representative said,
“Edina does a good job with emails.”
Additional Comments
● How else could the City accomplish its goal of reducing waste in Edina?
● What other questions do you have about this proposal?
At the conclusion of the interview, business representatives were asked for any final or
additional thoughts:
● “I appreciate the explanation and don’t have issues. Business owners want to work with
the City and protect the environment. We need information to show customers to help
explain. I think customers will understand and it will be easy.”
● “It feels like you’re swimming upstream with some of these things. It doesn’t make sense
for our business. We will likely eat the fee or just comp it.”
● “Use this only for [businesses] who use multiple plastic bags per purchase on a daily
basis.”
● “The City of Edina missed the mark on this, as it’s a very difficult time for businesses
with state consideration of paid family leave, sick and safe time and other multiple
taxes.”
● “We didn’t know until a recent health inspection about the City ordinance requiring
recycling utensils, no black plastics, etc.”
21
● “I am very perplexed by this initiative. I recognize the importance of reducing landfill
waste. This is a lot of work for retailers to track. It’s been a tough year for retailers and
this will make it tougher. Has it been a roaring success in Minneapolis?”
● “We will adapt.”
● “The City should approach small businesses separately and provide subsidies. The
parking requirement is too strict for small businesses; it’s the same for Target. Use
common sense. Incentivize sustainability for small businesses.”
● “Offer tax incentives or rebates for businesses that use reusable or compostable bags.”
● “Overall education and PSAs like they did in the 70s when I was growing up.”
● “Grocery/product packaging and Amazon boxes are a greater problem than bags that
get reused.”
● “Ban straws.”
● “No other questions but our customers we’ve been talking to about this since January
don’t like it and think it’s just another tax.”
● “A charge for paper bags would discourage recycling because it creates a cost to comply
where there is no higher price to throw recycling items in the trash.”
● “I use reusable bags all the time but not for food service. It’s just not sanitary.”
Final Summary
Residents
In general, Edina residents responding to the online survey don’t support a required carryout
bag fee, with some support for a voluntary carryout bag fee. Of the three residents who
participated in the virtual roundtable discussions, two were generally in favor but had specific
questions, and one was opposed. Clearly, the online survey was the most effective method of
eliciting opinions from Edina residents.
Businesses
Edina businesses that both responded to the survey and participated in the one-on-one
interviews largely do not support implementation of a carryout bag fee. The one-on-one
conversations with Edina business representatives proved the most productive and effective
manner of gaining their insights on the potential ordinance. A few reflections on these
conversations and the survey responses include:
● During the interviews, large retail businesses, both chain and independent, tend to
understand the City’s interest in a carryout bag fee to further its sustainability goals, and
are ready to gear up for compliance. The chains responding to the online survey did not
express similar understanding and willingness to comply.
● Small businesses, particularly upscale, independent retailers, were more likely to oppose
the ordinance, citing reporting requirements as one of the main areas of concern. This
was echoed in both the interviews and survey responses.
● Both large and small businesses expressed concern about the impact of ordinance
compliance on customer relations, again, this was echoed during both outreach
methods.
● Small businesses in particular are expecting a robust community outreach and education
effort from the City regarding the onset of a carryout bag fee requirement.
22
The business representatives were generally appreciative of the opportunity to express their
thoughts and concerns about the potential carryout bag fee ordinance and its impact on their
operations and customer relations efforts.
In Conclusion
While Edina residents are somewhat split on their support of a carryout bag fee, businesses
tend to oppose the initiative. Extensive community education and outreach, as well as support
to Edina businesses - particularly small businesses - will prove essential to successful
implementation should the carryout bag fee ordinance receive approval.
Special thanks to City of Edina staff Sustainability Manager Grace Hancock, Economic
Development Manager Bill Neuendorf, Edina Police Department Community Engagement
Officer Emily Jepson and Community Liaison Lulu Thompson as well as Edina Chamber of
Commerce Vice-President Shelly Loberg, Galleria General Manager Wendy Eisenberg and
Southdale Center General Manager Judy Tullius for their efforts to identify and provide contacts
for the businesses interviewed during this process.
Exhibit 4
Businesses Contacted and Interviewed
Businesses Interviewed
Businesses
Number
Business
Name Address Category Type
Person
Interviewed Position
1
Lunds &
Byerlys
7171 S.
France
Avenue South Grocery Chain Brian Miller Manager
2 Cub Foods
6775 York
Avenue South Grocery Chain Dawn Dailson
Assistant
Manager
3
Southdale
Center
10 Southdale
Center Retail Mall Chain (Simon)Judy Tullius
General
Manager
4
Eileen Fisher -
Retail 3480 Galleria Retail Chain
Jane
Swanstrom Manager
5
Eileen Fisher -
Corporation
2 Bridge
Street,
Irvington,NY Retail Chain
Joanne
Lossino
Director,Omni
Operations,
Eileen Fisher
Corporation
6 CVS
6905 York
Avenue South Pharmacy Chain Jeff Hahn
General
Manager
7
Barnes &
Noble Galleria Retail/Cafe Chain Elizabeth Store Manager
8
Jerry's
Enterprises
5125 Vernon
Avenue South Grocery Independent Steve Troska Manager
Businesses
Number
Business
Name Address Category Type
Person
Interviewed Position
9
Jerry's Do It
Best Hardware
5115 Vernon
Avenue South Retail Independent Mike Rummel Manager
10 Serge +Jane
4532 France
Avenue South Retail Independent Casey Carl Owner
11
Jerry's Do It
Best Hardware
5115 Vernon
Avenue South Retail Independent Mike Rummel Manager
12
R.F.Moeller
Jeweler
5020 France
Avenue South Retail Independent Bryan Moeller Owner
13
Bluebird
Boutique
3909 W.50th
Street Retail Independent Sacha Martin Owner
14 Harriet &Alice
3922 W.50th
Street,Suite
105 Retail Independent Kate Bispala Owner
15
Truly Genuine
Greetings &
Gifts
10 Southdale
Center Retail Independent
Carol Ann
Stewart Owner
16
Muna Beauty
Cosmetics
10 Southdale
Center Retail Independent Hamdi Guled Owner
17 Fit by Sha Sha
10 Southdale
Center Retail Independent Marie Fields Owner
18
Parasole
Restaurant
Group
5032 France
Avenue South Restaurant Independent Donna Fahs
Chief
Operations
Officer
19 Coccinella
4946 France
Avenue South Restaurant Independent Umut Kaplan Owner
20 Edina Grill
5028 France
Avenue South Restaurant Independent
Stephanie
Shimp Marketing
1
Businesses
Number
Business
Name Address Category Type
Person
Interviewed Position
22
D'Amico &
Sons
3948
West 50th
Street C Restaurant Independent Nino E'Andea Manager
21 The Hilltop
5101 Arcadia
Avenue Restaurant Independent Tita Manager
Businesses Contacted But Not Interviewed
Business
Number
Business
Name Address Category Type
Individual
Contacted Position Status
1
Macy's
Southdale
Center
10 Southdale
Center Retail Chain Erin Demas Manager
Repeated
attempts via
phone and
email;no
response
2 Macy's
7253 South
France Retail Chain Keri Jones Manager
Email and
phone calls;no
response
3 Walgreen's
Corporate
Offices in
Deerfield,
Illinois Pharmacy Chain N/A
Corporate
Offices in
Deerfield,
Illinois
Calls and email
to corporate
office;no
response
4 Target
Corporate
Offices in
Minneapolis,
Minnesota Retail Chain N/A N/A
Repeated
phone calls and
email
messages to
media relations
and human
resources;no
response
5
Williams
Sonoma
3512
Galleria Retail Chain
Mary
Bandarek Manager
Said she would
have to check
with corporate
office before
speaking;no
response to
several follow
up calls
2
Business
Number
Business
Name Address Category Type
Individual
Contacted Position Status
6 Jaxon Grey
3420
Galleria Retail Chain Adam Bevis Manager
No response to
numerous
messages left
at store
7 Big Bowl
Lettuce
Entertain
You
Corporate
Offices in
Chicago,
Illinois Restaurant Chain
Ethan
Samson
Deputy
General
Counsel
Repeated
voicemail
messages after
referral from
human
resources;no
response
8 Starbucks
3939 West
50th Street Restaurant Chain
Zachary
Rothers Manager
No response to
messages left
at store
9 Yumi Sushi
200
Southdale
Center Restaurant Chain
Angelene
Lee Manager
Said she had to
check with
corporate and
would call back
if authorized to
participate in an
interview
10
Stalk &
Spade
3925 West
50th Street Restaurant Chain Lily
Co-Found
er
No response to
several
voicemail
messages
11
Coconut
Thai
3948 West
50th Street Restaurant Independent Joe Owner
Could not be
reached
12
Wooden Hill
Brewery
7421 Bush
Lake Road Restaurant Independent Brittany Marketing
Responded
after two weeks
when comment
period had
closed
13
Y&I
Collection
Southdale
Center Retail Independent Nimo Osman Owner
No response to
messages
3
Business
Number
Business
Name Address Category Type
Individual
Contacted Position Status
14
East West
Girl
3931 Market
Street Retail Independent Monica Owner
No response to
messages
15
Wooden Hill
Brewery
7421 Bush
Lake Road Restaurant Independent Brittany Marketing
Responded
after two weeks
when comment
period had
closed
16
50th &
France
Business
Assoc
3902 West
50th Street,
Suite C
Business
Association N/A
Max
Musicant Director
Emailed and
declined to be
interviewed;
said they would
support and
promote to
businesses
4
1
June 16, 2023
Supplemental Report
City of Edina Potential Carryout Bag Fee Ordinance Community Engagement
Prepared by Ann Tennes, President, Ann Tennes Communications, LLC
This report summarizes information gleaned from virtual meetings held on June 12 and 13,
2023 with representatives of Davanni’s Pizza & Hot Hoagies Restaurant/Edina, Hospitality
Minnesota, the Minnesota Retailers Association and the Target Corporation. The conversations
centered on compliance with and suggestions regarding the City of Edina’s potential carryout
bag fee ordinance.
Overview
On June 12, 2023, a virtual meeting was held that included representatives of the Target
Corporation and the president of the Minnesota Retailers Association that supports the retail
industry in Minnesota by monitoring and providing leadership regarding development of public
policy and regulatory measures that impact its members.
On June 13, 2023, a virtual meeting was held with representatives of Hospitality Minnesota, a
non-profit membership organization that represents the interests of hospitality businesses
across all sectors in Minnesota. The operations supervisor for Davanni’s Pizza & Hot Hoagies in
Edina, a Hospitality Minnesota member, also attended.
In general, Target Corporation representatives indicated they would comply with any City bag
fee requirement and expressed appreciation for a 12-month implementation lead time. The
restaurant interviewed expressed concerns about feasibility, logistics and customer relations.
These responses mirror those expressed by both large chains and small independent
businesses during the April and May 2023 interviews on the potential carryout bag fee
ordinance.
The business association representatives generally supported and advocated for their
member’s positions regarding the potential carryout bag fee ordinance. Hospitality Minnesota
leaders expressed strong opposition to the potential carryout bag fee’s application to restaurant
carryout transactions. The Minnesota Retailers Association representative stated that, generally,
mandates are unwelcome and requested that any data gleaned from bag fee ordinance
implementation be presented in aggregate form. Both asked that the City of Edina sustainability
team remain in contact with them about the carryout bag fee ordinance progress and other
initiatives that could impact their members.
1. Target Corporation and Minnesota Retailers Association
Notes from June, 12, 2023 conversation with representatives of the Target Corporation and
Minnesota Retail Association, including:
● Bruce Nustad, President, Minnesota Retailers Association
● Target Corporation Representatives
2
○ Abigail Donovan - Director Sustainability Policy, Corporate Responsibility
○ Eva Gava - Manager Sustainability Governance, Corporate Responsibility
○ Lisa Linnell - Manager Sustainability Policy, Corporate Responsibility
○ Hue Nguyen - Director Government Affairs, Government Affairs
○ Caroline Slettedahl - Lead Business Partner, Store Operations
Target Sustainability Initiatives Overview
● 20-year plan to reach net zero carbon by 2040 with milestones reached along the way
● Plastics are a focus globally, and are top-of-mind due to plastic pollution
● Target has a goal of removing plastic bags from operations and the company is working
on a strategy; will be done in a thoughtful manner which will take time
● The Target Corporation is a member of Closed Loop Partners and are participating in
the Consortium to Reinvent the Retail Bag with multiple retailers across the USA,
including CVS, Target and Walmart, that are working together to reinvent the retail bag
○ Bring Your Own Bag Pilot is currently underway in Arizona and Colorado (two-
month pilot project May through July 2023)
○ Returnable Bag Pilot is currently underway in New Jersey (three month project
April 17 through July 17, 2023)
■ Bags are sold brand new (NJ has legislation banning single-use plastic
bags)
■ Bags are plain brown and “just ugly enough” that people won’t want to
keep them
■ Bring back for cash refund
■ Will be picked up by a third-party vendor, sanitized and returned to stock
● All Target stores currently accept plastic bags for recycling for no cost; bags are
aggregated and sent to regional recycling firms throughout the United States
● In Hawaii and New Jersey, laws require that guests can only purchase bags if they don’t
bring their own
Additional Discussion Points
● How much busier is the Edina store versus other stores when it comes to curbside
pickup demand?
○ All of the Targets are very busy, particularly with curbside order fulfillment
● Does Target track the number of curbside pickup orders per month in Edina?
○ All orders are tracked
● Does Target track how many bags are used for curbside pickup versus in-store
shopping? If so, how do they compare?
○ Yes for curbside fulfillment orders
○ Not for in-store purchases absent bag fee mandates
■ Guest advocates (clerks) are trained to ask if guests need a bag
■ Guests receive a $0.05 credit for every bag brought in
3
■ Target is working towards ways to reduce bags used in fulfillment
(curbside pickup) orders
● If the bag fee were implemented, can Target charge for bags used in curbside pickup?
● Would Target offer an option to customers to opt out of bags if they don’t wish to pay? If
not, what are the barriers?
○ Target charges a bag fee for all orders where required
○ In Minneapolis, Chicago and the states of California, Oregon and Washington,
the process is implemented as follows:
■ Website disclosure states that each order will be subject to an initial
charge for 10 bags which will be adjusted as needed when the order is
fulfilled
■ When guest arrives for order fulfillment, they can opt out of using any and
all bags
● Guest advocates are trained to work with guests to put items into
the guest’s own containers, trunk, back seat, etc.
● When bags are returned as a result of this process, some are
reused for other order fulfillment and others are recycled
■ If a guest opts out of using bags in whole or in part, their order is credited
accordingly
■ If an order requires more bags than the 10 included in the initial fee,
additional bag fees are added to the order
○ Across the corporation, customers opting out of bags has been a direct response
to a bag fee; “fee is key”
● What would it take for the Edina Target to pilot reusable bags for curbside pickup? Is
there work in other stores nationwide that the Edina store might emulate?
○ It is too early to make a determination, as the results of the current pilot initiative
in New Jersey needs to be analyzed and adjusted
○ Target Corporation representatives promised to make note that the City of Edina
is an interested partner for future sustainability pilot initiatives
● What are the barriers to piloting reusable bags for curbside pickup? How would the
practice impact workers and processes for processing curbside pickup orders?
○ The uncertainty of what guest advocates will encounter when fulfilling orders
poses a significant challenge; each guest interaction is unique
○ Guest advocates are trained to be savvy and work with guests to find the best
solution for minimal or no bag use when fulfilling orders per guest preference
● In the absence of data specific to the Edina Target store, the following information points
also were discussed:
○ Current bag material
■ Target carryout bags that are sold are made from woven polypropylene
material
4
■ Target’s single-use plastic bags are purchased from multiple suppliers,
with no specific information on whether domestic or imported
○ Compliance
■ Should a carryout bag fee ordinance go into effect, Target will work with
the City to comply
■ The Target team was pleased with the estimated one-year lead time for
potential carryout bag fee ordinance compliance
■ Should an ordinance go into effect, Target will develop signage, train
employees, etc., as is necessary for compliance
○ Reporting
■ In other jurisdictions where bag fee requirements exist, Target is not
required to provide specific bag counts
■ Target will be able to report fee revenue collected, bag order tracking, etc.
● This data will come from a corporate source, not from the Edina
Target
■ Representatives were curious about what the City would do with the data
● Should the City present data on fee revenue collected, bag order
estimates, etc., it is strongly suggested and preferred that the data
be shared in an aggregated form without attribution to Target or
any other specific retail store
The team invited City of Edina staff to remain in contact with Bruce Nustad and Hue Nguyen as
the potential carryout bag fee ordinance progresses, and also to discuss any other possible
sustainability initiatives that involve Target or other Edina businesses.
2. Hospitality Minnesota and Davanni’s Edina
Notes from June, 13, 2023 conversation with representatives of the Hospitality Minnesota and
Davanni’s EdinaTarget Corporation and Minnesota Retail Association, including:
● Hospitality Minnesota
○ Angie Whitcomb, President/CEO
○ Jill Sims, Director of Government Relations
● Dave Skilar, Operations Supervisor, Davanni’s Pizza & Hot Hoagies
○ Davanni’s is a local, family-owned restaurant established in 1975 with 20
locations currently operating throughout the Minneapolis area
Discussion Points
In general, the representatives expressed strong concerns about and opposition to the
application of a carryout bag fee ordinance on restaurant carryout transactions.
● Concerns about potential carryout bag fee ordinance application to restaurants
○ Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, restaurants have greatly increased
the number of carryout transactions and now rely on carryout transactions
○ They do not believe that restaurants anywhere else in Minnesota are required to
assess carryout bag fees
5
○ “Food should be exempted.”
○ “Feels like a solution in search of a problem.”
○ “Restaurants cannot take nor do they deserve another mandate.”
○ “This is an overreach on the backs of the hospitality industry.”
○ All favored a plastic bag ban, citing it as being a more impactful sustainability
measure
■ “Five cents won’t save the planet, but a plastic bag ban would be a step in
the right direction.”
○ Restaurants are already burdened with increased employment and sales tax
mandates
○ “Charging five cents per bag sounds good, but it’s a feel-good measure that is
very difficult in practice.”
● Specific concerns about a potential carryout bag fee
○ Could be implemented at point of sale but will be very difficult due to lack of
uniformity in taxation, etc.
○ Concerned about negative customer interactions
○ If approved and applied to restaurant carryout transactions, should be uniformly
applied to both restaurants and meal delivery services such as DoorDash,
UberEats, etc.
○ Great concern expressed about whether the fee would be taxable according to
Minnesota Department of Revenue requirements
■ Is it a sales tax, swipe fee (credit card fee) or a delivery fee?
■ Must be made abundantly clear to businesses as to how they are to
code/report the bag fee and whether or not it is subject to taxation
○ City would need to take the lead on educating the population about a required
carryout bag fee
■ Signage similar to the COVID-19 mask mandate signage would be
helpful, citing that the City “did a good job” with that signage
● The Davanni’s representative indicated that they distribute both paper and plastic bags
from the Edina location, and promised to follow up with data on the number of bags
distributed monthly, per-bag costs and distributor location
● The Davanni’s representative also indicated they would need more than 120 days to
gear up operationally for compliance
Summary
The themes expressed during these conversations were consistent with those of business
representatives interviewed about the potential carryout bag fee ordinance during April and
May, 2023.
● After detailing the firm’s commitment to sustainability and focus on removing plastic bags
from operations, representatives from the Target corporation indicated they would
comply with any City bag fee requirement.
6
● The restaurant interviewedexpressed concerns about feasibility, logistics and customer
relations.
Representatives from the Target Corporation noted that the City of Edina is an interested
partner for any future sustainability-focused pilot initiatives.
The business association representatives advocated for their member’s positions, with
Hospitality Minnesota leaders expressing strong opposition to the potential carryout bag fee
application to restaurant carryout transactions. The Minnesota Retailers Association
representative noted that government mandates always pose challenges for businesses and are
not preferred, and also requested that any carryout bag fee compliance data be presented in an
aggregate form without attribution to a specific business or businesses.
Representatives from both associations requested that City of Edina sustainability team
members remain in contact with them about the progress of the carryout bag fee ordinance and
any other initiatives that could impact their members.
Edina Waste Characterization: Spring/Summer 2023
To understand the impact of waste reduction activities over the last couple years, a limited waste
characterization study was conducted in Edina during the months of May-late June 2023. Several questions were posed
prior to data collection, and they included the following:
What percentage of our trash in Edina is made up of single-use plastics?
What percentage of our trash in Edina is made up of organics or compostable materials?
How much of our trash is plastic bags?
How accurately are we recycling?
Does organics recycling impact recycling accuracy and trash?
Can the educational and outreach effects about the Green to Go ordinance be seen in our trash?
Where are our strengths, and where are our opportunities for improvement?
It is important to note that this study was not a formal waste sort. To a resident, this would have looked like a
random person digging in the garbage without indication it was the city doing it. This snapshot is intended as a point in
time look at our waste during the months when residents are engaged outside, and therefore the conclusions drawn
maybe seen as seasonally applicable. A similar snapshot was conducted during the Fall of 2021 in which limited
comparisons can be made. Additionally, there are several holidays and celebrations that occur during this timeframe, and
they have a major impact on the type and amount of waste produced.
Methodology
The goal of this study was to look specifically at waste from residential homes, businesses, and business districts,
including parks and city facilities. These locations are the most visible and tangible places that our residents interact with
waste at. Many types of waste generators were not included such as schools, malls, and office buildings. 108 individual
checkpoints were made, fifty percent of them being either individual households or multi-family home properties, and
the remaining fifty percent were businesses or in business districts (like 50th & France).
Residential homes were chosen at random, on their service route days, during their recycling week. If all three carts
(organics, recycling and trash) were set out, then all three were spot checked. The majority of the carts observed were
standard issued 96-gallon recycling and trash carts, and the 35-gallon organics carts. 22 homes of the 54 homes in the
snapshot had placed an organics recycling cart out, and 7 of the 54 homes had two recycling carts. Yard waste carts
were not included in this snapshot.
Businesses, districts, and parks were looked at on weekends and weekdays, at random, regardless of service day.
These are serviced by a mix of different haulers and included dumpsters and street bins.
Key Findings
Several key findings are noted here and are separated by residential and businesses.
Residential
Residential garbage is primarily made up of plastics, with an average of 80% of more of the total volume of
garbage being either recyclable or non-recyclable plastics.
Homes that participated in the organics recycling program were observed to recycle more accurately and had
significantly less volume of trash.
Little to no evidence of food waste was observed in the trash of homes that used the organics recycling cart.
Homes that did not use the organics recycling cart had observable food waste in their trash. For example, one
trash cart had an entire sheet cake in it that weighed approximately 25lbs.
About 20% of the homes surveyed had exceeded the capacity of their trash carts, meaning they were
overflowing and/or the lid would not shut. In these cases, the recycling cart was contaminated 100% of the time.
These homes also were noted to not have put out an organics cart.
Over 60% of the homes surveyed had overflowing recycling carts and/or the lids would not shut.
About 20% of homes had less than half full trash carts.
Food packaging and plastic bags were the most common contaminants found in the recycling and organics
recycling carts.
Almost 100% of homes put their trash into plastic bags before placing in their cart.
Plastic film from food packaging and wrappers were ubiquitous in all trash carts.
Compared to 2021, there was a noted decline in the amount of take-out food containers and packing in
residential trash (likely pandemic related). One key finding is that there is much less Styrofoam and far more
plastic and “eco-friendly” labeled items.
Business
Single-use plastics and recyclable plastics are the dominate type of trash in our public spaces.
About 30%-40% of the trash observed was food waste. An estimated 20% of which would have been considered
edible.
Bins labeled “recycling” or with a recycling symbol on it were contaminated almost 100% of the time. Only one
bin checked had all appropriate items in it, but the bin was only a third full at the time. Placement of a nearby or
side-by-side garbage bin made no difference.
The most frequent items contaminating recycling carts were dog feces in plastic bags, plastic straws/utensils,
plastic take out bags, plastic condiment cups and food packaging from take out.
Recycling carts were lined with plastic bags 100% of the time.
Only two bins had noticeable Styrofoam items in them.
All public facing trash bins had plastic carry out bags in them.
Park and public-facing trash bins were full or overflowing over 50% of the time.
The most cited items in the trash bins were plastic drink bottles, plastic cold drink cups (with straws) and take-
out food boxes with food in them.
Plastic film, like wrapping and package liners, were also very common in business trash.
Conclusions
Much of what was observed in this characterization study was not surprising. Plastic use and reliance have
continued to grow, and there no getting away from that now as humans and our culture are so dependent on it. Since
implementing the Green to Go Ordinance, it’s evident that many establishments have stopped using Styrofoam and
switched to recyclable plastics, but those plastics are ending up in the trash. There is certainly a need for better recycling
of the few plastics that can be recycled in our community.
Continued education and outreach around recycling and organics recycling is an obvious need. As is increasing
accessibility of reliable recycling options. Residents of apartment building and condos frequently cited the fact that all
their recycling was going in the trash anyways, so they did not even bother trying. The residents end up paying additional
contamination fees for this in their association dues and that contributes to a higher cost of living for them. This is the
same defeated logic that has been repeated throughout our city facilities and public spaces.
In our public spaces, we invest in recycling systems that are mostly a challenge Every park and street recycling
cart in this study was contaminated. Bagging recycling items up into plastic bags automatically makes them contaminated.
It begs the question of why do we continue to pay for this? If we took these systems away, would our residents demand
them back? It’s likely they would, but expecting humans to manage their waste correctly seems to only be working in
single-family homes. A human centered design approach to waste management in public spaces needs to be
implemented.
There is also a clear link between organics recycling and food waste, trash weight and volume. If Edina moves
towards organized collection and/or a Pay As You Throw system (policies the county supports) then users of the
organics recycling program would conclusively be lower trash producers and hypothetically pay less. The city continuing
to push residents to use this program and make it more accessible to multi-family home residents is an important part of
our future.
Historically, our strengths in this community have been a high participation in the curbside recycling program
and our location has offered a healthy, competitive market for hauling. This still is true, but we have not set ourselves up
to be resilient to the market changes that have occurred over the last few years. The burden of trying to fix our waste
problems is not being felt equally amongst all our residents either. If we are going to achieve our waste reduction goals,
we need a citywide strategy to address our weaknesses and build upon our strengths.
Click here to
return to Sectfon
GHG
Potentfal scale of greenhouse gas
emissions reductfons:
Resilience:
Potentfal scale or importance of the
climate resilience support:
Equity:
Those actfons with partfcular equity
opportunitfes, concerns, or considera-
tfons are identffied under “Equity”.
Phase:
Antfcipated general initfatfon
tfmeframe of the actfon:
Some Resilience Support
Moderate Resilience Support
High Resilience Support
Some GHG Reductfon
Moderate GHG Reductfon High GHG Reductfon
1 (1-3 years)
2 (2-5 years) 3 (3-7 years)
WM 1: Decrease total per capita municipal solid waste handled 5% by
2030
WM 1- 1 Coordinate with the school district to establish paths towards Zero Waste program. Program to
include zero waste curricula, family content, training, volunteer program connectfons, as well as
zero waste strategies for school facilitfes.
Low Equity 1 Community En-
gagement
WM 1- 2 Support collaboratfve consumptfon community projects, such as neighborhood compost pro-
jects, tool libraries, and repair cafes through mini-grant programs. Low Low Equity 1 Parks & Recrea-
tfon
WM 1- 3 Explore optfons for waste hauling improvements supportfng CAP goal achievement, including
modificatfons to City's existfng licensure process and requirements as well as organized waste
hauling strategies.
Low Equity 1 Health Division
WM 1- 4 Create a space where items can be donated at the end of the school year or after graduatfon
and hold an annual event for children's things and toys to be given away. Equity 2 Parks & Recrea-
tfon
WM 1- 5 Eliminate petroleum-based, single-use products through phasing out the use of single-use plas-
tfcs including plastfc bags by 2025. Require food service retailers to use re-usable, biodegrada-
ble, compostable or recyclable packaging and utensils (including for take-out). Explore the feasi-
bility of establishing a reusable takeout container service.
Low 2 Health Division
WM 1- 6 Establish a Zero Waste policy for City operatfons that outlines increasing incremental annual
waste reductfon goals chartfng a path to Zero Waste. Policy to require that outside users of City
facilitfes also follow Zero Waste policy and will modify the event permit applicatfon to require
the inclusion of recycling and compostfng at events.
Low 3 Sustainability
WM 1- 7 Establish a Universal Zero Waste Ordinance, requiring all property owners (including City build-
ings and parks) to provide recycling and compost collectfon services and requiring businesses to
use these services.
Low 3 Sustainability
WM 2: Achieve 70% organics landfill waste diversion by 2030 (from 5,775
tons to 10,250 tons diverted through organics collectfon)
WM 2- 1 Make City worksites a model for organics compostfng by developing a collectfon program for
City buildings (owned and leased) and park spaces. Low 1 Engineering
(facilitfes) Action GHG Resilience Equity Phase City Lead Strategy Actfon
Click here to
return to Sectfon
GHG
Potentfal scale of greenhouse gas
emissions reductfons:
Resilience:
Potentfal scale or importance of the
climate resilience support:
Equity:
Those actfons with partfcular equity
opportunitfes, concerns, or considera-
tfons are identffied under “Equity”.
Phase:
Antfcipated general initfatfon
tfmeframe of the actfon:
Some Resilience Support
Moderate Resilience Support
High Resilience Support
Some GHG Reductfon
Moderate GHG Reductfon High GHG Reductfon
1 (1-3 years)
2 (2-5 years) 3 (3-7 years)
WM 2- 2 Require that compost be used as a soil amendment for public and private constructfon projects
that disturb the soil cover by a set amount. Low 1 Engineering
WM 2- 3 Conduct an organics waste collectfon pilot project with a sample of City businesses to test the
interest, methodology, and amount of commercial food waste that would need to be accommo-
dated by a commercial organics collectfon program. Explore possible incentfves for food retail-
ers, restaurants, and instftutfons to partfcipate in food waste reuse and recycling programs.
Low 1 Health Division
WM 2- 4 Expand curbside and availability of other compostfng optfons for single family and multf-family
residents and businesses. Explore optfons for low-cost or free compost/organics collectfon or
drop off partfcularly for people of low income. Promote and educate on the value and methods
for compostfng.
Low 1 Health Division
WM 2- 5 Develop compost captains on each block/ neighborhood to educate neighbors on the benefits
of compostfng, gardening, creatfng "cool yards". Medium 2 Health Division
WM 2- 6 Explore requiring large new buildings to provide facilitfes for disposing organics. Low 2 Health Division
WM 2- 7 Combat food waste by encouraging retailers and restaurants to donate, reduce, reuse, or com-
post their unsold food, creatfng “zero-waste sectfons” where products are sold close to their
expiratfon dates, and designatfng “zero-waste coaches” to raise awareness among staff and help
manage products reaching the end of their marketable life. Edible unsold products shall be do-
nated. When not edible, organic waste shall be composted through City's organics collectfon
vendor.
Equity 3 Health Division
WM 3: Increase recycling from 32% to 35% of total MSW handled by 2030
WM 3- 1 Coordinate with public partners to ensure recycling is provided and promoted in all schools, City
buildings, public housing, and public spaces. Include coordinatfon on recylcing educatfon and
communicatfons to improve reductfon of contaminatfon.
Low 1 Health Division
WM 3- 2 Explore a requirement that all waste be recycled or salvaged at large constructfon sites. 2 Buildings
WM 3- 3 Work with the Planning Department to require adequate space/chutes in multf-family buildings
for recycling and organics making sure recycling is as convenient as garbage. 2 Planning Action GHG Resilience Equity Phase City Lead Strategy Actfon
Click here to
return to Sectfon
GHG
Potentfal scale of greenhouse gas
emissions reductfons:
Resilience:
Potentfal scale or importance of the
climate resilience support:
Equity:
Those actfons with partfcular equity
opportunitfes, concerns, or considera-
tfons are identffied under “Equity”.
Phase:
Antfcipated general initfatfon
tfmeframe of the actfon:
Some Resilience Support
Moderate Resilience Support
High Resilience Support
Some GHG Reductfon
Moderate GHG Reductfon High GHG Reductfon
1 (1-3 years)
2 (2-5 years) 3 (3-7 years)
WM 3- 4 Explore establishing or expanding requirements for recycling and organic waste collectfon for
multf-family residentfal buildings, and commercial/industrial buildings. Promote, educate and
advocate for equal access to organics collectfon as well as collectfon of other common items
typically requiring drop off at the recycling center to support partfcipatfon by all, including indi-
viduals with limited mobility.
Low Equity 3 Health Division
WM 3- 5 Expand consumer educatfon (e.g. host community forums and provide direct outreach) on sus-
tainable consumptfon, materials management, available services, incentfves, and facilitfes as
well as proper recycling, compostfng, and source reductfon methods.
3 Health Division
WM 4: Increase diversion of potential recoverables by 15% by 2030
(decreasing from 14.7% of city mixed waste to 12.5%)
WM 4- 1 Promote and explore partnership with clothing businesses, reuse non-profits and textfle recy-
cling businesses to create a Clothing Reuse and Recycling pilot project to advance zero waste
textfles within the City.
Low Equity 1 Health Division
WM 4- 2 Promote and partner with existfng waste audit or diversion assistance programs for businesses.
Program to support businesses in establishing tracking and reportfng waste streams, identffy
reductfon, diversion, beneficial use opportunitfes, identfficatfon of potentfal financing sources,
and connect businesses with energy audit and other resources in support of full CAP goals.
Goal: 30 business waste audits completed annually with businesses engaged in measuring and
divertfng waste.
Low 1 Health Division
WM 4- 3 Establish a policy or ordinance expanding or requiring textfle reuse and recycling based on out-
comes of the Clothing Reuse and Recycling pilot project. Low 2 Health Division
WM 4- 4 Conduct a Beneficial Use Study to identffy greatest beneficial use opportunitfes present in cur-
rent City solid waste streams. Study to estfmate potentfal return on investment and identffy job
and economic development potentfal associated with opportunitfes. Research/identffy pilot
project opportunitfes to explore capture of benefit.
2 Economic Devel-
opment
WM 4- 5 Promote and partner to support a Fix It Fair at the Library and create a resource list for reuse. Equity 3 Health Division Action GHG Resilience Equity Phase City Lead Strategy Actfon
From:Ukasha Dakane
To:Grace Hancock
Subject:Bag Ordinance Working Group: Feedback E-Mail to Send to Director Hancock
Date:Thursday, June 29, 2023 2:42:41 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Director Hancock,
The Green Print Working Group (formerly the Bag Ordinance Working Group) met on
Tuesday, June 20 to discuss the public input report from the consultant, business interviews,and draft waste plan reports (MCPA and Hennepin County).
Based on our conversation, we strongly urge that City staff recommend moving forward with
the proposed $0.05 fee on merchant carryout bags. It is a worthwhile step that supports theClimate Action Plan, particularly when done in conjunction with other waste-reduction
actions, such as those you discussed in the June 6 State of Sustainability report to CityCouncil.
This is the second time in six years that the Energy and Environment Commission has
recommended action on bag regulation to the City Council. Nearly 10 months of thoughtful,thorough research and discussion went into producing the most recent report that was
presented to the City Council in February. It would still be nearly a year before the ordinancewould take effect — July 2024 — just a year off the halfway point of the CAP. Now is the
time to act. Through a robust educational campaign, shoppers and businesses would be moreaware of actions they can take to affect change and lessen waste. As outlined in the Bag
Working Group’s February 2023 Report to City Council, we have more than enough evidencefrom across the U.S. and around the world to know that while regulating bags won’t solve the
climate crisis, it is something that will help.
A bag ordinance offers a unique opportunity to educate almost every Edina resident and non-resident who purchases goods in the city. Most environmental actions involve a person
deciding to take a specific “green” action, such as installing energy-efficient lightbulbs,buying an EV, or planting more trees. Here, however, the single-use bag is merely a
convenience, not the main reason for the consumer action. It provides an opportunity toexplain to people who otherwise would not engage on waste issues why their decision has
real-world consequences.
The coming year provides ample time for educational campaigns, outreach and training forimplementation while simultaneously engaging the City’s lobbyist and other partners
(including Hennepin County which is helping to lay the groundwork for eliminating plasticwaste) to repeal MN state legislation that currently prevents an outright ban on plastic bags.
As such, it would make sense to build language into the ordinance that calls for banning ofplastic bags if preemptive legislation is repealed. This could result in Edina’s ordinance and
implementation serving as a model for other cities (and we know how Edina likes to lead…).
In reviewing the draft waste reports, here are a few particular quotes that stood out to us.While recommendations in both reports are more general goals than specific action items,
these quotes support the aims of the proposed ordinance, which would result in less single-usebag waste, reduction of resources needed to produce and transport these bags, as well as
reduction of litter and pollution.
Page 8 MCPA Report: “The following key themes underlie all elements of the MPP.Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) offers a systematic approach to using and reusing
materials more productively over their entire life cycles. SMM considers the environmentalimpact of the entire life cycle, not just disposal.”
Page 11 MCPA Report: “The MPP identifies where specific stakeholder actions are necessary
to implement the objectives and strategies. #1. Place emphasis on the upper end of thehierarchy (waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and organics recovery).”
Page 15 MCPA Report: “According to the EPA, waste prevention is the most environmentally
preferred strategy to reduce impacts. Waste reduction and reuse methods are the most effectivewaste prevention strategies.”
Page 19 MCPA Report: “Ultimately, a large focus has been placed on recycling in countyprograms to the detriment of waste reduction and reuse. As discussed above, the greatest
environmental and human health benefits are not realized through recycling.”
Page 23 MPCA Report: “Waste reduction is the most effective way to lessen the need forresource extraction, reducing pollution at the source and conserving materials for future
generations.”
Page 27 MCPA Report: “...it is critical that reuse strategies and programming be a higherpriority and receive significant investment at the state and local levels. Recycling and
composting strategies are more familiar and comfortable in most systems. Without distinctreuse targets, guidance, and goals, it is often the default to fall back on end-of-life
management and primarily direct resources and infrastructure investment towards recyclingand composting.”
Hennepin County Feedback: “Respondents wanted more options for recycling and avoiding
plastics, especially single-use plastics, and wanted to see businesses make it easier forconsumers to avoid plastics.”
Hennepin County Feedback: “Many people encouraged a multi-pronged approach that
included making recycling easier, increasing education and outreach, and holding businessesresponsible.”
We’d also like to note that while some of the businesses interviewed expressed concerns with
tracking the number of bags, asking businesses to report the number of bags they distributewould provide data that aligns with what is proposed in the MPCA Report.
By moving this ordinance forward, Edina would not only be a model for other places, but will
be taking the lead in the transition to zero-waste. Thank you for your time and consideration ofour feedback in presenting to the City Council as they consider next steps. We would be glad
to provide more information or answer any questions you have.
Sincerely,Members of the Green Print Working Group (list below are the members who were present at
the event)
John CurryUkasha Dakane
Hilda MartinezDena Luze Soukup
Nicole MeehanBill Sierks
"WE ARE A FORTUNE FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE"
The mission Of Fortune Relief And Youth Empowerment Organization(FRAYEO) is to provide support services to youth and
adults focused on cultural adjustment and increase social economic well-being of the East African Communities in Minnesota
by providing a continuum of care through a cultural Specific programs and positively transform the social economic structures
that sabotaged poverty.
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram!
From:Hilda Martinez
To:Grace Hancock
Subject:Thoughts on the carry-on bag ordinance
Date:Wednesday, June 21, 2023 8:57:49 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Grace,
Hope you are enjoying the warm days of summer!
Thank you very much for sharing both the MPCA’s Metropolitan Solid Waste Management
Policy Plan and Hennepin’s Zero Waste Plan. I have read both Plans and I would like to giveyou my thought regarding these two documents in support to the single-use bag ordinance.
In the hierarchy that MPCA used in the document for waste, the most prefer type ofmanagement is Reduce. If the single-use bags will eventually enter the waste stream, by
putting a charge on them we will be focusing on this prefer way of management, sincedifferent sources have demonstrated that by applying a minimum fee on these items, consumer
stop asking for them. In its goal 2, they make clear the important role cities play to ensure thesystems are in place for the proper management of waste, emphasizing managing it higher on
the hierarchy, with the aim to reduce all type of waste that it’s been created.
The document also notices the importance of Sustainable Material Managements, which
consider the life cycle of the materials (which is the tool the working group used for theanalysis and therefore concluded to focused on all types of single-use bags for this ordinance).
By preventing the single-use bags entering the waste stream, we will be addressing all thestages in the LCA, by producing and using less of this type of products.
In their strategies and best management practices to achieve the objectives of their policy plan,they focus once again on waste reduction since they consider, and I quote: “waste reduction is
the most effective way to lessen the need for resource extraction, reducing pollution at thesource and conserving materials for future generation”.
Lastly, when they talk about the second most prefer way of waste management, Reuse, theymentioned as an example to follow the “Bring Your Own Bag” ordinance for Minneapolis.
Pointing that the fee serves as an incentive for customers to participate in reuse behavior.
On the other hand, I saw that the Hennepin plan mentioned that a ban on single-use products
will have a low impact on the tons of waste diverted. However, we are not talking about a ban,we are suggesting a fee, and by doing so the city will be implementing a policy that help
transition to zero-waste by again keeping these products out of the waste stream.
The community engagement report done by the consultant doesn’t show a complete support
for the measure. However, a little more than half of the residents that participate in the surveydo support a fee. And in businesses arena, even though some sound reluctant to the fee, in the
end most of them said that they will comply with whatever decision the city decide to moveforward, as long as it is accompanied with education outreach and a good communication
campaign.
Finally, I understand that you must have more information regarding the City Council opinion
on a fee for these types of products and a better sense on the political context. I just wanted togive you my input on the subject, since I think that if we don’t try to push this ordinance now,
this won’t be happening, at least in a near future, due to elections coming up next year.
Thanks,
Hilda