2019-01-28 EC Agenda PacketAGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 28, 2019, Monday @ 6:30pm
Council Conference Room (across from Council Chambers)
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Rd
1.Call to Order
2.Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of November 26, 2018 (5 min)
3.Approve 2019 Meeting Dates (5 min)
4.Solid Waste Hauling update (5 min)
5.Curbside Textile Recycling Proposal (20 min)
(Action requested)
6.Green Step Cities Step 4- Surface Water (10 min)
(Action requested)
7.GreenStep Cities Inventory – BP 23-5 EV Charging Station (5 min)
(Action requested)
8.GreenStep Cities Inventory – BP 4-3 LED Street Lighting (5 min)
(Action requested)
9.GreenStep Cities Inventory – BP 12-6 LimeBike (5 min)
(Action requested)
10.GreenStep Cities Inventory – BP 2-4 Water filters (5 min)
(Action requested)
11.Citywide pollinator policy (5 min)
12.Program/Project Updates (15 min)
13.Council Updates (5 min)
14.Other Business
15.Adjourn
1
G:\Environmental Commission\Agendas\2019\1-January\2 - 11-26-18 EC Minutes.doc
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting, Minutes
November 26, 2018
Commissioners Present: Tracy Anderson, Tonia Galonska, Lynn Gitelis (arrived 6:50p), Dawn Hill,
Joseph Ramlet, Jim Stremel and Debra Yahle
Staff Present: Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor; Drew Chirpich, Environmental
Specialist and Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant
Absent: Commissioner Scott Seys
Call to Order
Chair Hill called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes
MOVED by Stremel, SECONDED by Galonska, and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the minutes of the September 24, 2018 regular meeting.
Recycling Tour Summary
Eckman outlined the main highlights learned from the tour of the Republic Recycling Facility. Some
of these interesting facts included:
•The facility handles 225,000 to 250,000 tons per day and of this amount 150,000 to 175,000
tons are from Golden Valley residents and businesses.
•Plastic bags remain the number one contaminate to the facility.
•Shredded paper is also a hazard to the conveyor belt system. The facility recommends
placing shredded paper in a paper bag and securing the top with one staple.
•5% of the material that enters the facility cannot be recycled.
•The facility accepts plastics numbered 1-7 but there is no market at this time for numbers 3, 4,
6 & 7.
Solid Waste Panel Discussion
The Solid Waste Forum drew a large crowd filling the Council Chambers to maximum capacity as well
as a large number of people (94) viewed the event online. Feedback from the Commissioners on the
solid waste hauling forum included:
•Requested a color coded map of Golden Valley to show the areas that the various haulers
service.
•Requested metrics on what the community produces for solid waste and also hauler licensing
reports.
•The City should have a Zero Waste Goal and hold Zero Waste Events.
•They would like to stay informed on how other cities handle their organics.
•It was noted that the community could learn from Sweden’s non-toxic emissions incinerator.
GreenStep Cities – Step 4 Metrics – Transportation and Fleet
After a brief discussion of Step 4 core topics: Transportation Modes and Miles along with City Fleets
and optional topics: Infrastructure for Biking and Walking plus Car, Transit, and Bike Options led by
Drew Chirpich, the Commission made the following motion.
MOVED by Gitelis, SECONDED by Yahle and the motion carried unanimously to approve the
Performance Metrics entry for Step 4 Transportation and Fleet along with the optional topics
into the GreenSteps Cities website at the time when all core topic areas and optional topic
areas are completed.
2
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
November 26, 2018
Page 2 of 2
G:\Environmental Commission\Agendas\2019\1-January\2 - 11-26-18 EC Minutes.doc
Commission Sponsored Workshop
Chirpich discussed the outcome of the recent Turf Alternatives Workshop which was sponsored by
the Commission and held at Brookview. It was offered to the public free of charge. 50 people
registered to attend but they did not all show up. It was suggested that maybe next time a fee of $15
-$25 should be charged to ensure that those who sign up will attend. Commission members who did
attend felt it was a good workshop with lots of valuable information. Metro Blooms has workshops
that cover “Healthy Soils” and “Resilient Yards” which would be suitable for next year’s workshop if
the Commission chose to host another one. The cost of $2,250 for the workshop also covered the
2018 Blue Thumb Partner fee of $750. Staff was asked to look into getting a copy of the presentation
to either be shown on the City website or just for Commission member viewing.
Review 2018 Work Plan
1.GreenStep Cities Step 4 metrics
2.Guide and give feedback on solid waste collection discussion
3.Assist in the preparation of the curbside recycling contract for 2019
4.Utilize Commission’s budget of $3,500
5.Create a City-wide pollinator policy
6.Remove zoning and land use barriers for producing local food
7.Assist in implementing the Natural Resources Management Plan
The Commission has completed items 2, 3, 4 and 7. They will continue work on GreenStep Cities
Step 4 as well as begin work on items 5 & 6. The goal is to have most items completed by May 1,
2019.
Program/Project Updates
DeCola Ponds B and C Project was briefly discussed. Regarding the topic of tree removal, Eckman
stated the plans include removal of trees and vegetation in the Dover Hill easement area and the
north portion of Pennsylvania Woods in order to create more flood storage and reduce flooding of
homes and businesses in the surrounding area. The concept plan selected by the watershed
balances flood storage creation with tree preservation to best meet the needs of all stakeholders in
the area.
Other Business
The League of Women Voters will be drafting a report on Solid Waste. It was suggested that the
Commission get of copy of the report upon its completion.
MOVED by Stremel, SECONDED by Anderson and the motion carried with one abstain to
cancel the Commissions regular scheduled meeting on December 17, 2018 due to lack of
sufficient material and preparation time.
Adjourn
MOVED by Gitelis, SECONDED by Yahle, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:28
pm.
Claire Huisman
Administrative Assistant
3
G:\Environmental Commission\Memos
Date: January 24, 2019
To: Environmental Commission
From: Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor
Subject: Solid Waste Hauling Update
The City hosted a facilitated Waste Hauling Forum at City Hall on October 29th. The forum
consisted of six panel members describing their experiences with different waste hauling
processes, from organized to open to consortium models. Following the initial presentations,
audience members asked questions and engaged with the panelists.
At its November meeting, the commission discussed and reflected on the information provided at
the waste hauling forum and provided additional questions and comments.
City Council discussed the matter in January. Attached is a summary of the forum that was
developed for the January 8, 2019 Council/Manager meeting.
4
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 8, 2019
Agenda Item
Review of October 29th Waste Hauling Forum
Prepared By
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Summary
One of the Council’s 2018 goals was to review the process of waste collection in Golden Valley.
Staff provided Council some basic information regarding waste hauling in the City and options
that the Council might consider. Council then established five goals for waste collection and staff
used these to guide discussions with the haulers licensed in Golden Valley. Council then directed
staff to engage residents in a discussion regarding waste hauling. A panel discussion was
organized in October which included representatives from the waste hauling industry and several
cities with different collection methods. Each panelist made brief remarks about their unique
perspective on waste hauling and the moderator managed questions and comments from the
audience. Approximately 75 residents attended the forum, which was also broadcast and
available for viewing.
Attachments
• Forum Agenda / Panelist Biographies
• FAQ for Forum
Summary of Comments
Panelists
• Both haulers had a neutral position on Open vs Organized systems
• Golden Valley has a good start; good to have goals and engage stakeholders – important!
• Open system works well to meet customer needs, drive innovation, allow haulers to grow
• Organized system has benefits to streets and environment
• Organized system is likely to increase demands on City staff
• Limiting licenses and number of haulers is a good way to achieve goals
• Haulers have capital costs to recover in an organized system
5
• Organized system does not guarantee lowest price but does ensure consistent service
level and pricing; consumer protection
• Organized systems evolve over time
• Organized systems can be very different from city to city (e.g. billing, staff involvement,
services offered, public investments, etc…)
• Consider City values and goals to help guide decisions. No right or wrong. Use data to
drive decision.
Resident Questions of Panelists
• What about curbside collection of organics?
o Environmental Commission will study in 2019
• Concerns about safety of trucks. Perception that trucks are not safe.
o No data to suggest trucks are not safe.
• Does organized collection mean more efficiency for a hauler?
o Fuels and labor efficiencies but there are capital investments made by haulers to
operate in organized communities.
• Concern that organics collection would be difficult for a small, local scale hauler.
o Organics collection is new territory; SLP received proposals from smaller haulers;
opportunities to collect MSW semi-weekly.
• Service is important. Single hauler might not meet service expectations.
• Organized system may negatively impact snowbirds or residents who summer at cabins as
they are paying for a service they do not use.
• Impact to haulers of zones (such as St. Anthony Village)
o No chance to grow; pricing the same among haulers; Route density is important
• What happens to waste once collected?
o May go to HERC or landfill
• Are there limitations to yard waste collection?
o Generally April to November, but could vary by hauler or city
• Organized system is a monopoly
o 2018 Statute – contract must be at least seven years
• What licensing requirements should a city consider?
o Right number to meet community needs; Insurance, equipment, fee, etc…
• Resident stated they were told by hauler that everyone pays a different rate
o St. Anthony asked residents for bills
• Comment that SLP has a lot of staff managing organized collection system.
o 2 FTEs; Fund through fees and SCORE funds
• Comment that there are too many trucks on roads. We all pay taxes for services we don’t
use.
• Consider a hybrid model – zoning and reduced number of haulers; collect on same day;
increase density to lower price
• How can truck designs help achieve goals?
o Always new innovations; Investments in CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) trucks and
infrastructure; Artificial intelligence
6
• Organized system may be best. There are many things we organize that most of us
benefit from to manage costs, environmental impacts, etc…
• Seems that prices for collection are going up.
o Price is about value; Competition drives prices; Intro rate is just that – haulers fight
for customers.
• St. Paul recently organized and there is concern about impacts on low income residents;
another resident shared anecdotal experience that costs are less in St. Paul.
Summary of Emailed or Written Comments
• Pick up Monday – Thursday, not Friday
• Have at least two haulers so there is choice
• Organize to reduce truck traffic, reduce pollution and costs, increase efficiency, eliminate
need to shop for hauler, improve safety. Zones would be acceptable.
• Glad to hear organics collection is being studied
• Support for single hauler
• Price is important. Supportive of free enterprise but eight haulers in GV is too many.
Organized system would likely provide better pricing, fewer trucks and less road damage.
• Support organized collection to reduce environmental and neighborhood impacts. Use a
sound decision making process and take some risk.
• Organized system is better to reduce the number of trucks on the road
• Retain choice for residents. Currently no choice for recycling.
Action Requested
Council discussion is requested.
7
G:\Environmental Commission\Memos
Date: January 10, 2019
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: Curbside Textile Recycling Proposal
In July 2018, the City was approached by WasteZero, a textile and soft recyclable curbside pickup
organization.
Simple Recycling is a company in Ohio that provides free year-round curbside textile collection on
the same day as recycling pickup day. WasteZero markets the program in the Twin Cities metro
area.
Proposal overview:
• Simple Recycling mails out a postcard announcing the program, followed by a
mailer with two plastic collection bags with instructions to residents for used clothing,
textiles, and other small household goods.
• Residents then put the bags out on recycling collection day and Simple Recycling
collects the bags in a Ford Transit van.
• Simple Recycling then weighs the material at its local facility and pays $20 a ton to
the City.
• The program is free, and waste haulers are supportive of the program because it
keeps textiles out of their recycling facilities.
• Average annual collection usually starts at seven pounds per household.
• Terms of the arrangement and service standards are laid out in a five-year
contract.
8
• You can see their web site at http://www.simplerecycling.com.
• This is a turnkey system in that City staff does not need to administer the program.
Simple Recycling has a customer service hotline, and bags and mailers have an 800
number, e-mail, and website on them to direct residents with questions.
Simple Recycling has already launched the program in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Texas,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, and Minnesota. In the Twin Cities, 160,000 households have
access to the service in Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope, St. Louis Park,
Shorewood, Mounds View, Shoreview, Robbinsdale, Stillwater, Ham Lake, Lakeland, White Bear
Township, Arden Hills, Spring Lake Park, Circle Pines, and Coon Rapids in addition to customers of
Tennis Sanitation in Maplewood, Cottage Grove, Inver Grove Heights, Lake Elmo, Newport,
Oakdale, St. Paul Park, South St. Paul, Woodbury, and West Lakeland.
Simple Recycling sends their material to a grading facility, where roughly 30% of the material is
destined to local thrift stores, 30% is appropriate for overseas markets, and the remainder is
shredded into insulation and fiber for industrial wipers.
Simple Recycling is a private company so it cannot give a receipt for a tax deduction. However,
the contract with Simple Recycling would not prevent any resident from donating material to
their favorite charity or seeking tax deductions from other sources.
The proposed services include the curbside pickup of what is defined as acceptable “Soft
Recyclables.” The term “Soft Recyclable” means items of an individual weighing less than fifty
(50) pounds and can be carried by one person. Soft Recyclables include primarily men’s, women’s
and children’s clothing as well as items such as jewelry, shoes, purses, hats, toys, pictures,
mirrors, blankets, drapes and curtains, pillows, rags, sewing scraps, sleeping bags, small furniture,
small appliances, irons, radios and audio equipment, , cameras, lamps, hairdryers, tools, toasters,
coffee makers, silverware, dishes, pots and pans, glasses and the like.
If the City decides to move forward with an agreement, staff recommends revising the dates to
align with the Hennepin County ordinance that will mandate organics recycling by 2022, in the
event that other opportunities arise as we approach the mandate deadline.
Following discussion, the Environmental Commission may make a motion recommending that the
curbside textile recycling proposal be forwarded to City Council for consideration.
9
G:\Environmental Commission\Memos
Date: November 26, 2018
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: GreenStep Cities Step 4 – Surface Water
The City is working toward Step 4 in the GreenStep Cities Program which involves the
documentation of metric measurements in seven core topic areas and five optional topic areas.
Measuring for Step 4 is important as the City must show improvements in each topic area to
advance to Step 5. Improvements within these topic areas will help the community reduce
energy and carbon emissions, save money, and increase resilience to short and long term shocks
and stressors.
Core topic areas
Open Space, Parks, and Trees
Stormwater
Wastewater
City Buildings and Lighting
Renewable Energy
Land Use
Transportation Modes and Miles
Optional topic areas (in priority order)
City Fleets
Infrastructure for Biking and Walking
Car, Transit, and Bike Options
•Surface Water
•Green Buildings
•Local Food (only if green buildings
does not prove to be workable)
The next core topic area that the City is completing is Surface Water. The performance metrics
are attached to this memorandum for review. Also attached are the guidance documents for
completion of this action. After discussion staff requests that the Commission consider making a
motion to approve the City’s Step 4 Surface Water-related metrics.
10
11
Minnesota GreenStep Cities
Performance Metrics for Recognition at Steps 4 and 5
#12: SURFACE WATER
OPTIONAL METRIC FOR CATEGORY A & B & C CITIES
Bold, green font indicates data elements that are eligible to be recognized at Step 5 if improvement is demonstrated.
DATA ELEMENTS
12.1 % of lake, river & wetland shoreline with at least a 50’ vegetation buffer
12.2 % of water bodies showing at least good clarity readings OR number of citizen lake/river monitors
12.3 One city-defined element or index number
DEFINITIONS
•Vegetation buffers are 50-foot strips of land paralleling lake, river, and wetland shorelines with perennial grass,
trees, or shrubs. (Element 12.1)
•Clarity (also called transparency) readings are taken with Secchi disks (in feet) on lakes or with Secchi tubes (in
centimeters) on streams and reported in the ranges of excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. Secchi tube data is
a surrogate for total suspended solids (TSS). (Element 12.2)
•One key Element gives cities an opportunity to highlight a measured number or a calculated index number that has
special relevance to the city. For example:
o For some cities – especially those with multiple water bodies in poor condition that have all been researched
-tracking % of water bodies that are on the state’s impaired waters list and/or % of TMDLs that are
met (Total Maximum Daily Limits [of pollutants]) may be very important and easily obtained from the MPCA.
Impairments are measured for aquatic life, aquatic recreation, and aquatic consumption.
See https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/maps-minnesotas-impaired-waters-and-tmdls
o The MPCA’s Trophic State Index (TSI) for 3000 MN lakes combines measurement of Secchi water clarity,
algae and nutrient level (phosphorus), reporting whether lakes support Aquatic Recreation Use (AQR).
AQR for streams is dependent on maximum levels of bacteria (E. coli), and Aquatic Life (AQL) for
streams is dependent on threshold measurement of fish, invertebrates and water chemistry.
o Pollutant levels for chemicals of concern – chloride, mercury, a pesticide, nitrogen, sulfuric acid – may
be the most relevant data elements for some cities.
o Minneapolis’s Lake Aesthetics and User Recreation Index
(LAURI: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/sustainability/indicators/WCMS1P-082085 ) measures: 1) public
health status at swimming beaches; 2) water quality including clarity; 3) aesthetics such as color, odor, and
debris; 4) availability and ease of public access for recreational uses; and 5) habitat quality for plant and fish
diversity. These five indices are scored on a scale of one to 10.
o The Wetland Health Evaluation Program ( WHEP: http://www.mnwhep.org/index.htm ) in Dakota and
Hennepin Counties has been reporting an index of biotic integrity since 1997, covering invertebrates and
vegetation.
o Score Your Shore ( http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/scoreyourshore/index.html ) from the MN Dept. of Natural
Resources assesses habitat conditions of developed lake lots, which can be used to set and track goals for
shoreland revegetation and improvement. It provides an objective and systematic method to assess the
type, quantity and quality of the existing shoreland habitat, recognizing, for example, that turf grass is not as
effective as native vegetation at protecting water quality.
o SALT
(Element 12.3)
DATA SOURCES
12
Minnesota GreenStep Cities
Performance Metrics for Recognition at Steps 4 and 5
•City GIS maps; Google maps; maps from local lake and river associations. (Element 12.1)
•Data collected by the city, volunteers, associations, Metropolitan Council. (Elements 12.1 and 12.2)
•Maps from http://www.mndnr.gov/buffers, MN Board of Water and Soil Resources, county Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, Watershed Districts, Watershed Management Organizations. (Element 12.1 and 12.2)
•County water plans, city Surface Water Management Plans. (Element 12.2)
•The MPCA Citizen Lake and Citizen Stream Monitoring Programs have information on transparency for 1000 lakes
and 400 or so stream sites, with an excellent/good/fair/poor breakdown for the most current
data: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/citizen-monitoring-program-annual-summary (Element 12.2)
CALCULATION AND PUBLIC REPORTING
•For the vegetation buffer calculation, use GIS data or estimates from Google maps to first total the length of
shorelines around lakes and wetlands, and add in stream lengths. Include the length of ditches controlled by Ditch
Authorities. Then measure/estimate the lengths of lake/wetland shorelines that have at least 50 feet of perennial
vegetation, and add in the lengths of streams/ditches that have at least 50 feet of perennial vegetation on each side.
Finally, divide the vegetated footage by the total shoreline footage and express the fraction as a percentage for the
year immediately prior to the GreenStep reporting year. (Element 12.1)
•For calculation of % of water bodies within city limits showing (in the year immediately prior to the GreenStep
reporting year) at least good clarity readings, first check with the appropriate MPCA contact below to see if there is
data and to understand the use of it. For example, “good” for lakes might mean exceeding total suspended solids
thresholds, which are different for different ecoregions in the state. And “good” for streams might refer to specific
stream segments or stream stations. (Element 12.2)
If there is no data, work with the appropriate MPCA contact below to recruit community volunteers – and
then report the number of volunteers - to join the Citizen’s Monitoring program that uses stream/lake
methodologies from the MPCA Citizen Monitoring Handbook and Instruction Manual
at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/citizen-water-monitoring (Wetlands use the methodologies of WHEP
at http://www.mnwhep.org).
After several years of data collected by monitors, your city will be in a position to report the % of water
bodies Element.
•Since it typically takes a few years to see any change in these numbers, water bodies need not be re-measured
every year. In years when no new measurement is done, simply report the last measurement and note the calendar
year during which the measurement was done. (Elements 12.1 and 12.2)
RATIONALE
Because lakes, streams and wetlands are central to Minnesota's economy and our way of life, it is imperative that
private and public entities, including cities, work to maintain and improve their local water quality. Reflecting this importance,
Minnesota's Management and Budget state agency includes, as one of the state's 40 key indicators, the percent of MN lakes
with good water quality.
Part of working to improve water quality must include helping community members hear about and understand data elements
that show whether progress is being made. Because there are so many mandated and voluntary measures of water quality,
GreenStep proposes two common measures for all cities and one city-specific measure. Based upon feedback from cities and
water quality experts, GreenStep anticipates some refinement of these measures over time.
Buffer studies by the Pollution Control Agency (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/buffers-improve-water-quality) and others
show that a 50’ strip of permanent vegetation along lakes, streams, and wetland reduces the volume of runoff and the quantity
of pollutants entering those waters, helping to protect and restore water quality and healthy aquatic life, natural stream
functions and aquatic habitat. Buffers do not solve every water-quality problem and can/should be narrower or wider
13
Minnesota GreenStep Cities
Performance Metrics for Recognition at Steps 4 and 5
depending on specific circumstances. Increasing the number and width of buffers is a current focus of effort by Minnesota
state agencies.50 feet on lands adjacent to public waters and 16.5 fee on lands adjacent to public ditches is the target width:
see http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/buffers/index.html and http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/buffer_strips.pdf
Clarity, or transparency, is a quick and easy measurement that tells us a lot about a lake or stream’s water quality. First, it
indicates the amount of light penetration into a lake or stream, which is important for plant growth and a healthy aquatic
environment. Second, Secchi transparency provides an indirect measure of the amount of suspended material in the water.
Suspended material in lakes most often consists of algae, while sediments are more common in streams.
STEP 5 TARGETS
While there are various state laws about buffers in different settings, any improvement in buffers within a city is assured of
delivering benefits due to the typical hard-surface treatment of land along urban streams, lakes and wetlands. On average,
streams in Minnesota that, along their length, have under 25% of their buffers intact, have poor or very poor aquatic life. Thus
25% or more is a minimum goal for buffers.
The DNR’s Know Your Score approach can provide a more ecologically accurate way to track and improve the function of
buffers. Increasing water clarity has recreational, economic and ecologic benefit; the MPCA uses a statistical test to determine
whether the data for each lake or stream exhibits increasing or decreasing clarity trends.
NEED HELP? CONTACT
Laurie Sovell, Citizen Stream Monitoring Program, MN Pollution Control Agency
651-757-2750 or csmp.pca@state.mn.us
Shannon Martin, Citizen Lake Monitoring Program, MN Pollution Control Agency
651-757-2874 or clmp.pca@state.mn.us
February 2017
14
G:\Environmental Commission\Memos
Date: January 10, 2019
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: GreenStep Cities Best Practice 23-5: Electric Vehicle Charger
The City has recently installed an Electric Vehicle charger on the north side of the City Hall
parking lot, west of the water tower. It is a 240 Volt dual charging station, capable of charging
two vehicles at once. The rates for charging will be 90 cents per hour for the first three hours,
and $1.20 per hour afterwards. After installation of the charger the City now qualifies for the
GreenStep Cities Best Practice 23-5: Install and promote one or more public fueling stations for
plug in Electric Vehicles.
Recommendation
After a brief discussion staff recommends that the Commission approve reporting on Best
Practice 23-5 on the GreenStep Cities Website.
15
G:\Environmental Commission\Memos
Date: January 10, 2019
To: Environmental Commission
From: Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Supervisor
Subject: GreenStep Cities Best Practice 4-3: Street Lighting
In early 2018 the City worked with Xcel Energy to change out all 558 standard cobrahead street
lights with new energy-efficient 3000K LEDs. The LED bulbs are as bright as the old lights but use
far less energy, saving the City more than $3,800 per year and preventing roughly 221,000
pounds of CO2 from entering the atmosphere per year. An August 2018 review found that energy
consumption for street lighting was down 23% compared to the same months in 2017.
After conversion of the street lighting the City now qualifies for the GreenStep Cities Best Practice
4-3: Replace the city's existing street lighting with LEDs.
Recommendation
After a brief discussion staff recommends that the Commission approve reporting on Best
Practice 4-3 on the GreenStep Cities website.
16
G:\Environmental Commission\Memos
Date: January 10, 2019
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: GreenStep Cities Best Practices 12-6: Mobility Options
In 2018 the City approved an agreement with Lime allowing the company to deploy a fleet of
dockless bikes (in July) and scooters (in September). This agreement has been extended through
2019. Lime’s goal is to provide a sustainable solution to transportation in an affordable and
convenient way, while also reducing the carbon footprint. At its peak, Golden Valley had a total
of 53 Lime bikes and 61 scooters deployed. Through the months of August, September, and
October 2018 a total of 769 bike rides were taken in Golden Valley by 470 individuals. And
although Lime scooters were only in Golden Valley for a few short weeks, a total of 730 rides
were taken by 439 riders. This new service qualifies for the GreenStep City Best Practice 12-6 by
adding and promoting bike sharing. The City has implemented the service and is actively
promoting the program on the City website and in its bi-monthly newsletter.
Recommendation
After brief discussion, staff requests that the Commission consider making a motion to approve
Best Practice 12-6 for entry into the GreenStep Cities website.
17
G:\Environmental Commission\Memos
Date: January 10, 2019
To: Environmental Commission
From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist
Subject: GreenStep Cities Best Practices 2-4: Describe energy/water efficiency outcomes
and other green building practices within the city.
The City installed 2 water filters in City Hall in July 2018 and thus far the water filters have saved
the equivalent of 5,564 plastic water bottles. This new service qualifies for the GreenStep City
Best Practice 2-4 by increasing energy/water efficiency outcomes and other green building
practices within the City.
Recommendation
After brief discussion, staff requests that the Commission consider making a motion to approve
Best Practice 2-4 for entry into the GreenStep Cities website.
18
PROGRAM/PROJECT UPDATES – January 2019
NATURAL RESOURCES
CPL DNR grant – Consistent with the Nature Area Prioritization Matrix developed by the Commission, staff identified
Basset Creek Nature Area as a potential fit for the DNR’s Conservation Partner’s Legacy (CPL) grant. Staff submitted the
required materials for the grant a week before the January 14th grant deadline. Staff also submitted requests to
contractors and received cost estimates. The grant proposal includes removing invasive species and restoring the nature
area with native species. A response about the award of the grant is expected in early February.
STS- The Hennepin County Sentencing to Service Crews have been working on maintaining various stormwater and flood
control structures throughout the City by eliminating undesirable vegetation and volunteer trees before they
compromise the structural integrity of the flood control structures.
WATER RESOURCES
DeCola Ponds B and C Improvement Project
In September 2018 the City Council approved agreements with the MnDNR and the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission to begin final design work on this flood mitigation project located in the north central part of
the City. The primary benefits of the project include reducing flood damages to nearby homes and businesses,
protecting public health, and improving public safety by reducing flooding on Medicine Lake Road and surrounding local
streets. Additional benefits include improving water quality, enhancing vegetation and wildlife habitat, and improving
recreation and park user experience. The final design process includes community and stakeholder engagement and will
continue through spring 2019.
As part of the project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed and public comments were
accepted. A link to the EAW can be found at:
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/stormwater/projects/upcoming-projects/index.php
An public open house is scheduled for February 6, 2019 from 5-7:30 at Brookview’s Bassett Creek Room to review the
preliminary design plans and provide feedback to help guide the final design of the project.
Medicine Lake Road and Rosalyn Court impacted by a 3.5 inch rain in 2010.
Kings Valley Pond Maintenance Project- Work on the King’s Valley pond maintenance project is underway and should
be substantially completed by March 1, 2019. The project will remove sediment from two stormwater ponds located
within public easements in the Kings Valley development, to improve water quality and reduce the amount of
phosphorous reaching Medicine Lake, which is impaired for nutrients.
19
Year-End Wetland Report- City Staff recently completed its annual Wetland Conservation Act Report and submitted it to
the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The report includes all Wetland applications and decisions for the year as well as
any wetland related technical assistance provided by the City.
ENERGY
HERC Tour- A few City staff attended a tour at the Hennepin County Energy Recovery Center (HERC) in Downtown
Minneapolis. The HERC receives municipal solid waste from Minneapolis and surrounding communities and burns the
waste to recover energy and steam, which are used to heat and power areas of downtown and adjacent regions.
Year-End Recycling Report- City Staff has recently completed and submitted its annual recycling report for Hennepin
County. Below are the Annual Totals for recyclable materials collected by weight, in pounds:
Newspaper 1,387,292
Clear Glass 373,482
Brown Glass 155,617
Green Glass 93,370
Steel 24,157
Tin 49,608
Aluminum 70,314
Plastic 412,392
Corrugated 1,451,567
TOTAL WEIGHT COLLECTED (in Pounds) 4,017,799
Limebike- At their peak, Golden Valley had a total of 53 Lime bikes and 61 scooters deployed. Through the months of
August, September, and October a total of 769 bike rides were taken in Golden Valley by 470 individuals. And although
Lime scooters were only in Golden Valley for a few short weeks, a total of 730 rides were taken by 439 riders. Due to the
later than expected deployment of the bikes and scooters as well as the information gathered in 2018, the Council
extended the MOU through the end of 2019
PLANNING AND ZONING AND DEVELOPMENTS
Jan 3, 2019
Firearms Sales—Discussion regarding a potential Zoning Code Text Amendment to restrict the location and regulate
the manner in which firearms sales could be conducted in the city. Discussed on December 10 and will return to the
Planning Commission on January 14 with additional analysis.
South Douglas Drive Redevelopment District—Check-in with staff regarding the vision for the southern portion of
Douglas Drive and next steps for implementation of the Douglas Drive Corridor plan. Scheduled for the January 8
meeting.
Watermark (5530-40 Golden Valley Road, 1503 Welcome Ave N)—The request for consideration of a Lot
Consolidation was withdrawn prior to the January 2 meeting.
840 Pennsylvania Ave S—Conditional Use Permit to construct an employee parking lot across the street from Morrie’s
Golden Valley Cadillac. The existing structure (known as the Weavewood building) would be demolished.
Recommended for approval (7-0) by the Planning Commission on December 10. Approved (5-0) on January 2.
Business and Professional Offices Zoning District—Zoning Code Text Amendment to update and modernize the uses
allowed in this district. Recommended for approval (7-0) by the Planning Commission on December 10. Approved (5-
0)on January 2.
20