Loading...
2020-10-26 EC Agenda Packet REGULAR MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be held via Cisco Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by calling 1-415-655- 0001 and entering the meeting code 133 715 7232. For technical assistance, please contact support staff at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement consideration. Additional information about for monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of September 30, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes (5 min) 5. Introduction to “Just Deeds Project” – Kiarra Zackery, Equity and Inclusion Manager (10 min) 6. Old Business A. Environmental Justice Collaboration - Subcommittee Update (10 min) B. R-3 Density Bonus Standards (25 min) (Action Requested) C. Recycling and Organics Collection Update (20 min) 7. New Business A. Program/Project Updates (15 min) i. DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Plan: SEA-Wildwood Park Planning Study B. Council Updates (5 min) C. Other Business (5 min) 8. Adjournment October 26, 2020 – 6:30 pm REGULAR MEETING MINUTES This meeting will be held via Cisco Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by calling 1-415-655- 0001 and entering the meeting code 133 298 1930. For technical assistance, please contact support staff at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement consideration. Additional information about for monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Yahle at 6:30. 2. Roll Call Commissioners present: Debra Yahle, Tonia Galonska, Dawn Hill, Shannon Hansen, Wendy Weirich, Felix Fettig Commissioners absent: Scott Seys, Jim Stremel Council Members present: Larry Fonnest Staff present: Eric Eckman, Environmental Resources Supervisor; Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist; Story Schwantes, Green Corp Member; Carrie Nelson, Administrative Assistant. 3. Approval of Agenda MOTION by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Weirich to approve the agenda of September 30, 2020 and the motion carried. 4. Approval of August 24, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Galonska to approve the minutes of August 24, 2020 as submitted and the motion carried. 5. Old Business A. Environmental Justice Collaboration – Subcommittee Update i. Debra and Scott met with Chris Mitchell from the Human Rights Commission. They didn’t come to any conclusions yet. They would like to look at our demographic maps and do something more with those maps. They are very interested in tree canopy coverage in the low density/low income housing areas. Also interested in a speaker. No timeline yet. September 30, 2020 – 6:30 pm City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting August 24, 2020 – 6:30 pm 2 B. Partners in Energy Update (PIE) i. Completed two workshops and there are three more to go. Hope to wrap up the plan in early 2021 and present it to council and get approval to move forward with Phase 2 Plan Implementation. 1. Workshop 1 was an into to the process and to each other. Also started a vision statement. 2. Staff shared the slides with the Commission for review and comment. 3. Commission questions on the slides from Workshop 1: a. Demographic Data – Pg 31 – Are we considered a wealthy suburb? i. Golden Valley weathered recession in 2008/2009 really well because of the diversity of employment and industry. Unemployment didn’t rise as high. We have a higher medium income than the state. The residents living at poverty level is lower than the MN average and Hennepin County Average, but still an important issue. ii. There are still people suffering from energy cost burden. In GV, 16% of citizens are experiencing High or Severe Energy Cost Burden (pre-pandemic). b. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority is taking a hard look at Affordable Housing in the community. The Met Council has directed them to create 111 units between now and 2030. c. Pg 40 – Median Housing Value is actually $325,000. i. Housing cost burden is if you’re spending more than 30% of your income on your mortgage or rent. 4. Very Important to the Energy Action Team to address and reduce the Energy Burden. Short-term high priority. 5. Workshop 2: a. Talked about focus areas and the strategies and tactics for how to reach the goals for each area. i. Residential Energy Efficiency 1. 61% of GV homes are more than 50 years old, 85% are more than 30 years old. So there is great opportunity to improve efficiency and reduce consumption and cost. 2. Participate in the Home Energy Squad Program? ii. Reducing Energy Burden on Residents iii. Business Energy Efficiency 1. Divided all industrial and commercial premises into 5 equal groups. a. 208 locations in each group. b. Top 208 consume 90% of electricity in the city. All others make up 10%. City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting August 24, 2020 – 6:30 pm 3 c. Xcel has account managers that work directly with the top 208 to identify efficiencies, programs, and rebates. More than half are participating in programs with Xcel. iv. Renewable Energy 1. Coal production going down. 2. Natural Gas has become a bigger source. 3. Nuclear is considered a clean energy (carbon free) – but not renewable. 4. Renewable Energy Sources over 70 Years a. Mostly hydro-electric / water power b. Biggest spike since mid-2000’s is in Wind and Solar. c. By 2050, Xcel wants to be completely carbon free. v. Electric Vehicles (EV’s) 1. Lower emissions and costs. 2. Xcel has a goal to help facilitate and help deliver electricity to charging stations and homes with a goal of serving 1.5 million EV’s in their 8-state service area. 3. Number of EV’s doubled from 2018 to 2019 from 5,000 to 10,000 in the state. 4. Most drivers do their charging at home. There are 20 non-residential charging stations in GV. (Not all are available to public.) 5. GV has 124 registered EV’s a. We have a much higher % of households with EV’s than surrounding cities b. Finalized the Vision Statement: i. Golden Valley will be a greener, more sustainable, and resilient community, where the benefits of using and sourcing energy wisely accrue equitably to every resident, business, and visitor. 1. What does “Greener” mean? Eco-Friendly? Tree Canopy and grasses? a. There wasn’t a lot of time spent on this piece. Bring this up to the energy action team at next meeting? Could use some definition or remove it entirely. City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting August 24, 2020 – 6:30 pm 4 C. Curbside Organics Collection Update i. Staff is working on drafting the RFP and looking more deeply at what the program will look like and what the costs will look like. Also, the language and terms that will be included in a future contract for both Organics and also Recycling. We have reached out to all haulers in a variety of ways and have met with all that responded. 6. New Business A. New Green Corps Member – Story Schwantes B. GreenStep Cities – Best Practices 13.2 Efficient City Fleets i. The City recently purchased a 2020 Hybrid Ford Explorer. 1. It was decided to go with a Hybrid vs an Electric Vehicle because an EV would require more infrastructure than the City has right now, battery efficiency goes down in the winter, and this will be the vehicle for the public safety on-call person and they shouldn’t be required to plug it in at their home. ii. This purchase should qualify as Best Practice 13.2 for GreenStep Cities. MOTION by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Galonska to approve the Best Practices 13.2 Efficient City Fleets as submitted and the motion carried. C. R-3 Density Bonus Standards i. R-3 Zoning districts typically include medium density housing such as townhomes, apartments, condos, and senior housing. R-3 allows for up to 10 units per acre. The City is currently updating the R-3 districts to align with the land uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Currently, if certain conditions are met (i.e. underground parking, located along high frequency transit line, recreational amenities), code provides bonuses that allow 1-2 more units per acre. The Planning Commission approve the following topics and would like the Environmental Commission’s input on specific standards/measures and how many additional units/acre each topic should be worth. The Density Bonus is up to 3 additional units per acre for Multifamily Buildings and up to 5 additional units per acre for senior and physical disability housing. Some questions and comments raised by the Environmental Commission: 1: Underground Parking - How much would be required or what would be a good ratio? 2: Green Certified Buildings City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting August 24, 2020 – 6:30 pm 5 - Are we open to other accredited certification programs besides LEED? What other programs are out there? - Could different levels be worth different rewards? 3: Renewable Energy - Do we require on-site, permanent infrastructure or allow off-site? Maybe on-site is worth more than off-site. What about off-site that is local (in state, county, or city)? How do you know about or enforce off-site purchase of renewable subscriptions? - What should the threshold/percentage be for annual energy usage coming from renewable energy? 4: Microgrids 5: Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations - Encourage quick charge vs slow charge stations - Make available to public, not just tenants? - How many stations required? 6: Stormwater Facilities - How to measure this? - How much do we expect/mandate vs how much do we incentivize? - Could these be underground? 7. Other: a. If GV wants to be a leader in GHG emission reductions, then mandate vs incentivize, and push for higher standards. Staff discussed that there is a balance and a number of different tools to choose from to fit each situation. b. Could we add a topic for increased amount (% or sq ft) of open space/green space? c. Could we add a topic for onsite bike facilities, walkability/connectivity, access to transit? d. Could we add a topic for increased amount of native landscaping? Not quite as permanent and can be easily changed/removed, but visible. Would require inspection and enforcement. 8. Staff will come back in October with a draft policy to review and discuss. D. Program/Project Updates i. DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation – SEA School Site 1. Add to future agenda to discuss the possibility of the EC being more involved. EC to hear more about project, ask questions, and provide feedback. E. Council Updates i. Deep into the tax season and tax preparation. Look for the Truth and Taxation Statement from the County mid-November. The City Council has worked to devise a budget that they think is fair and equitable. Agreed to 4.51% as the goal for the City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission Regular Meeting August 24, 2020 – 6:30 pm 6 new year. Highest tax levy they can impose as a council. Given feedback at the upcoming Dec 3rd public hearing, they may choose to dial back even further. F. Other Business 7. Adjournment MOTION by Commissioner Galonska, seconded by Commissioner Hansen to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 pm and the motion carried. ATTEST: _________________________________ _________________________________________ Carrie Nelson, Administrative Assistant Scott Seys, Chair What is Just Deeds?  Just Deeds is the name of the project launched by the HRC to help property owners renounce discriminatory covenants on their property titles.  Just Deeds also describes a coalition of community groups that are interested in working together to dismantle the legacy of discriminatory covenants. What are Discriminatory Covenants?  Discriminatory covenants (also known as racially restrictive covenants) refer to contractual agreements that prohibit the purchase, lease, or occupation of a piece of property by a particular group of people. What are the Lasting Impacts of Discriminatory Covenants?  Covenants divided our community by race. These residential segregation patterns persist today. This physical segregation is the foundation of our contemporary racial disparities.  Restrictive covenants erected barriers that limit access to housing, credit, education, and wealth.  BIPOC community members who could have established themselves in Golden Valley are instead living in resource deprived areas of the metro.  BIPOC community members who have established themselves in other parts of the metro have limited access to Golden Valley opportunities, for example:  Access to well-funded, quality educational  Wealth accumulation through homeownership and real estate appreciation  Wealth accumulation business opportunities  Access to stable, well-paying employment  Access to quality health care  Access to environmental healthy space Where are the Discriminatory Covenants in Golden Valley? The map below shows the location of the discriminatory covenants found on property titles in Golden Valley. The yellow dots are privately owned property. The orange dots are City-owned property. The City owns 61 parcels with racially restrictive covenants. What Can City Commissioners Do?  Participate in the Just Deeds coalition individually and as a commission by educating the community about discriminatory covenants and their legacy in Golden Valley.  Develop an equity lens regarding the policies, practices and procedures your commission recommends. Align your recommendations with the goals of dismantling to legacy of discriminatory covenants and revisit previous decisions that perpetuate inequity. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos Date: October 23, 2020 To: Environmental Commission From: Eric Eckman, Environmental Resources Supervisor Subject: Density Bonuses in Medium Density (R-3) Zoning District At its September 30, 2020 meeting, upon request from the Planning Commission, the Environmental Commission reviewed the City’s proposed R-3 density bonuses and conditions and began discussing the environmental performance standards in more detail. At the October meeting the Commission will dive deeper into the performance standards and associated density bonuses to develop a draft policy document that can be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for final consideration and approval in 2020. Attached is a draft policy document developed with input from the Planning Commission, Environmental Commission, and staff. Commissioners are asked to read through the document and come to the meeting with questions, comments, and thoughts on specific performance standards and corresponding density bonuses. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY MEDIUM DENSITY (R-3) ZONING DISTRICT - DENSITY BONUS POLICY October 26, 2020 Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to increase the City’s resilience and sustainability with respect to climate variations by improving energy efficiency, promoting and developing renewable energy, and protecting and enhancing the natural environment by incentivizing developers and property owners to invest in infrastructure that will help achieve these goals. Background: At its August 24 meeting, the Planning Commission requested the Environmental Commission review the City’s proposed R-3 density bonuses and assist in developing a policy document that will more specifically outline and detail the allowable density bonuses based on certain environmental performance standards. The R-3 zoning district typically includes medium density housing (townhomes, apartments & condominiums, senior housing) up to 10 units per acre. For context, the allowed densities in the R-3 zoning district are being updated to align with the land uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The current code language provides density bonuses of 1-2 units per acre if certain conditions are met, including providing underground parking, locating along a high frequency transit line, and construction of recreational amenities within the development. In order to update these bonuses, the Commission looked to the goals and priorities included in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan – mostly around energy efficiency and sustainability. The Planning Commission approved six (6) topics and draft language that was mostly pulled from the PUD Amenity Options in city code. Ultimately, the Planning Commission decided to leave the details of each topic to be worked out in a separate policy document so they can be updated more easily as technologies, standards, and costs change over time. The Planning Commission requested the Environmental Commission review the draft language and assist in developing a policy document that can be approved by City Council in 2020. Eligibility, Condition, and Bonus: Density Bonus. Multifamily buildings shall be eligible for a density bonus of up to an additional three units per acre and senior and physical disability housing shall be eligible for a density bonus of up to an additional five units per acre, provided the corresponding conditions are met: (1) Underground Parking. The current zoning requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit anywhere on the property. The provision of 1.00 to 1.99 underground (or above ground but contained within the building footprint) parking stalls per dwelling unit shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. The provision of 2.00 or more underground (or above ground but contained within the building footprint) parking stalls per dwelling unit shall increase the maximum allowable density by two units per acre. In addition to meeting one of the parking provisions above, if 30% or more of the site is preserved as pervious open space dedicated through a permanent easement, this shall increase the maximum allowable density by one additional unit per acre. (2) Green Certified Buildings. Buildings that achieve LEED Platinum certification by a LEED accredited professional shall increase the maximum allowable density by three units per acre. Buildings that achieve LEED Gold certification by a LEED accredited professional shall increase the maximum allowable density by two unit per acre. Buildings that achieve LEED Silver certification by a LEED accredited professional shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. (3) Renewable Energy. Use of a photovoltaic or wind electrical system, solar thermal system, and/or a geothermal heating and cooling system, as certified by an energy engineer, to provide the following performance standards: i. at least 30 percent of the building/campus annual energy demand shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. ii. at least 60 percent of the building/campus annual energy demand shall increase the maximum allowable density by two units per acre. iii. at least 90 percent of the building/campus annual energy demand shall increase the maximum allowable density by three units per acre. (4) Microgrids. Construction of microgrid infrastructure that contributes efficiency, security, and back-up power to a local system if the system: Provides onsite diesel or similar generator and/or electric battery storage sufficient to power the building for at least a 24-hour period, it shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. Provides at least 75% of the annual energy demand, it shall increase the maximum allowable density by two units per acre. Provides 100% of the annual energy demand, it shall increase the maximum allowable density by three units per acre. A real-world example of microgrid system infrastructure is provided in Exhibit A. (5) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. An electric vehicle charging station (Smart Residential Level 2 or better) accessible to residents, visitors, and employees providing connections at the rate of five (5) percent of the required parking spaces shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. Providing connections at a rate of 10% or more of the required parking spaces shall increase the maximum allowable density by two units per acre. Providing DC Fast Charging stations at a rate of five (5) percent of the required parking spaces shall increase the maximum allowable density by three units per acre. An electric vehicle charging station (Commercial Level 2) accessible to the general public providing connections at the rate of two (2) percent of the required parking spaces shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. See Exhibit B for more information on charging stations. (6) Stormwater Facilities. Above ground, multi-benefit green infrastructure designed to enhance water quality and reduce stormwater runoff rates, volumes, and nutrient loads beyond what is required by the City and Watershed shall increase the maximum allowable density. The design must serve as a visual amenity to the property and be reflective of innovative techniques. The following standards shall apply: Rate Control for New Development and Redevelopment. Post-construction stormwater runoff rates must not exceed pre-project rates be reduced by at least 10% from pre-project rates for the two-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour precipitation events based on NOAA Atlas-14 precipitation-frequency data. Achieving this standard shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. Discharge Volume, TP, and TSS for New Development and Redevelopment. The MIDS performance goal for storm water volume and pollution reduction is to capture and infiltrate 1.1 inches of runoff volume from the new or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces on sites without restrictions (See Exhibit C). If an applicant can demonstrate through modeling accepted by the City and BCWMC that it can capture and infiltrate 1.5 inches of runoff volume from the new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces, that shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. On sites with documented restrictions, a flexible treatment option approach with the following standards shall apply in the order of the sequence outlined below. Alternative 1 • Achieve at least the 0.55 0.75 volume goal, and • Remove 75% 80% of the annual total phosphorus load, and • Consider and present as options the merits of relocating project elements to address varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site. Alternative 2 Note: For this alternative, higher priority will be given to best management practices that include volume reduction. Secondary preference is to employ filtration techniques, followed by rate control best management practices. • Achieve volume reduction to the maximum extent practicable, and • Remove 75% 80% of the annual total phosphorus load, and • Consider and present as options the merits of relocating project elements to address varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site. Process: The requested density bonus, condition, and performance standard must be included in the Land Use Application. The Application must contain all required information, plans and details, and certifications described above in the conditions, as well as any other pertinent information required by the City through its permit review process. The City will review all information for accuracy. If acceptable, the City will enter into deposit agreement with the applicant at 125% of the value of the proposed work, in a form acceptable by the city attorney, to ensure the proposed infrastructure is constructed as part of the development. Definitions: Example: Example definition here. Example: Example definition here. Attachments/Exhibits: Exhibit A – Guide to Purchasing an EV Charging Station Exhibit B – Minimum impact design standards (MIDS) for storm water management Exhibit A Example of Microgrid Infrastructure The building and site described below is 100% powered by microgrid infrastructure: Natural gas turbines: 600kW Capstone C600 natural gas burning microturbine. Paired with absorption chiller and heat exchanger for CCHP. Microturbine fuels a system simultaneously creating electricity and thermal energy for heating and cooling. Solar: 150kW rooftop solar array, with additional expansion array planned Wind: 24kW of vertical axis wind turbines Electricity storage: 231kWh, at 125kW Ensync battery rated power and energy Generator: 1500kW of diesel backup generator Utility connection: Connected to local utility Xcel Energy Exhibit B Guide to Purchasing an EV Charging Station (attached separately) Exhibit C Minimal impact design standards (MIDS) for storm water management Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) were developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to minimize storm water runoff and pollution and thereby help maintain natural resources health. They are a prerequisite for and guide the selection of best management practices required for each individual site. They must be applied in a way to mimic each site's natural hydrology and protect features such as riparian buffers, wetlands, steep slopes, mature/healthy trees, floodplains, woodlands, and highly permeable soils. A. Guiding principles • Maximize water quality improvement • Maximize infiltration • Minimize impervious surfaces • Protect natural features • Showcase "keeping the raindrop where it falls" B. Performance goal The performance goal for storm water volume and pollution reduction is to capture and infiltrate 1.1 inches of runoff volume from impervious surfaces on sites without restrictions. Compliance with the performance goals must be verified with modeling or calculating, using the MIDS calculator, P8, WinSLAMM, or other methods. 1. New Development and Redevelopment The performance goal applies to any new or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces. Mill & overlay and other resurfacing activities are not considered full reconstructions. 2. Sites with restrictions All projects should first attempt to fully meet the volume reduction performance goal of 1.1 inches retention. If the engineer/designer is unable to achieve the full performance goal due to site restrictions as documented, the Flexible Treatment Option Approach shall apply in the order of the sequence outlined below. Examples of site restrictions: • Karst geology • Shallow bedrock • High groundwater • Poor soils (infiltration rates are too low or too high, problematic urban soils) • Hotspots or contaminated soils • Proximity to sanitary sewers a) Alternative 1 • Achieve at least the 0.55 volume goal, and • Remove 75% of the annual total phosphorus load, and • Consider and present as options the merits of relocating project elements to address varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site. b) Alternative 2 Note: For this alternative, higher priority will be given to best management practices that include volume reduction. Secondary preference is to employ filtration techniques, followed by rate control best management practices. • Achieve volume reduction to the maximum extent practicable, and • Remove 75% of the annual total phosphorus load, and • Consider and present as options the merits of relocating project elements to address varying soil conditions and other conditions across the site. Guide to Purchasing an EV Charging Station Purchasing an electric vehicle (EV) charging station can be intimidating, given the wide variety of options. With this guide, you’ll have the information needed to take steps toward purchasing a station, including common station features to consider, where to buy, and funding opportunities. COMMON STATION FEATURES The most basic charging station is a Level 2, or dumb charger, that lacks data tracking, payment collection abilities, and numerous other features, and is less expensive (~$400; unit only). Smart chargers offer a variety of features and come at an additional cost (~$600-700 for residential application Level 2; $1,000-$2,000 for commercial grade Level 2). The third option is a DC fast charger, which can cost $40,000 for the unit. Advertising Capabilities Generate additional revenue by using the display screen for third-party ads.Some Some Beacon Light Increase visibility at the station, especially at night; reduce vandalism.Some Some Access Management Control use through apps, radio frequency identification, or other hardware and software features.Some X X App-Based Payments Accept payment via a network-specific app. Less expensive than installing a credit card swipe but requires a network membership to operate. X X Credit Card Swipe/ Chip Reader Accept payment via a credit card swipe or chip reader. More expensive to install but does not require a network membership to operate. X X Cloud-Based Software Manage stations remotely to deliver maximum benefit to the electric grid, reduce on-site electricity costs, and provide energy at a low cost to EV drivers. X X X Docking Connector Prevent accidental disconnection during charging; power down the station when not in use or improperly connected to the vehicle. X X X Basic Kilowatt- Hour Monitoring Monitor total energy consumption over a given time period on site.X X X Advanced AC Monitoring Monitor energy usage remotely via an ethernet connection with the ability to create a historical log.X X X Powered by Renewable Energy* Power the station through direct on-site connection (requires smart charger) to solar panels, wind energy, etc. or subscribe to a utility’s renewable energy program. X X X Touchscreen Create an intuitive customer interface.Some Track Use Monitor usage patterns at the station to determine how many EVs are driven/charged and how often. Use this data to calculate fuel savings and emissions reductions. X X X Retractable Cord*Make it easier for users to operate; reduce vandalism or misuse of the cord if not returned to the holster after use.X X FEATURE DESCRIPTION APPLICABILITY Smart Residential Level 2 Commercial Level 2 DC Fast Charger * Not specific to smart chargers. WORKING WITH UTILITIES Large-scale charging installations (i.e., DC fast chargers or many Level 2s) will affect the energy consumed at your site, so you should work closely with your utility throughout the process. Be sure to address questions of cost and electrical load with them to ensure that both parties are aware of energy- and money-saving opportunities along with potential complications. WHERE TO PURCHASE Conduct research before purchasing. Identify the features you’re interested in beforehand to narrow down the choices and remember to ask about network fees, maintenance plans, warranties, and opportunities to reduce operating costs. Charging station companies Level 2 and DCFCs:• ChargePoint (https://www.chargepoint.com)• Greenlots (https://greenlots.com)• Tesla (https://www.tesla.com/charging)• Siemens (https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/energy/low-voltage/components/electric-vehicle--ev-- charging.html)• ZEF Energy (https://www.zefenergy.com) Level 2 only:• eMotorwerks (https://evcharging.enelx.com) Big box stores (Home Depot, Walmart, Costco, etc.) Search online inventories for “EV charger” or “electric vehicle charging station.” State contract State agencies or local units of government can purchase EV charging equipment at a discount through the Minnesota state contract. General information is available here: https://mn.gov/admin/government/purchasing-contracting. Sourcewell Sourcewell is a public agency that takes the guesswork out of procuring charging infrastructure by coordinating contracts with manufacturers. Membership is free and offers several purchasing opportunities. More information is available here: https://www. sourcewell-mn.gov/cooperative-purchasing/how-it-works. FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Minnesota Volkswagen settlement grants: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/apply-grant. Utility rebates: Contact your local utility to see if they provide a rebate for charging stations. They may require you to sign up for special rates, such as time-of-use. Other grants: • Clean Energy Resource Teams seed grants: Offered every two years with requests for proposals issued in odd years; limited to supporting costs for installation: https://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/seedgrants#funding.• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency grants: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/about-mpca/contract-grant-and-loan- opportunities Federal incentives: Check the Alternative Fuels Data Center website for availability at https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/fed_ summary. This document was developed as part of Cities Charging Ahead!, a peer cohort of 28 cities that worked together across Minnesota to explore electric vehicle readiness. Participating cities received technical assistance focused on actions and best practices, based on the GreenStep Cities program, that can accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles. Cities Charging Ahead! was led by the Great Plains Institute and Clean Energy Resource Teams. Funding was provided through the Carolyn Foundation, Energy Foundation, and in partnership with Xcel Energy, which provided resources and support in line with the company’s long-term clean energy plan to electrify transportation. Learn more at driveelectricmn.org/cities-charging-ahead. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos Date: October 23, 2020 To: Environmental Commission From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist Subject: Hauler Responses Update As staff moves forward with drafting the upcoming Recycling and Organics RFP, there has been ongoing correspondence with currently licensed haulers to get input and feedback to help guide specifications within the contract. All currently licensed haulers have been contacted, and the majority have responded. Responses from the second round of hauler meetings are summarized below: Q1. Would you be willing and able to respond to a Recycling RFP to perform both mixed recycling and organics services within the City of Golden Valley? A1. The haulers that responded said yes. Q2. How would pricing be affected if recycling and organics services were combined onto one contract rather than two separate contracts? A2. The general sentiment was that haulers did not see a big difference in pricing whether services were combined into one contract or separate contracts. Either way, recycling and organics materials would be serviced by different trucks heading to different destinations. Many said that one contract might be more efficient for the City and the hauler to manage. Q3. What size carts would you offer for Organics Recycling? Would you be willing to look into options to provide carts that are smaller than 35 gallons for residents? A3. Haulers replied that currently the 35-gallon cart would be the smallest size they could offer in an automated setting. Anything smaller than this size would not be able to be serviced by the hydraulic arm on their trucks and is not practical. Q4. What education would you propose for carts? Do you have the ability to educate with stickers/tags when applicable? A4. All haulers responded that they would label their carts with stickers that outlined what was accepted in organics, and there were varying responses about how contamination would be handled. Responses ranged from tagging the carts with information about the unacceptable materials to sending residents pictures of what contamination had been found in their carts. Q5. Do you have the capacity to make finished compost available to residents within the City of Golden Valley by providing coupons or back-hauling compost from the site? A5. The majority of haulers stated that this could be done, but would have to be through a separate arrangement facilitated between the composting facility, the hauler or City, and a trucking service. Could be a separate line item in contract or separate contract entirely. One hauler stated they already do this via one of their programs and it helps convey the cyclical benefits of organics recycling. All haulers stated that this added service would increase pricing. Q6. What would your plan of action be if residents want to return a cart that was dropped off during the initial roll-out? A6. All haulers said that they have the ability to retrieve and store returned carts. They would make assumptions about the rate of return and build that into their pricing. Some haulers suggested sending out surveys gauging willingness to participate prior to program rollout, or having residents opt in for a cart, to improve efficiency and potentially pricing. Q7. What technology is available to you? I.e. split body trucks, CNG, electric vehicles. A7. Most haulers already had CNG trucks in their fleet and were only purchasing new trucks that were CNG. Some also discussed future purchases of bio-diesel and electric trucks. All haulers stated that they did not deem split body trucks as a viable option due to them filling up at different rates, posing obstacles for compaction and dumping, and different destinations for materials. Q8. If awarded the contract, how long would it take to roll out the program? A8. With purchasing trucks and delivering and distributing carts, the general consensus was approximately 6-9 months. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos Date: October 23, 2020 To: Environmental Commission From: Drew Chirpich, Environmental Specialist Subject: Recycling and Organics RFP Update Over the past year the Environmental Commission has provided input on priorities to consider for the upcoming Recycling and Organics Request for Proposals (RFP). As staff has been drafting the RFP they have incorporated these priorities in the following ways: • In an effort to maximize participation, every resident will be delivered a cart at program roll out, and monthly participation rates will be reported. • To promote education, the contract includes provisions regarding requirements for educational tagging when contamination is found within a bin outlining what contamination was discovered. • In order to reduce the environmental impact of operations, all vehicles operating within the city will need to licensed and submit annual inspection reports to the city. The contract outlines procedures for all spills to be reported to the city immediately and all vehicles will contain spill kits. • Environmental impacts and company commitment to equity will be included in the evaluation criteria with the RFP. • Data regarding vehicle routes will be submitted to the City to ensure efficiency and better understand operational efficiencies. • To better understand the composition of recycling and organics being produced by the City, annual composition studies and monthly tonnage reports are required. The above points are not a comprehensive summary of all sustainability measures that have been incorporated into the contract, but rather an update of previously discussed elements that have been incorporated thus far. In addition to the sustainability measures above, staff is discussing the following items: • Providing organics recycling collection in City-owned 95-gallon organics carts at six park locations. • Organics recycling drop-sites for multi-family residents. • Alternate collection/processing services (other than what’s included in RFP) • Participation eligibility of commercial businesses and institutions. Historically based on volume of recyclable materials being similar to a household and/or proximity to a residential area. • Recycling revenue sharing details. • Code amendment to allow carts stored outside within 5 feet of house/garage/shed and be visible from the street. • Color of carts The RFP is a work in progress, and staff will continue to bring updates to the commission as the document moves toward completion. PROGRAM/PROJECT UPDATES – October 2020 GREENCORPS Member for 2020-2021 service term – Story, the 2020-2021 GreenCorps member, has been working on compiling and organizing update data for the GreenStep cities program in order to get the City to step 5. Other projects have included creating a Green Building Guide with resources for residents and commercial builders looking to construct environmentally-conscious buildings and working to advance city building energy efficiency improvements. RECYCLING Mighty Tidy Day- On October 10th the City hosted its annual clean up event, Mighty Tidy Day. A typical year sees about 500 residents attend and generates ~$10,000 in revenue. This year the event had over 700 participants and generated almost $15,000 in revenue. The associated materials breakdown is attached in the meeting materials. NATURAL RESOURCES Pennsylvania Woods DNR Habitat Grant – The City was selected to receive a habitat grant for areas of the Pennsylvania Woods Nature Area that are outside of the DeCola Ponds B and C Flood Mitigation project boundaries. The project will involve the removal of buckthorn and other invasive species, and the planting and establishment of native vegetation. The contract has been awarded to Landbridge Ecological, and the project is expected to commence late fall 2020. Pollinator Plots – The City is in the process of executing a contract to install two new pollinator plots along Douglas Drive on parcels currently being mowed as turf grass. These locations ranked among the highest by the Commission in its scoring matrix for potential pollinator plots. Staff anticipates these pollinator plots will be prepared this fall or next spring with planting and maintenance to follow. WATER RESOURCES DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Projects The City and Bassett Creek Watershed are beginning to plan and study the next flood mitigation project areas. The SEA School-Wildwood Park area has been identified as having potential for flood storage to benefit properties around DeCola Ponds D, E, and F. A planning level study to understand opportunities and challenges and develop concepts is nearing completion and includes engagement with the community, the school, and nearby stakeholders. The Isaacson Park/Industrial Area is also being looked at for potential future flood storage. The DNR is supportive of the projects in Golden Valley and has requested flood damage reduction funding in the 2020 state bonding bill this legislative session. Attached is a memo outlining the current progress and next steps in this long-term flood mitigation plan. Sweeney Lake Water Quality Improvement The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission’s (BCWMC) Sweeney Lake Water Quality Improvement Project is scheduled to begin Oct 26 and will take up to 5 days, weather dependent. The project includes the application of liquid aluminum sulfate (alum) to the lake’s surface, similar to the process on neighboring Twin Lake in 2015. Residents can expect to see Solitude Lake Management boats and personnel on the lake during application days. The goal of the project is to significantly reduce phosphorus levels, improve water quality, and support a balanced aquatic ecosystem in Sweeney Lake. More information about alum is available here and on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s website. For questions or concerns about the project, please contact BCWMC Administrator Laura Jester at laura.jester@keystonewaters.com or 952-270-1990. Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Study The Bassett Creek Watershed in partnership with the City of Golden Valley is engaging in a feasibility study to look at options for providing water quality treatment and flood storage in the western portion of Medley Park to benefit the local area and protect and improve downstream waters such as Medicine Lake. The study will include community engagement to better understand existing conditions, issues, and needs and to help develop concept plans for consideration this winter. Check out the project webpage for more information and look for an opportunity to engage in a virtual open house and participate in a survey in the next couple weeks. MS4 Stormwater Permit – MPCA announced this week that it plans to release the new 5-year municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit in November. Cities will have about a year to update ordinances, plans, policies, and procedures to maintain compliance with the state permit requirements. If you have questions or comments about the City’s stormwater program, please email Drew Chirpich at dchirpich@goldenvalleymn.gov. CLIMATE ACTION Hennepin County Climate Action Plan – In late summer, Hennepin County staff hosted another listening session with partner entities like cities, watersheds, and park boards and provided a stakeholder survey for additional input. County staff took the information from its internal and external meetings this spring and summer to continue the development of its climate action plan. On September 24, Hennepin County staff briefed the County Board on its proposed goals and strategies and received input and direction from County Board members on how these strategies can translate into budget priorities and investments in the years ahead. Attached for your information is the stakeholder summary document and the slide deck from the County board meeting. Look for more information by the end of 2020. G:\Environmental Commission\Memos Date: October 23, 2020 To: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager From: Eric Eckman, Environmental Resources Supervisor Subject: Update on DeCola Ponds E & F Flood Mitigation Planning In March 2020, City Council approved a planning-level study to update flood models, engage with residents and stakeholders, and develop concept plans for the next phases of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan (also known as the DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Plan) approved in 2016. This plan was developed by the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope and Hennepin County to help address a chronic, intercommunity flooding issue directly impacting dozens of homes and businesses, emergency response, travel, property access, and public and private infrastructure. Prior phases of the plan include the Liberty Crossing Flood Mitigation Project completed in 2016 and the DeCola Ponds B & C Improvement Project completed in 2020. The next two phases, SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Mitigation and Isaacson Park-Industrial Area Flood Mitigation, will focus on the areas around DeCola Ponds D, E, and F by reducing flood levels and flood damages to nearby homes and infrastructure, improving public health and safety, reducing public liability and cost, and preserving economic value by keeping homes and neighborhoods intact. Additional benefits include improving water quality, increasing ecological diversity, developing wildlife habitat for pollinators like bees and butterflies, creating educational opportunities for students at the School of Engineering and Arts (SEA School) and the larger community, and enhancing the active and passive recreation for park users. Please see the attached location map for reference. Planning and preparing for the next phases of the plan demonstrates progress toward construction readiness to help secure MnDNR Flood Damage Reduction Grants (funded by the Legislature through State bonding proceeds). Progress to date • April-June 2020: Engage with residents and stakeholders o Virtual open house to learn more about the project, participate in a survey and interactive map, and share feedback o Meeting with Robbinsdale School District and SEA School representatives • July-August 2020: Develop concept alternatives based on feedback and site conditions • September 2020: Virtual engagement to review concepts and provide comment • October 2020: o Community Input Report updated to include all feedback to date o Staff reviewing feedback and reaching out to those who asked to be contacted o Identify potential flood storage opportunities in the Isaacson Park-Industrial Area o Share information with Open Space and Recreation Commission and Environmental Commission o Draft the final report  Post the report on the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Mitigation webpage  Use what we learn to inform and guide the engineering feasibility study, including adjusting, refining, and further developing the various concepts Next Steps The results of this planning-level study will be used to inform the SEA School-Wildwood Park engineering feasibility study set to begin this fall. The engineering feasibility study will include surveying topography, trees, and utilities, advancing the design of each concept, performing flood modeling, and evaluating each concept alternative for its pros and cons, constructability, cost, and the resulting flood reduction benefit. The feasibility study is being funded by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) as part of its Capital Improvement Program. The BCWMC and its engineer, Barr Engineering, are leading the effort and will work closely with the City and its staff to complete the feasibility study, in consultation with representatives from Robbinsdale School District and the SEA School. There will be more opportunities for public engagement and input this winter as the study progresses and the plans, details, and costs are further refined. The BCWMC is hoping to wrap up the study and consider approval of the final report in Spring 2021. Staff would be happy to provide another update as the feasibility study progresses this winter. If funding to implement the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Mitigation project is received through the MnDNR’s Flood Damage Reduction Program (funded by State bonding proceeds), and the BCWMC authorizes a capital project, the City will need to enter into a grant agreement with the State, a cooperative agreement with the BCWMC, and a professional services agreement for design and construction services in late summer 2021. This would start a final design process that would include additional public engagement and input and lead to construction of a project in 2022. The Isaacson Park-Industrial Area engineering feasibility study is programmed for 2025 in the BCWMC CIP. Staff will begin exploring potential opportunities for flood storage in this area once the DeCola Ponds E and F planning study is completed. Financial Or Budget Considerations The BCWMC engineering feasibility study for the SEA School-Wildwood Park Area will have no budget impacts to the City, but will require staff time and resources from the Physical Development and Communications Departments. If a project moves forward and agreements are executed, City staff would manage the project on behalf of the BCWMC and would be reimbursed accordingly, similar to past cooperative projects. The City’s Proposed 2021-2030 CIP lays out the following funding split for the SEA School- Wildwood Park Flood Mitigation project: $1.35M State $1.30M BCWMC Up to $300,000 Hennepin County (through funds contributed as part of the Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan) Up to $60,000 City Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the study, the proposed capital projects, or the long-term flood mitigation plan. September 2020 Summary of feedback Proposed Hennepin County climate action strategies focused on external partnership and greater coordination Hennepin County developed a series of strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to wetter and warmer climate. Staff considered priorities that public entity partners and county leaders provided in earlier engagement efforts. Staff teams formed around focus areas (e.g. transportation, natural resources, etc.) and developed more than 200 strategies to address climate change. The strategies were analyzed for similarities between the teams and categorized into themes. One of the themes was external partnership and greater coordination. The 27 strategies identified in this theme were shared with more than 80 public entity partners for their feedback. To facilitate this review, the county hosted an online meeting and a sent survey. We had 38 of participants at the meeting and 11 partners who took the survey. The following is a summary of the feedback we received. This summary is being shared with county staff, public entity partners and county leadership. Foster long-term, integrated planning  Jointly collect and analyze data to track evolving climate vulnerabilities and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.*  Explore partnership models driven by mutual and regionally beneficial climate goals.  Develop and include a climate analysis framework with a lens on health and racial equity.  Plan for resilient and sustainable buildings and infrastructure.  Engage a broad range of stakeholders - public partners, businesses, community organizations, employees, and residents, especially those who will be most impacted by climate change – in understanding the impacts and developing solutions.* Overall, respondents noted strong alignment of these strategies with their organizational goals and the importance placed on long-term, integrated planning. Some noted a desire to build off of climate vulnerabilities data already collected to use in longitudinal tracking efforts. The Metropolitan Council has localized flooding and extreme heat data and a GHG inventory and scenario planning tool that will be aggregated at the county level for partners to use. One respondent suggested that new tools focus on vulnerabilities and areas to focus adaptation and resilience efforts. *Strategies identified with an asterisk in this summary were ranked in the top 10 list of strategies rated for importance for greater collaboration and partnership by partners that completed the online survey. September 2020 Reduce flooding and manage stormwater  Coordinate regional stormwater resiliency efforts.*  Build stormwater facilities within county right of way as part of capital-improvement projects in opportunistic ways that share costs when achieving both county and city water management goals.*  Dedicate land at time of plat review for climate change mitigation and stormwater facilities.*  Coordinate climate change response actions with partners, avoid exacerbating water quality degradation downstream.*  Seek opportunities for managed retreat in areas most vulnerable to flash flooding e.g. finding opportunity zones with Hennepin County’s tax forfeiture group, city economic development authorities, and local watersheds.* Reducing flooding and managing stormwater is clearly the top priority for public entity partners, with every strategy in this list making it the top 10 list of strategies rated for importance for greater collaboration and partnership. Stormwater management is a core function of local government and is already significantly impacted by climate change. Partners, especially watershed organizations, want to actively pursue and shape a coordinated regional stormwater resiliency effort. One respondent suggested defining issues to ensure concurrence on goals. Efforts to continue to close the gap in planning cycles between water planning and land use planning is supported. Dedicating land at time of plat review for climate change mitigation and stormwater facilities is one option. It was suggested the county could also explore its role in improving coordination across agencies, cities, developers, etc. to take advantage of any land use change that could provide more resiliency. Many respondents noted that additional strategies are needed to address climate hazards beyond stormwater, include groundwater flooding, landslides, etc. They suggested it is important to consider the role of groundwater in localized flooding, particularly during wet periods. This is an area that is challenging for cities. They suggest localized flooding issues would benefit from the county creating a clear role on this issue. Respondents were very interested in further discussions on managed retreat and keeping homes away from flood zones. There is support for identifying the most areas most vulnerable to flooding impacts and prioritizing stormwater management improvements in vulnerable communities. Another respondent liked the opportunity for multiple uses for these properties. For instance, an area could be used for recreation during dry periods and offer flood mitigation during rainy periods. Others suggested more cost sharing efforts to assist residents with flood mitigation as an important a strategy. Respondent mentioned other organizations that could be important to the efforts of greater collaboration to reduce localized flooding, including MnDOT and watershed organizations modeling work for flooding, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District and a greater involvement with Emergency Management staff. September 2020 Reduce vehicle emissions and align transportation activities with climate-friendly community design  Reduce travel delays through Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS).  Promote EV infrastructure regionally by working with electrical utilities to install EV charging stations.  Support increased and more efficient transit usage of county roadways.*  Continue to partner and advocate for the build out of transit (and TOD), bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.  Reassess flexible work schedules and facilitate telecommuting for employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Respondents noted alignment of these strategies with their transportation plans and other plan goals. A number of respondents noted the importance of building out transit and multi-modal options with a goal to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. Some respondents want electric vehicles (EVs) to be seen as a stepping stone, but not be the end goal. Respondents noted efforts already underway with EVs. There is value in working collective on EV infrastructure and one respondent noted the interesting work being done on EVs and equity (cost, access to charging for multifamily buildings, etc.). Other strategies suggested include:  EV education, outreach, and additional incentives for county residents (scrappage incentive for vehicles in areas of high air pollution, grants and low-interest loans to income-qualified households)  Countywide ban on vehicle idling (cars and trucks) rather than patchwork of regulations now in place. Would be beneficial for carbon emissions, air quality and public health. Some cities also note the county’s important role in helping them advance multi-modal plans within their communities because of the county roadway network. Another city mentioned the need to continue with the build out of the planned transit system. Influencing land use  Use land use planning strategies to expand the use of green infrastructure, minimize impervious surfaces, and lower overall vehicle miles traveled.  Consider resiliency and climate change mitigation when determining the highest and best use of areas zoned for development or re-development; use creative zoning, ordinance, taxing, and incentive structures to protect and retain values of natural and open areas, like flood storage.  Expand collaboration on natural resource preservation and habitat improvement through the use of conservation easements and restoration projects. September 2020  Plant more trees and native plants and promote agricultural best management practices to manage stormwater, improve air quality, reduce the urban heat island effect, and expand carbon sequestration. Partners noted alignment of land use strategies with their priorities and an obvious area for collaboration since the county does not have land use authority. Greater coordination is needed to support cities to include these policies and strategies in their codes. Another respondent suggested that the strategies be amended to include improving buffers around key natural areas (climate refuges) and develop corridors between these areas because an integrated planning approach across agencies and organizations is needed to make this happen. Respondents also noted the connection that historical racist land use and housing planning practices, like redlining, have now left communities of color far more vulnerable to rising heat. Suggestions to include strategies to engage communities and prioritize tree plantings and natural resource protection in areas most susceptible to the extreme heat in urban areas were supported. Transition to renewable energy sources and decrease energy usage overall  Achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from new buildings throughout the county.  Become more engaged in developing state Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) benchmarks and strategies, adopting state building code standards, especially in supporting regional initiatives.  Coordinate efforts to achieve minimum energy performance targets for new construction and major renovations on both public and private properties.  Coordinate equitable access to energy-efficiency and renewable energy resources, incentives, outreach, and other tools for residents and businesses. Partners strongly encouraged greater involvement by the county in already existing coordination efforts to advance a statewide Advanced Energy Standard (stretch code) for a building code that would require net zero buildings by 2036. Partners noted that we will not achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals without stronger building codes. Partners also recognized the county’s leadership in Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative that encourages energy benchmarking of buildings and recommended expanding it. Another suggestion was for the county to lead a work group of public facilities and fleet managers who meet to discuss the link between building operations, fleet operations and climate, noting that the people who control buildings and maintain vehicles should be included in climate discussions. Some respondents desire one uniform county-level Green Building Policy that cities could adopt or advocacy for B3 (LEED) standards and protocols above and beyond when state funding comes in for facilities/infrastructure. They suggested these standards need to be common practice. September 2020 Some respondents mentioned changes in the mix of fuels away from fossil fuels. Some would like to see electrification strategies and shifting away from reliance on natural gas. One respondent mentioned more support of nuclear energy. . Mitigate the climate impacts of the materials we consume and how we manage waste  Prevent food waste and diverting organic material from the trash.  Divert construction and demolition waste for reuse or recycling instead.  Evaluate sustainable purchasing best practices and provide guidance on how to reduce climate impacts with all purchases.  Use Life Cycle Analysis for selecting climate-friendly building materials and furnishings.  Increase the use of compost to sequester carbon, regenerate soils, manage stormwater and close the loop with organics recycling. Many respondents support diverting organics from the trash, but also want to make sure the county’s climate action plan reflects the need to increase capacity to manage the increase of organics, either by creating more compost sites or pursuing a digester. Respondents stressed that cities can't undertake serious organics efforts if there isn't anywhere for this material to go. Partners are also interested in capturing biogas because it can help meet both waste and energy goals (and potentially travel goals). Partners also support efforts in diverting construction waste and the use of compost to close the loop with organics recycling. Educate and engage the public in taking collective action  Clearly communicate climate risks and vulnerabilities.*  Understand our residents’ attitudes barriers and motivation toward taking action to address climate change and develop effective programs, messages, and outreach efforts to support collective action.* Many respondents see significant benefits in greater collaboration in engaging and educating the public on climate change. There is a desire to coordinate and communicating how all the different pieces fit together to make an effective climate response that we should all support. Another respondent noted that collaboration on communications is the only way to cut through the noise. Others noted a need to better communicate that individual climate action does make a difference and integrate the racial and economic inequalities of climate impacts into the messages. September 2020 Use the county’s legislative platform to raise a collective voice for climate policy at the state and federal level  Support legislation and policies to further county goals of mitigating the impacts of climate change, protecting and enhancing natural environments, and promoting sustainability in county operations.* Respondents expressed very strong support for more coordination and advocacy on legislative efforts to advance climate work, suggesting a two-prong approach. First, by coordinating with other counties and relevant statewide organizations like Association of Metro Counties and the League of Minnesota Cities and greater coordination to align with the state agencies platform priorities. Second, build a local (countywide) group, such as an advisory committee or task force that would focus on local/county specific policy improvements. No respondents explicitly mentioned a need for coordination on a federal level. One respondent offered a vision for partnership agreements with a complementary push for legislative improvements to facilitate a collective voice to promote these legislative efforts by using MOA/MOU or other tools. Some respondents identify very specific topics they would like to see greater coordination; including:  Waste issues - including clarify state statute, by saying the organized collection language only applies to mixed municipal solid waste and determining whether or not state statute allows haulers/cities to charge an additional fee for organics.  Explicit county support of the chloride limited liability legislation and any other potential legislation that reduces use of deicers.  Collaboration on MN Public Utility Commission’s dockets, such as Xcel's integrated resource plan. Exploring partnership models driven by mutual and regionally beneficial climate goals Public entity partners continue to report being extremely or very interested in exploring partnership models driven by mutual and regionally beneficial climate goals. This latest set of engagement findings build on previous responses. Strategies with the widest agreement and clearest direction forward include:  Foster long-term, integrated planning, that includes jointly collecting and analyzing data and modeling and with a lens on health and racial equity.  Reduce localize flooding and coordinate regional stormwater resiliency efforts.  Decarbonize transportation and buildings.  Educate and engage the public in taking collective action.  Raise a collective voice for climate policy at the local and state level. Partners support the county in a role of a convener for these strategies and are eager to continue the discussion to explore partnership models driven by mutual climate goals.