[0:02] was a nice dinner like that. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It

[0:06] is now 5:30 and I will call this regular work session of the Burnsville City

[0:11] Council to order. Um, >> it's good to see members of our

[0:16] community present in the council chambers. Welcome everyone.

[0:21] Members of our community and the public are welcome to attend uh also by

[0:27] watching us on Burnsville mn.gov/meings or Comcast channel 16 or 859.

[0:35] The public can also participate through Zoom by joining us at zoom. us/join.

[0:42] More information is available on our meetings web page and in the council

[0:47] agenda packet. This is a work session and we go directly to the items that are

[0:52] on the agenda. So the first item on the agenda is finding um study that uh was

[1:00] done and Garrett Beck, you're on deck.

[1:06] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. I like the way that rhymes. Uh good evening, mayor and

[1:10] council. Uh this evening we are going to talk about a wayfinding study that our

[1:15] team has been up to over the last year or so. Um, you may recall back in June

[1:20] of 2024, uh, the team presented a parks plan, um, which really inventoried and

[1:28] assessed all of our, um, our park amenities within the system. And as part

[1:33] of that process of the presentation, uh, we indicated that evening that we were

[1:37] going to also be completing over a period of time a park wayfinding study

[1:42] as well, which would be part of the park's plan in the future.

[1:47] So just a quick overview. Um a wayfinding study essentially establishes

[1:53] a comprehensive citywide framework for how visitors can navigate our park

[1:57] system. Uh this particular study assessed all 76 of our parks. Uh we used

[2:03] a variety of uh ways to engage our community uh through different events

[2:08] and platforms. And uh the final product [clears throat] will be aligned with

[2:13] Burns sign standards. So the goal of the project uh was

[2:19] strictly related to the community benefits as well. So having a a

[2:23] comprehensive wayfinding plan will improve orientation and navigation for

[2:28] our guests. It promotes accessibility. It increases the awareness of the

[2:32] amenities within the park system. Uh it helps us to effectively communicate to

[2:37] the public. Uh and it supports multimodal access.

[2:43] So, the baseline assessment done by a consultant uh looked at 473 signs in our

[2:50] 76 parks and they determined uh based on their standards that 23 of our parks

[2:55] currently meet uh appropriate wayfinding. Uh they indicated that 149

[3:02] new signs um should be considered and I'll talk about uh those signs later on

[3:08] in the presentation here. They also propo proposed that we remove 44 signs

[3:13] um with uh 89 signs currently being in condition one and two. And I'll just

[3:19] share right now uh part of our uh process over the last few years and into

[3:24] the to the near future is that we're working to [snorts]

[3:27] um replace condition one and two amenities. Uh the reason why there's

[3:31] still 89 out there for signs is that we wanted to complete the wayfinding study

[3:36] first. We didn't want to be replacing uh signs that are condition one and two

[3:39] only to determine that they might be one of the 44. So, uh now that this study is

[3:44] complete, we'll work on um taking care of those signs as well.

[3:49] I talked about community engagement. Um we did eight on-site park intercepts.

[3:53] So, that's really just um the team going out to a park, setting up a table and a

[3:58] tent, uh sharing uh what's going on for the project, giving people opportunities

[4:03] to communicate in person [cough] about um their ideas and and concerns, and

[4:09] also an opportunity to visit a website and provide more information in a future

[4:13] time if they wanted. Um, we had online uh mapping opportunities, so someone

[4:20] could go on to their park and put a a pinpoint on there and then put a note

[4:24] about um thoughts about wayfinding in a particular area. And then they also uh

[4:30] were present at six of our city events.

[4:36] So [clears throat] from a community engagement uh feedback process uh we

[4:41] heard that um there was an opportunity to uh or I shared that there was an

[4:46] online opportunity to request signs in the park system. So people were doing

[4:50] that. Um they felt overall there was a need for clearer more consistent signage

[4:55] and maps in the park. um an opportunity to expand signage for trails and access

[5:00] points and then uh directional signage to specific amenities once you in the

[5:06] park.

[5:09] So, a little bit about the signage family and uh the different types of

[5:14] signs you may see in a park system. So, amenity signs basically distinguish um

[5:20] specific features in a park. So, um, if it's a playground, there's usually a

[5:26] name of a playground and whatnot. Um, the arrival signs are your park

[5:31] entrances. Um, it may be an amenity. For example, in Civic Center Park, we have a

[5:36] skate park, right? So, um, there is a an arrival sign for coming to Civic Center

[5:41] Park, but then when you get to Lion Skate Park, then there's a different

[5:45] amenity sign there. Uh it also includes rules and safety and guidelines for uh

[5:51] the park system. A destination sign highlights a key

[5:56] destination within the park. Uh so for example um there if you're out at Lac

[6:02] Leavon uh there are six ball fields out there and so a destination sign may be

[6:09] uh you're at field A or field B or field E or whatnot. Directional signs provide

[6:15] clear guidance at decision points. So if you're at a uh a road fork or a trail

[6:21] fork, it helps you to to determine what direction you want to go based on what

[6:25] your goal is. And then there are also actual trail and path signs that help

[6:30] you to know uh where you're at on the on the trail and the path and within the

[6:35] park.

[6:38] So [snorts] insights from this um directional signs that guide visitors

[6:42] are severely under represented at only 4.2% of all of our signs. And so what

[6:48] that means at the end of the day is that um people uh should in [clears throat]

[6:54] general have uh are able to find our parks, but once they get inside of our

[6:58] larger parks, uh they may have some difficulty navigating through the park

[7:02] system at that point. So, I talked about um the recommendation

[7:08] for signs that um need to be added to the park system based on uh the proposal

[7:14] and the and the plan. And this is just an example of what um obviously this is

[7:19] not what one of our signs look like at this time, but it gives you an idea that

[7:23] uh if you were at this particular park, uh there's a inside the parking lot,

[7:28] there's an arrow there that says you are here. Um, and then a person can then see

[7:32] based on where they're at when they're looking at the sign, if they want to get

[7:35] over to the fitness, uh, area, uh, what direction they would need to go to, uh,

[7:41] and whatnot. So, if you think about our park system specifically, we have some

[7:46] very large community parks. Um, if you think about Neil Park, for example, uh,

[7:52] there are actually five different major parking lots that you could, uh, go to

[7:57] park to, uh, within Neil Park. So, uh, an example of where a sign like this

[8:03] would be appropriate is that, uh, at each of those five locations where

[8:08] people are coming and parking and getting out and getting ready to use the

[8:12] park. There may also be other situations where there's major forks uh, within a

[8:17] larger park uh, where a sign like this may be appropriate as well.

[8:22] So again, the recommendation uh from the study is to replace or remove 44 of the

[8:28] signs that provide minimal effectiveness to install 149 uh new signs of which a

[8:34] lot of them will look like the the sign that [clears throat] I just mentioned

[8:38] where it's an overview of the park helps people to figure out what amenities are

[8:42] in the park, how are they going to travel to get to those. Um

[8:45] [clears throat] and then thoughtful use of the city's messaging and consistent

[8:50] standards.

[8:53] The implementation process for this would be to finalize our sign standards.

[8:59] Our team will work uh we'll look at the needs of those signs that need to be

[9:04] added, work with our communications department, develop the standards, what

[9:07] the sign will look like, make sure it's consistent with um our sign process.

[9:13] We'll then develop a cost estimate and identify a funding plan to pay for those

[9:17] signs and then prioritize by category. In general, uh we will look at our

[9:23] larger parks that have more visitors to try to make sure we get those up to

[9:27] speed uh as quickly as possible and then work our way through uh the neighborhood

[9:32] and and many parks and um finish it off that way.

[9:38] So, I will pause and see if there are any

[9:43] questions or comments. >> Comments for staff,

[9:47] questions, comments. >> I think it's a good idea of the signage

[9:50] that's uh not only for the current residents, but we we have a lot of new

[9:53] residents in this city that are just starting to learn our parks. So, that's

[9:57] going to really help them a lot. >> Agreed. I think this is a a nice thing

[10:04] to have. Um, >> okay. Any other comments? Yep.

[10:10] » I I have noticed visiting other cities that they have some pretty good uh park

[10:14] way finding signs and I have felt a little jealous that we don't um just

[10:20] never was a big huge priority until we did this project or staff did this

[10:25] project and it kind of shined a spotlight on that. Well, when we did the

[10:29] parks analysis, >> that really told a big story about the

[10:35] inventory that we have and the analysis that was done that identified what we

[10:40] needed to invest in. >> Yeah. I think for the most part for the

[10:44] parks that we have, it's a visual thing, right? You see where stuff is at, but

[10:49] sometimes there's parks, you can't see all of the amenities that are there. But

[10:54] um I think there's a lot of good reasons to do this, so I support it.

[10:59] » Yeah. [clears throat] >> My

[11:01] » Yeah. >> My only thought is if we and I know

[11:04] we're not to the design phase yet, but um

[11:10] restrict or reduce the amount of branding. I mean, we obviously can do

[11:13] colors, but if we do logos and stuff, so that way if there is an overhaul, then

[11:17] we're not having to go back through and replace allund and so of those.

[11:25] So it it's been mentioned and and I agree we have a very diverse population

[11:31] here in Burnsville. So in going through and this is page 13 of the plan

[11:38] the symbols need to be ident um defined so people know what those symbols are uh

[11:44] because it might be interpreted one way for somebody and a different way for

[11:50] someone else. So what does the symbols mean?

[11:54] Because people can look at the symbols and some will will understand but some

[12:00] would not. So that's good. The other thing is that

[12:06] I [snorts] just love going through the whole

[12:12] plan. 235 pages by the way.

[12:20] and you had all of the trails marked.

[12:27] I liked that. However, uh down at uh the river park, the

[12:35] riverfront park, the trail that's missing is around

[12:40] [clears throat] Black Dog Lake. If you can take a look at that.

[12:46] » Take a look at that. Yep. >> Yeah. Well, I know that e Excel built

[12:52] that, but it's still within the trail system because when we come around, you

[12:56] can do that. The other thing that I So, when we're

[13:01] when we do the trail map, I think it'll be something that we need

[13:06] to take a look at, but I was interesting. So, Keller, I did not

[13:13] realize that the trail at Keller Lake goes all the way and winds into Apple

[13:19] Valley and circles back into Burnsville.

[13:24] So, I was thinking that maybe on my walks I was into Apple Valley did not

[13:30] know. So, is there going to be signs that say

[13:35] you are leaving Burnsville? [laughter]

[13:38] Because the same thing is in Alamagnet. Because when you take that trail in

[13:44] Alamagnet, when I looked at it, it goes right out into Apple Valley and then

[13:49] curves all the way back. So, but I don't I I didn't know that I was

[13:57] leaving Burnsville and was in Apple Valley.

[14:05] » Thank you. just just some thoughts in when you do the trail. Um because this

[14:11] is I love the fact that you also identified the trail from uh Fiser

[14:19] Park going all the way down to Alam uh to Lac Laban

[14:24] that whole trail. I don't think a lot of people realize that that goes all the

[14:28] way down to Llaban Park. Do you, >> Madam Mayor? I would agree. That's why.

[14:34] Yes. I I think the signs at the different entrances really help those

[14:38] overhead ones really help people to see all the different things. And that's a

[14:41] great example of a park where you you can may not know that those amenities

[14:46] are even there if depending on why you're visiting the park in the first

[14:49] place. And >> the only way I found it was during co

[14:54] » just keep walking. [laughter]

[14:58] Just keep walking. And um

[15:02] so th those were just I was thinking people should know about this because

[15:07] it's a really nice trail and it goes down into Laman and winds around and

[15:15] yeah so yeah then >> well there in addition to enhancing

[15:20] there's maintenance and replacement like the sign at the the dog park bulletin

[15:25] sign is is an absolute embarrassment. and it's in such horrific shape that it

[15:31] really reflects poorly on the city. So, I think some of those things have to be

[15:36] addressed sooner than later. I mean, to me, they're they should be addressed on

[15:40] the front end of this project because they they that's that is a I don't

[15:45] believe how bad that is. >> Well, they're going to get to all of

[15:48] that because that's one and two in in the plan.

[15:51] » Yeah. And and then page 34, you have all of the different family of signs for the

[16:00] different >> and we have some really great signs that

[16:02] are really nice. And then we have that one which is

[16:06] » that's the other end of the spectrum. >> Yeah,

[16:08] » the route signs are really nice. I think that'll give the system of what you're

[16:14] looking [clears throat] to to put in place. And then the examples that you

[16:18] have on page 35 is really gives people an an understanding of what it it's

[16:23] going to look like. [clears throat] Yeah. So I I like all these things

[16:29] because it really helps us to understand when we're going to invest in these

[16:33] signs and what it's going to cost. Yeah. But I can't wait now for to see

[16:39] the the trail plan

[16:44] [snorts]

[16:46] because it's this is really good. >> Good.

[16:50] » Good to >> But it really really lets people know

[16:52] where where things are. But I don't know the the folks who live over in

[16:56] Alamagnet. Did you know that you were leaving Burnsville and you were in Apple

[17:01] Valley? we're friends with their

[17:03] » there probably those of us who don't walk that those trails all the time you

[17:10] know cuz I walk I try to walk all over the city so it's not but I looked at it

[17:16] and I said wow that's a lot so

[17:23] we have we share quite a bit with Apple Valley Keller Alamagnet

[17:30] yeah So very good. Anything else? But I think the Terrell system plan, I know

[17:37] we've been working on it because we also work with

[17:41] Dakota County on the Marian

[17:47] talk about the trail sidewalk and all >> it's going on.

[17:55] [snorts] >> It'll come. Yeah,

[17:57] » we I like all the plans you're putting in place.

[18:01] Just curious. Okay. Thank you. Anything else?

[18:07] Those are just my thoughts. >> All right. Thank you, Madam Mayor and

[18:12] council members. Um I am also uh up on this next one, but

[18:18] » Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. No, that's all right.

[18:20] » This is his night. >> Yeah.

[18:22] » Yeah. >> And and so item, too, because you've got

[18:26] all of it. Okay. Yeah. This is the Rose Park land use and picobal project. And

[18:31] Garrett, you're up and so is our deputy city manager in community development

[18:38] director. It's such a long title, >> Jeff Thompson.

[18:44] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, just so people don't get sick of hearing me

[18:47] talk, Jeff's going to help me out along the way here. So, um, uh, this evening

[18:51] [snorts] we're going to take a look at the Rose Park land use and pickle ball

[18:55] project update. Um so you may recall back on October 14th of 2025 at a city

[19:01] council work session um council had the opportunity to review a pickle ball

[19:06] feasibility study uh that informed the possibility of a pickle ball project at

[19:11] uh Alamagnet Cliffn Hollows and Rose Parks.

[19:17] So after a review of the schematic designs and hearing about the community

[19:22] engagement results, council shared a consensus that evening for a preferred

[19:27] location in the order of Rose Park first, followed closely by Clifton Park

[19:33] and then Alamagnet and Hollows.

[19:37] So council direction that evening was that staff continue the development of a

[19:42] pickleball facility at Rose Park by continuing negotiations for a land use

[19:46] agreement for Rose Park with the owners of that property which is RTX/Collins

[19:52] Aerospace.

[19:57] So, um, mayor and council, you'll recall, um, as part of the feasibility

[20:01] study as we were exploring, um, the opportunities for the pickle ball

[20:03] project across the entire park system, um, one park that was identified, um, as

[20:08] a potential is Rose Park, um, which we talked about in October. And as part of

[20:12] the feasibility, we um wanted to explore the park, but recognizing that there's a

[20:16] unique agreement on that park and that we don't own it, but there's a long-term

[20:19] lease uh that the city has had for the for the use of that land um for a park.

[20:25] So, we had engaged Collins um in conversations as part of the feasibility

[20:28] study uh just to to see if it was something that we could continue to

[20:31] explore and bring forward for the council for consideration.

[20:35] um at that October work session. Um this is information that we we talked about

[20:39] which is um RTX and Collins were were open to a potential uh partnership for

[20:45] potentially constructing the pickleball courts um on that land. Um and we had

[20:50] had very early and high level conversations with them about what a

[20:54] land agreement for that uh could look like and they had kind of framed three

[21:00] larger um options for the city for potential future consideration. Um at

[21:04] the time that was um the three options they had uh framed for us were extending

[21:09] the existing ground lease for an additional 20 years uh to allow for the

[21:12] construction of the of the of the project. The other two options were

[21:16] extending the lease for a shorter duration and that's like a a three-year

[21:20] duration um with the with the option for the city to purchase the land after that

[21:24] three-year lease and then um an option to sell the land uh to the city um uh uh

[21:32] for the project to proceed. So those were the again we didn't have in October

[21:36] any specific terms for um for response or or information to to be able to

[21:40] respond to it but those were the three high level options that had been

[21:43] provided and there was a a question that they had asked of us which was whether

[21:48] the the property could be considered taxexempt um for uh property tax

[21:52] purposes uh because uh it is currently and has been previously

[21:58] um classified by the county assessor as industrial land vacant industrial land

[22:02] and taxed at the full market value of of of industrial land.

[22:07] So those were the that was the information. Again, this isn't new. This

[22:10] is what we had talked about at that October work session before we get in.

[22:13] And then as Garrett said, the direction from the council was for us to continue

[22:17] those ne negotiations with the landowner RTX Collins and bring back specific

[22:21] terms for the council's consideration. Um we'll talk about that, but before I

[22:26] just want to uh just do a little reminder of uh the existing arrangement.

[22:29] So as I said, the land is owned by Collins RTX. Um, it is, um, the original

[22:34] lease agreement for the park was was developed in or was signed by the city

[22:37] in the parties in 1992 when the park was developed. It was a dollar lease for a

[22:42] 20-year period and allowed us to build the park amenities that are largely out

[22:46] there today, the the ball field um, and the the soccer field. Um, and as I said,

[22:51] that was a 20 year originally a 20-year lease. Um, there have been two

[22:55] amendments since that original lease. a lease in a first amendment in 2010 and

[22:59] then a second amendment in April of 2019.

[23:03] » Yes. >> So the you know the the gerine um points

[23:07] of the existing ground lease term is the the current lease uh runs through

[23:11] September of 2032 for the portion of the park that is the property that is used

[23:15] as a park. There's a portion of the property that is uh that Collins

[23:20] constructed an employee parking lot on and that area is not included in in the

[23:24] lease agreement because the original 20-year lease term

[23:28] has has um has expired. Um there is no long um they are no longer responsible

[23:35] for compensating the city if if they terminate it. But either party does have

[23:39] the ability to terminate that existing lease agreement with a 180day or or

[23:43] six-month notice to to either party. But as I said, because that original buyout

[23:48] clause from the original lease has is has expired, Akones wouldn't be

[23:52] responsible for for paying us should they terminate that lease um early um

[23:55] that's allowed under the lease agreement.

[24:00] So, uh first I just talk a little bit about the property tax exemption

[24:03] conversations that we've had. um for information, [clears throat] the the

[24:06] Dakota County Assessor is ultimately the agency that determines and sets um the

[24:11] property tax classification and the property tax valuation for all

[24:14] properties in Burnsville. Um and so we facilitated convers since the October

[24:20] work session, we facilitated conversations with the Dakota County

[24:23] Assessor. Um and initially the those conversations um the assessor indicated

[24:29] that based on their review of this the statute and the guidance provided by the

[24:33] department of revenue the the unique agreement we have uh did not qualify the

[24:37] property for tax exemption which is why that determination had been made over

[24:41] the years to tax it as the industrial land value.

[24:45] We did then uh just reach out to the department of revenue um the state

[24:49] agency that oversees it and um ultimately they provided some guidance

[24:54] documents to the city for a um comparable situation in a different

[24:58] county in Minnesota which said that a an agreement such as a ground lease for a

[25:04] for potentially exempt use could be classified um as taxexempt.

[25:09] So, the city provided that um guidance document provided from the department of

[25:14] revenue as well as the copy of our lease agreement uh for the property to uh the

[25:19] Dakota County Assessor. Um they reviewed all of that and ultimately um made a

[25:24] decision that [clears throat] the city's leased portion of the property um will

[25:29] be exempt from properties taxes starting in uh 2027. So, as you know, the the the

[25:35] property tax system works that essentially the the values that are the

[25:39] the classification values that ultimately determine tax year tax uh

[25:43] your property taxes are determined the year ahead of the payable tax year. And

[25:47] so, um ultimately it becomes effective uh next year in 2027.

[25:53] » Jeff, will it spring back when the lease expires then?

[25:57] » Um mayor and council, yeah, I mean ultimately yes. Um, as you can, as it

[26:02] says on the slide, right, any future change, what the the determination that

[26:05] the county assessor made says that if there are any changes to the property

[26:09] use, the improve the improvements or the lease, they they would re re-review that

[26:14] and ultimately determine if it still qualifies for exemption. We would assume

[26:17] if there's not that ground lease in place that qualifies for exemption, um,

[26:20] that prop that property tax exemption would likely go away.

[26:24] Um and the only other caveat is that exemption is only pertains to the

[26:28] portion of the property that we lease for the exempt use for the park. So the

[26:32] area of the park, the area of the property that's used for employee

[26:35] parking uh would remain taxable uh for property tax purposes.

[26:42] Just provide a little bit of information what that means. Um, so in 2026,

[26:47] uh, the total property val the total pro, uh, property taxes on the property

[26:52] for the full valuation is just over $104,000.

[26:56] And that's based on the industrial land value, the taxable market value at full

[27:00] industrial land at uh, uh, over $3.5 million. The 20 26 amount for the city's

[27:08] portion of those property taxes is $22,488.

[27:14] Since the exemption applies in 2027, um we don't yet know what those 2027

[27:19] property taxes will be. Uh because um all the taxing agencies are currently

[27:23] working through their budgets and levy process. Um but um as part of the normal

[27:27] taxation process, the Dakota County Assessor has released the proposed

[27:31] taxable market value for the property reflecting those changes of the

[27:34] exemption for the city's uh ground lease area and reduced the the overall taxable

[27:40] market value of the property from to to $558,000.

[27:43] So there's a year gap in there, but you can see the overall reduction is about

[27:47] $3 million in in total property tax um taxable market value for for property

[27:52] tax purposes. And again, that's independent of the city's lease um

[27:56] negotiations with RTX Collins. This is um a determination the county assessor

[28:00] has already made and implemented u based on that department of revenue guidance

[28:04] and the city's existing lease.

[28:09] So, um the original um options that Collins had uh we had talked to Collins

[28:14] about ultimately they gave us a specific lease term proposal for one of those

[28:18] options. Um and so I just want to walk through what the the framework of those

[28:21] terms are. Um that would be a 20-year lease

[28:25] extension uh to the existing lease um with an annual initial annual rent of

[28:30] $90,000 per year with a um annual rent escalation for essentially inflationary

[28:36] purposes of 2 and a.5% annually. So that the 90,000 would be uh at the first year

[28:42] and then it would uh increase 2 and a half% uh each year for the 20-year

[28:46] terms. the the lease extension would be

[28:50] premised on the the land being prop the land that the city is owning being

[28:54] property tax exempt. Um and should uh that if should the county assessor make

[29:00] a different determination uh the annual rent would be adjusted under the lease

[29:03] terms to fully account for um the city's portion of the property tax uh

[29:07] liability. Now, we don't expect that, right? Because of the guidance we've

[29:11] received um um and the ground lease qualifying for exemption, we wouldn't

[29:15] expect that. But it were it was terms that um that Collins and RTX provided in

[29:19] the lease agreement. Uh should that change based on the the the the clause

[29:23] that the county assessor said which said they could re-review it if there is a

[29:27] change. >> So toward the end of this lease it'd be

[29:29] about 140,000 a year. >> Yeah.

[29:33] [snorts] >> Two and a half%

[29:34] » 22. >> Correct. Correct.

[29:37] » Thank you.

[29:43] The um we also had a lot of conversations um with RTX and Collins

[29:47] about the termination clause um recognizing that um the city is making a

[29:51] substantial investment in this property and under a lease term for building an

[29:55] asset on land we don't own um there is a risk to the city um that if there's a if

[30:00] RTX Collins has the ability to terminate the lease um it would result in the city

[30:04] having built improvements um that would no longer be available to us. Um the

[30:09] terms that they have given us is that um very similar terms to the original 1992

[30:15] lease which is essentially um either party may terminate uh the lease with a

[30:20] 12-month notice within that 20-year term. Uh either party could terminate

[30:24] the lease with a 12-month written notice. Um if RTX terminates it, there

[30:28] would be a simple depreciation clause which essentially says uh we were using

[30:32] for planning purposes a million dollars of planned capital investment the city

[30:36] would make that that amount of of total project investment would be depreciated

[30:40] over the 20-year term of the lease such that the the termination payment would

[30:43] would decline by uh $50,000 per year. So, in, you know, in year one, we'd get

[30:49] 900. At the end of year one, we'd get $950,000, and by year 19, uh, we would

[30:54] only receive $50,000 in payment. And then at the end of the lease, there

[30:58] would be no compensation for the city's capital investment.

[31:02] » Question. >> Yes.

[31:04] » What's our normal depreciation of an asset like that?

[31:10] we have to basically go in and completely overhaul it because right I

[31:14] mean is 20 years the time where we would have to go in and spend a lot of money

[31:18] to rehab the whole facility to make it you know maintain it well

[31:23] » council member Keely yes um with tennis courts pickleball courts there is uh

[31:28] ongoing maintenance about every 5 years that you want to do for uh crack sealing

[31:32] and resurfacing but um the general life expectancy of a cord is right around

[31:38] that 20 year period. Fencing can last a little bit longer. Um, so can lighting

[31:43] systems, but >> sure,

[31:45] » if you're looking at the the actual court process itself, that's that's the

[31:48] general time period. >> This is a logical depreciation [snorts]

[31:51] schedule at 50,000 a year over the 20 years. So, if they were to cancel after

[31:56] 10 years, we would get half a million, right? But they would also have um the

[32:02] costs that we would normally bear if we kept it. They would have the costs of

[32:06] maintaining it, eventually replacing it. So, it's just how assets work with end

[32:11] of depreciation. >> Okay. Cara,

[32:15] » would they maintain the pickle ball court? I mean, I would assume if they

[32:19] take the lease back, it would be to take the pickle ball court out

[32:23] » to do something that they wish to do like a building or a parking lot or or

[32:28] something like that. Um, >> so there is depreciation of the built

[32:34] asset. Um, but what we don't get back is the money that we put into it to

[32:42] get everything prepared and the water management and all that kind of stuff.

[32:47] Um, which you put that money into it and then after 20 years if you need to redo

[32:52] the court, you're redoing the court, but you're not having to redo the site prep

[32:57] and the um like water management, that type of

[33:02] thing. So, do

[33:06] we have a breakdown of what that is? Like how much are we putting into it

[33:10] that would not be the actual pickle ball court? [snorts]

[33:17] Uh there there just one comment. So, we asked when we were talking to to Collins

[33:23] Aerospace RTX about this, it was a depreciation of all of the investment

[33:28] that went into it, not just the specific amount that went into the pickle ball

[33:31] court. So there's some >> parking lot spaces, there's lights,

[33:35] there's the court, there's the um the wetland management type things. It it

[33:40] was the total package. So it'd be depreciation of if as council member

[33:45] Keley mentioned if we let's say it for round numbers it was a million dollar if

[33:50] after 10 years they would give us $500,000 back because that was the cost

[33:54] of the total project. >> Okay, I get that. But okay, so say say

[34:00] we have to do redo redo the pickle ball court 20 years and they're like yes we

[34:03] would like to give you a lease again, right? Um do we have to pay for site

[34:09] prep all over again and water management and those costs again?

[34:13] » We would not at that point. >> Okay. So it would just be rebuilding the

[34:16] pickle ball court. So the difference I'm asking is how much of what we have to do

[34:22] is prepping the site and how much is pickle ball court because even with the

[34:28] depreciation say they boot us off in 10 years and we get the depreciation on the

[34:32] on the total amount right that still is like we have to 100% site prep somewhere

[34:40] else. So that's a cost that we incur that we would not have to incur again if

[34:47] we were able to rebuild on a spot. >> Does that am I asking the right

[34:53] question? >> Well, [snorts]

[34:55] » in the right way, I should say. >> Yes. Mayor and council again at a at a

[35:00] planning level budget perspective. Yes. I I would agree that the um if we look

[35:06] out 20 years, the cost of um rehabbing the courts in place in their current

[35:12] location would be less than >> constructing courts, you know, removing

[35:17] the courts and or then building an entirely new pickle ball project on a

[35:22] different park location and going through all of the

[35:25] » planning and design and uh total site construction costs. we would assume

[35:29] those would still be higher than than being able to replace the asset in

[35:32] place. >> Yeah,

[35:33] » we don't we don't have a breakdown of what those dollars are because there's

[35:35] also 20 years of construction inflation that we can't fully um hedge for. But

[35:40] yes, we would from a planning level perspective assume the a new project

[35:44] cost would be higher in 20 years than a project that's replacing the courts in

[35:47] place. How much is it like because we can't say 20 years from now, but like

[35:52] looking at today, is there a percentage?

[35:57] I would have to go back and look at the October

[36:02] um presentation. I I believe we had I I know we had an opinion of probable costs

[36:07] and it was broken down by line item. >> Uh there were I want to say 25 to 30

[36:13] line items in there that made up the million dollars. So, I unfortunately,

[36:18] um, Council Member Scholes, I don't have I I can't tell you.

[36:22] » My estimate right now on the spot, if I had to say it's going, that would be

[36:26] about $750,000 of the project would be courts and lights and fencing and things

[36:31] like that. But the courts themselves, >> but we still $90,000 a year.

[36:36] » You're going to have $2 million in lease payments by the time this is done.

[36:40] » $90,000 a year for >> You pay a dollar right now for the same

[36:43] amount of time. >> Yeah. And I'm trying to remember off the

[36:46] top of my head when we renovated courts at

[36:52] um North River Hills, for example, that was in the neighborhood of $300,000 for

[36:58] an onsite location. If that's helpful. >> That is. Thank you.

[37:02] » Just the courts, right? So, and the fencing, but

[37:06] » we already had the lights in place, so >> Right. Right. Yeah. Okay. Yep.

[37:10] » I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Okay.

[37:12] » Okay. >> Yeah. I just want to pick up on what uh

[37:16] Council Member Gerson said. I mean, we're talking about the cost of the

[37:20] investment and what it looks like if either party gets out, which we probably

[37:24] wouldn't, but they might, right? You never know. Um company could get sold

[37:28] again and a new direction and they want to use the property. Um but

[37:34] maybe the bigger concern is $90,000 a year.

[37:38] » $9,000 cost. Right now, we'd pay >> escalates. Yeah. And it escalates. I

[37:42] mean it's >> that's a very

[37:45] » that's for me >> that's a very bad deal for the city

[37:47] » for me that's the >> right

[37:50] » that's the cost >> y

[37:53] » right now it was $1 >> 90,000 is

[37:59] and we have a plan moving forward so would you continue please with

[38:04] » and just mayor and council to quantify that cost you're looking at over $2

[38:09] million >> over the 20 years

[38:12] for that cost of just simply using the land,

[38:15] » right? >> Um, council member Schultz, to your

[38:17] question, I'm trying to pull up just comparable what we have in terms of

[38:21] replacement value for um, uh, ro the rose park complex in our parks plan. I'm

[38:26] still trying to find it. If I if I do, I'll let you know what that number is.

[38:30] » Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Yeah, but please proceed.

[38:36] So, council members, in addition to uh getting new information from RTX and

[38:40] Collins about a potential land uh lease, uh we also learned on April 3rd from BV

[38:47] United, uh which is the soccer club that provides recreational and travel

[38:52] opportunities uh for soccer for Burns residents and others. But uh a lot of

[38:57] Burns residents uh who choose to participate uh announced that they had

[39:02] an intent to dissolve as an organization effective at the end of this month. Um

[39:08] in August 2026 um and I did have a conversation with uh

[39:14] the president of the Burns Athletic Club just to affirm this. Um the Burns

[39:20] Athletic Club intends to take over the recreational

[39:24] um side of providing soccer opportunities for Bernzo residents. So

[39:31] um during that conversation, we also just talked about um if they had a plan

[39:36] on potential sites that they would be interested in and um Carrie indicated

[39:41] during that conversation [snorts] that uh she did not foresee Cliff N

[39:45] being one of the sites that they would like to use. um which was um at a

[39:50] location that uh the that BV United had been using pretty heavily um throughout

[39:57] their existence. So uh nonetheless uh what this means is that um just because

[40:03] of soccer decline in Burnernzo and the fact that that organization cannot um

[40:08] does not wish to continue uh we will have a change in uh the field use uh

[40:14] requests that we receive um which will free up some additional fields um for at

[40:21] a location as we'll talk about like Cliff End that had been heavily

[40:24] programmed for soccer in the past. So, um,

[40:30] for this next section of the presentation, we have the four

[40:34] locations, uh, based on the order that council had, uh, indicated back on

[40:39] October 15th of 2025. And what you're seeing uh, the rest of

[40:45] this way is really uh, design, schematic design, uh, statistics, things like that

[40:50] that were reflective uh, and true at the time of the October 15th. uh set another

[40:55] way. Things have not been updated for uh just for this presentation or anything

[41:00] like that. So, this site we're looking at here is Rose Park. Um some of the

[41:06] things we talked about that evening were that there'd be a proposal to add an

[41:10] additional 14 stalls at this location. It would have minimal impact on existing

[41:15] user groups. Um i.e., Rose Park is heavily used by the travel soccer

[41:21] program. uh but this was an area that was less used and they were more

[41:25] interested in a facility like this going in at Rose Park where they could absorb

[41:30] the impacts of it as opposed to cliff end uh as is what they shared uh prior

[41:35] to the October meeting. Um and from an engagement standpoint there was a strong

[41:40] community support for this particular location.

[41:45] These next two sites are cliff. Um this particular one that you're looking at is

[41:50] the location where uh the ath the soccer club uh had their soccer fields laid out

[41:57] and we're using uh for their programming. Um it was uh again the

[42:02] designs are all similar but in this particular case the parking lot's large

[42:07] enough to to use and we were not proposing additional stalls. However, we

[42:11] did note on really heavy events um there were situations where these parking lots

[42:17] were full and people were having to cross Cliff Road and that was kind of a

[42:21] concern. So, um from an engagement standpoint, um there was low community

[42:27] support for this particular location, specifically by the soccer club,

[42:31] indicating that it would have a negative impact on their program. Council member

[42:37] Gustiffson, I >> I appreciate you going through all these

[42:39] slides on this. Um, >> in my mind, and I don't know where the

[42:43] rest of the council is at, I think Rose Park doesn't seem to be a good business

[42:47] decision on our part. >> And now that we're finding out that the

[42:50] soccer is not going to get displaced down at Cliff Finn, I think that almost

[42:54] seems like the natural spot for it to move to gravitate to. And I think we

[42:57] could kind of cut to that chase a little bit quicker if we

[43:01] » And you've already assign talked to the club and there's North River Hills which

[43:06] is a big soccer park. So let's move it along.

[43:12] » Uh let's delay that. Um because while I

[43:20] » I appreciate that we're like sitting here and we've we've seen these and been

[43:25] able to look at them. uh our residents really haven't and that's what this is

[43:32] for is so that our residents can hear this. So I I get that we're like

[43:39] » come on move it along but >> this is for residents and I I

[43:45] » if you can go back and and because the history's been there and you've already

[43:50] had engagement with a lot of the interested parties on all of this. So,

[43:58] » do we not want our residents to hear the presentation?

[44:02] » Uh, well, they saw this presentation last year. But if you want to go through

[44:09] » I'll go faster. >> Yeah. And then of course all of the the

[44:13] history of once you understood where things were with the United Soccer Club,

[44:20] who have you talked with and what was their feedback to you?

[44:26] because you've talked to a lot of interested parties from what I

[44:29] understand. >> I'll try to I'll speed up the process

[44:33] here. Um this was the location with that would have displaced the volleyball

[44:37] courts. The rest of the information that I shared about the soccer location

[44:40] remains the same. Uh here's a look at Alamagnet Park with a proposal of 18

[44:45] spots. There was no displacement of users, but it had low community support.

[44:50] And here's was Hollows Park which would have displaced a uh a ball field by the

[44:55] BAC had new parking constructed and new on street parking required. It had

[45:01] moderate community support. So with that said again I mentioned on October 15th

[45:07] uh that these numbers were opinions of probable cost related to construction at

[45:11] each of the locations. Um Alamagnet uh Rose Park was the cheapest. Um, cliffn

[45:19] uh was also the cheapest on the soccer fields. Uh, the volleyball courts were

[45:24] more because of the need to add additional wetland um because we had to

[45:28] fill in some wetland followed by Alamagnet and then Hollowos Park was

[45:32] going to be the most expensive because of the parking lot needs.

[45:37] So, uh, from a timeline standpoint, uh, based on decisions from council tonight,

[45:43] if, uh, we determine there is a location that you would like staff to proceed

[45:47] with on the project, uh, we would look to engage, uh, the park neighbors at

[45:52] whatever the location was. Um, and we still have our consultant that we've

[45:56] been using that we could, uh, be working on survey and site design prep during

[46:01] that time while we were doing engagement. Um, and then, uh, after that

[46:05] was complete, we would be looking to do the actual site design, develop the bids

[46:10] and specs where we could actually bid the project in January through February

[46:15] of next year with a goal to build it uh, and through the spring and summer based

[46:20] on the uh, preferred contractor chosen schedule and the Minnesota weather.

[46:27] So, that takes me to the last slide uh, for policy consideration. Does the city

[46:31] council wish to continue with a pickle ball project and if so at which

[46:35] location? >> So I have a question.

[46:39] » So um is there a map of where the pickle ball

[46:45] courts are not just in Burnsville but in our surrounding city? So we can

[46:53] so we can see like is is there a spot that is more

[46:58] pickle ball rich and a spot more pickle ball poor?

[47:05] » Pickle ball desert. >> Yes. Is there a pickle ball desert is

[47:09] what I'm asking. >> Do we have a wide angle view? I think

[47:11] that's a good question to

[47:16] » uh Garrett. Um, [clears throat and cough] madame mayor,

[47:20] uh, members of council, uh, in Burnernzo, we just have the one pickle

[47:25] ball complex that's an official pickle ball complex. There are six courts that

[47:30] are dedicated solely to pickle ball. There is one tennis court that is lined

[47:35] and temporary nets can be put in. >> Um, at Red Oak Park that is on the uh,

[47:42] north east side of Burnsville. There are no other pickle ball courts in

[47:47] Burnsville that are dedicated pickleball courts.

[47:51] » Okay, >> mayor and council, we we do have a a map

[47:54] of where uh we currently have the Rose Park uh pickle ball

[47:59] » Red Oak Park. >> Red Oak, I'm sorry. I

[48:03] » I apologize. uh in Burnsville and uh a map that shows the so if we don't have

[48:08] it in the presentation I think Bethany can bring it up but a map that then

[48:12] shows the uh six neighboring communities and where their public dedicated pickle

[48:17] ball facilities are. >> Thank you because yes

[48:21] » right here it's on Google Maps. >> There you go. Y

[48:26] » All right. So where are our three choice? Well, really, we're

[48:32] not going for the most expensive one, so screw that. Um, where are the other two

[48:39] choices [clears throat] at on that map? >> One is on the west side, hollow, but

[48:45] that is real close to a lot of houses. >> I think Hollow is off the table.

[48:49] » Yeah, Hollow's off the table. So, we're looking at Alam Magnet, which would be

[48:54] far south. >> Well, there by the

[48:57] » And we're looking at Cliff Fen. >> Yeah. which

[49:02] » north >> about in north

[49:05] » that's in that north area >> and then the Alamagnet one would be way

[49:10] down southwest but by >> 2011 southeast

[49:14] » yeah sorry southeast >> north of 42

[49:17] » north of 40 yeah >> oh

[49:20] okay >> like the ashaped lake

[49:23] » yeah exactly east of there >> got it to the border

[49:28] so they'll both be both on the east side where Clifton Pen is in the central

[49:33] north.

[49:38] » And then you got Savage Community Park on the west side.

[49:41] » And again, to be to be clear, this is just simply public dedicated.

[49:46] » Yeah. >> Uh pickle ball facilities. So there are

[49:49] many other multi-striped, multi-use courts, as an example, both in

[49:53] Burnsville and in our surrounding communities. So, this is just focused on

[49:57] dedicated. >> And there's some privately owned for

[50:01] rent. >> Yeah.

[50:02] » Pickle ball. Like I know there's one in Lakeville that

[50:04] » Yeah. >> And they're indoors at a shopping center

[50:08] » year round.

[50:13] » I wish we had I wish we had those two spots marked on that map. That would be

[50:17] » helpful. We can update it. One of the decisions that we made back in 2025,

[50:23] Garrett, was to say if Rose Park didn't do you want to go through that again? I

[50:30] mean, the decision that was made back in 2025 that if Rose Park wasn't the second

[50:36] choice was cliff >> 2025 already.

[50:40] This is 26. I'm looking at the background as well.

[50:44] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, Madame Mayor, if I'm answering

[50:47] your question correctly, I I believe when council was discussing the project

[50:51] that evening, um, there was a consensus that uh, Rose Park that council would

[50:59] like staff to talk to Collins and RTX about the possibility of Rose Park.

[51:04] » Um, there was also some support that evening. um more than one council member

[51:10] had support for cliffn park as a as kind of a 1a slash two um and then there was

[51:17] various opinions about hollows and alam magagnet that evening. So um from that

[51:23] conversation we did have the discussions and uh also with the new information um

[51:29] have presented that tonight about cliffn.

[51:33] Okay, members of the council, the question, the policy question before us

[51:37] is that do we proceed with

[51:42] what is presented that Rose Park

[51:48] is I said it's prohibitive. I believe 90,000 from one

[51:54] » Yeah. >> from one $1 to 90,000 is prohibitive to

[51:58] go to 90,000 a year. And yet we do have to build it also. So

[52:06] » shall we say Rose Park is off the table? >> Yes,

[52:09] » agreed. Yes. >> Okay. Very good. So Cliff Fen is the

[52:13] next and you have already talked to all of the

[52:18] soccer players at Cliff Penn and then moving some of that those courts over to

[52:26] North River Hills. Madame Mayor, yes, I have had

[52:30] discussions with the president of the BAC. They are planning to do

[52:33] recreational soccer and uh from our conversation, she indicated that they do

[52:38] not plan to use Cliff End Park as part of that process. Uh they are still

[52:42] putting their plan together. It will involve uh some of our neighboring

[52:46] communities and um but she assured me that at the time of our conversation,

[52:52] Clifen was not a location they were planning to use.

[52:54] » Okay. So Cliff F then is the next best here that we have on the

[53:00] table council. >> So my opposition to Cliff Fen at the

[53:04] time was the disruption of soccer. Um so with this new information I've softened

[53:10] up on that location. Um,

[53:14] I do want to call attention to the fact that this is closer to a wildlife refuge

[53:20] that has sensitive breeding grounds for eagles and other birds. And I know that

[53:26] that was a pretty significant talking point in opposition to Al Magnet. And

[53:31] so, um, I just want us to be consistent here that if this is to go forward with

[53:37] Cliff Fen, that this could potentially have more disruption here, um, as it

[53:42] relates to that specific item than it would at Al Magnet.

[53:48] » Okay. Any other thoughts, Tara? So in the

[53:56] survey that we did in mid July,

[54:04] um let's see.

[54:09] Do you have that on in the presentation or No, I don't think

[54:15] so. Um so the

[54:21] All right. So, we're we're down to Ella Magnet and Cliff Fen. And in the would

[54:26] you like to see a pickle ball complex at your park?

[54:31] It was fairly comparable. Um 34% said yes to Alamagnet,

[54:38] 28% said Cliff Fen yes. Um which other park would you most like

[54:46] to see? And they could do multiple choice. Um, Alam Magagnet had 80. Cliff

[54:52] Ven had 62. Hollows Park had 89. So, Hollow's Park actually

[55:00] was very high on that one. Rose Park was the highest, but she's gone. Um,

[55:12] and then are the current parking conditions suitable?

[55:16] Ala Magnet was 54% said yes. Cliff Fen was 33% yes. Hollows Hollow Park was 29%

[55:26] yes. So that was not good. Um I'm actually good with either

[55:34] » What about votes for opposed? Well, I think one of the things that was very

[55:40] critical was close to residence was a critical item on and when we

[55:47] looked at at Cliff Finn because it was all industrial all around that was like

[55:55] Rose Park where you have industry all around so you wouldn't be um affecting

[56:02] residents. Yeah, that's definitely a benefit of that park for sure.

[56:06] » Cliffn and Cliff fin had soccer in it in the mix at that time of the survey as

[56:10] well. So, >> correct. Correct. Um, but it's changed

[56:14] now and so it appears to me that >> the BCA is saying, "Yeah, we're going to

[56:20] move everything." And because North River Hills is really a beautiful soccer

[56:24] complex, >> really beautiful.

[56:30] So, >> so could you pop up that map again so

[56:33] that we can put the P like just put a little spot to where that would be

[56:39] » very close to Red Oak. >> Yeah. Well, you can take a look at

[56:44] » Cliff >> what you had showed before on the little

[56:47] crosshairs >> because there's all industry all around.

[56:51] » Right. But we're we're looking at like where is it in relation to the to the

[56:54] others. Okay. So, that crosshair would be which is pretty good. um where Cliff

[56:59] Hen Fen would be and then Alamagnet would be about go so so so so so

[57:08] right in there. So again, pretty good for not being directly by

[57:18] another another um public pickle ball court.

[57:24] So I I think they're both good. I don't I don't think we can go wrong either way

[57:29] at this point. >> The one thing that I would say with

[57:33] Cliff and why I really liked it is because it's all industry around and

[57:37] it's not going to have uh a residential impact.

[57:44] » Well, I mean, we have [laughter] we already have ball courts

[57:52] at Alam Magnet. Like there's already ball courts there. So, like I I

[57:57] understand what you're saying, but that that would be totally correct if there

[58:01] were not >> other ball courts already there.

[58:05] » Yeah. But there's a difference between

[58:10] base softball, baseball, and over at Alam Magnant

[58:18] than pickle ball and what we experience from residents

[58:24] that have um that live next to Red Oak. >> Oh, and I have one more question,

[58:30] Garrett. For the volleyball courts that are at Cliff Fen, are we looking at

[58:37] perhaps moving those anyway >> because they're on the other side?

[58:40] » No, this is just an council member Schultz. Um there there would be no plan

[58:46] to replace those volleyball courts unless we chose that as the location.

[58:52] And then we talked back on October 15th of 2025 that if we did do that, it might

[58:59] make sense to put it at a Crystal Beach or something like that. Right.

[59:02] » Okay. That's Yes. Okay. I wanted to make sure that that was still on discussion

[59:06] that um if we are looking at moving those volleyball courts, Crystal Beach

[59:10] might be a better location for those. So, thank you. Okay.

[59:15] » And Crystal Beach is where they play volleyball right now.

[59:20] » Yeah, >> correct. We we have league play at

[59:22] Cliffn and Alamagnet and and Crystal Beach is

[59:26] » on any nice day. It's there's almost always people out there using that

[59:30] location. >> Yeah,

[59:31] » that is correct. >> It's a pickup.

[59:34] » I'd also like to add I'm also okay not doing pickle ball at all at this point

[59:38] um >> as a viable option.

[59:43] » I understand. So the thing is the question the policy question is council

[59:48] members do we want to continue with the pickle ball project

[59:54] » and do we agree that cliff park is what

[1:00:01] staff should be focusing their attention to

[1:00:07] » when did we when was this originally supposed to break ground like what year

[1:00:12] » 24 I think No, >> like we're three years ago, right?

[1:00:17] » Two or three. Yeah. I mean, goes back that long.

[1:00:19] » I mean, I'm I'm actually kind of with Vince.

[1:00:22] » I mean, it's [clears throat] >> surprisette.

[1:00:26] » It's been three years. from my perspective is the integrity of

[1:00:31] our communication with everybody, the pickle ball

[1:00:37] community as well as the residents and and all of the other stakeholders.

[1:00:44] So

[1:00:48] staff is waiting for us to say do we move on with a pickle ball

[1:00:56] and it's cliff the next. I mean there this had been worked on with staff and

[1:01:03] the communities both the pickle ball community and the soccer

[1:01:09] community. So >> I've already said move on with cliff

[1:01:11] fence. Okay. >> Just waiting for the rest of them to

[1:01:14] figure it out. >> I'm actually uh no for doing it at all

[1:01:18] at this point. It's we're we're way past. So,

[1:01:24] » well, people still [clears throat] [snorts]

[1:01:29] are saying to us that they they would like pickle ball and uh we said that we

[1:01:35] would proceed with a project and have set aside money for it. Dan Keelley.

[1:01:43] » Uh I think there's a an open question on that we should

[1:01:48] address. Do we have any data on what the current trends for usage uh and demand?

[1:01:55] I know I continue to hear people going to other cities that can't get on Red

[1:02:00] Oak, but uh and of course there's private uh providers popping up. my

[1:02:06] couple of my family members go to Lakeville where they can swipe a card,

[1:02:10] get in and play um without any staff being there. It's kind of like a

[1:02:16] self-use gym sort of like but um [clears throat]

[1:02:21] do we have any data, >> Garrett?

[1:02:24] » Uh Council Member Keley, I will reiterate that all of the information

[1:02:28] that we've shared tonight is from our past projects. We have not updated any

[1:02:33] new information on this in regards to community engagement,

[1:02:38] uh, studies on number of people in Bernzo playing, anything like that. So,

[1:02:44] » okay, >> Madame Mayor, I'll I'll I'll share some

[1:02:47] information that just popped up. National trends, younger, faster, and

[1:02:52] dominated by entertainment. The numbers are staggering. According to Sports and

[1:02:55] Fitness Industry Association, the active pickle ball participation hit 24 million

[1:03:00] Americans. Experts project active player numbers to easily clear 27 to 29

[1:03:06] million. The demographics have flipped. The stereotype of pickle ball being for

[1:03:10] seniors is dead. The fastest growing demographic is actual players under 24

[1:03:15] years old >> which is the Gen Z.

[1:03:18] » Today roughly 70% of all players are under 45 and the average player age is

[1:03:23] sitting in the mid-30s. >> [snorts]

[1:03:24] » the top golfificication of the sport. Simply building concrete

[1:03:29] slabs and public parks is no longer enough to meet demand. We're seeing a

[1:03:33] massive wave of private capital flowing into the massive indoor entertainment

[1:03:37] venues, social hubs featuring professionalgrade courts, high-end food,

[1:03:41] craft cocktails, and lounge areas. We're not going to be in that business, but um

[1:03:46] » it >> because that's what the younger crowd

[1:03:48] want. >> Yeah. So, what you're saying that there

[1:03:49] is a demand. >> There is there is still huge demand.

[1:03:53] too. They're looking for a little bit more than just public

[1:03:56] » public courts. They're looking for, you know,

[1:04:01] » what I'm seeing is that Vince, you're saying you don't want to do a a ball.

[1:04:06] » I'm just I'm in different I you know, if the three of if there's three votes to

[1:04:10] move forward with cliff, I'm not going to fight you on it. Um,

[1:04:16] it's just a lot of money to spend on >> Well,

[1:04:23] and Cara, you said you don't want to move forward with the pickle ball.

[1:04:27] » Yeah. I mean, that's that's pretty much where I'm at. I'm not I'm not like

[1:04:31] » not as I'm not I'm not a hard no on this, but I am definitely not a yes on

[1:04:37] this at this point. It >> Okay.

[1:04:42] that the time to do it is like when it's doing the upswing. But yes, now we are

[1:04:48] and I do understand the having public courts because you're not paying to use

[1:04:55] those, right? Um,

[1:05:02] » but man, I'm just not >> I'm not I'm not enthused after after

[1:05:06] after >> after three years of this and it and and

[1:05:09] it's not even going to break ground until what May of 2027.

[1:05:13] » People have been patient with our process. I am trying to be

[1:05:21] to have the integrity because people have been patient with

[1:05:25] our process and we're arrived here at the point

[1:05:29] where Rose Park isn't um a viable option for us anymore but Cliff Fen is

[1:05:37] and Dan Keley you have read an analysis that it's still a high demand and people

[1:05:46] still want to see a pickle ball uh pickle ball courts in Burnsville. So,

[1:05:53] I'm a cliff fan because from the very beginning it was the one that isn't

[1:05:58] close to any resident. It's around uh an industrial area and

[1:06:05] so it's not going to have that impact on people. So, yes,

[1:06:10] » I just there's a sort of a takeaway statement here. Pickle ball is no longer

[1:06:14] just a trend. It's cemented itself as a standard piece of municipal

[1:06:18] » and commercial infrastructure for cold weather states like Minnesota. The next

[1:06:22] phase is growing into highquality indoor access,

[1:06:25] » but that doesn't replace, you know, the sort of the the need for

[1:06:29] » public >> free public courts for those that want

[1:06:32] to play. And it does say it's even though the the growth is in the Gen Z,

[1:06:36] it's still multigenerational. There's still a lot of people

[1:06:40] » uh seniors who still play it. It's kind of um they were the the first

[1:06:44] demographic to really pick up on it. >> Yeah.

[1:06:47] » Um so I I I would say I haven't changed my position. Um I liked Cliff Ven the

[1:06:54] last time we talked about this. I still like Cliff Ven.

[1:06:56] » Okay. >> Um I think it um Vince's point is very

[1:07:01] valid. It's it's a budding a >> Yeah.

[1:07:03] » Uh a nature preserve. It's going to have the same type of negative impact. So,

[1:07:08] both locations have that. Um, it's in an industrial area where I would prefer to

[1:07:14] see it because of the noise. Um, I think, you know, I think I might have

[1:07:18] said this last time, the inventors of the sport didn't really think through

[1:07:23] the ball texture and and uh makeup like >> tennis ball. It's a lot quieter. Well,

[1:07:29] they they could have actually made a ball, but they threw it together and it

[1:07:33] just caught on like wildfire before they could even perfect it. Mhm.

[1:07:36] » So, it is what it is. Unfortunately, it's noisy.

[1:07:39] » So, you're you're >> I'm in favor of moving forward with

[1:07:42] Cliffn. >> Okay. So, um

[1:07:45] » that's very >> There are three three votes to move

[1:07:47] forward with Cliff Fen. >> Okay.

[1:07:53] » Is there anything else that you need from us with regard to the policy

[1:07:57] question? >> Madame Mayor, there is not. uh we have

[1:08:01] direction to continue with the project and to focus on cliffn as the location.

[1:08:05] » Okay. >> And then you can let the pickle ball

[1:08:10] community also know that what what transpired tonight.

[1:08:14] » Yes, madame mayor. We would uh as I mentioned, we would plan to do an

[1:08:19] engagement time period with a popup at Cliff Park. Um do a mailing like we have

[1:08:25] to the neighborhood around there, businesses, uh etc.

[1:08:30] make sure that the Burns Athletic Club was invited to participate um and

[1:08:37] continue to share the information. So, >> okay, thank you very much.

[1:08:42] Okay, now we um move on to round table and

[1:08:48] there is a signed ordinance amendment on a round table and I believe council

[1:08:52] member Keely this is yours. >> Yes.

[1:08:59] Uh, council members and mayor, uh, the primary reason I'm asking for the

[1:09:04] council to consider an amendment to our signed ordinance in uh, in a couple of

[1:09:09] zones, types of zones, is is that the upper facade, high level roof line

[1:09:14] signage for multi-story office and mixeduse buildings has some real

[1:09:19] benefits. And when we talked about this back when we were doing the signage in

[1:09:24] the HO hotc, there [snorts] was one building that came to mind. And I didn't

[1:09:28] think about the second building. Um, and I wondered why they didn't have

[1:09:32] anything. It's a four or five. It's a five-story building because as you drive

[1:09:37] around the Twin Cities, you see all those buildings have signage that um

[1:09:42] runs along the very top edge of the building. And from my retail side, I

[1:09:47] think, well, every retailer wants that, right? You know, you want to be able to

[1:09:50] say, "This is where I'm at, right? This is my company." Um, but in the in the

[1:09:55] case of office, it's it's more about being a key employment hub. Um, and a

[1:10:00] lot of large companies that are looking to locate do want to put their sign up

[1:10:05] because um, they might be a large user of square footage. They might be a

[1:10:09] company that's bringing some good jobs and they kind of want that branding out

[1:10:13] there. Um, it provides visual navigation along corridors, of course, and it

[1:10:17] serves an e as an economic development tool to attract major corporate anchor

[1:10:22] tenants for brand visibility, which happens to be what happened here. Um,

[1:10:27] there is an application that has been in the city for a while in the building.

[1:10:32] Um, it's called um >> well, it's the only

[1:10:37] » uh grant it's a gateway office plaza. >> Yeah. It's the only fivestory office

[1:10:42] building that we have. >> And um and that's the building that I

[1:10:45] remember thinking about when we were redoing the zoning thinking like

[1:10:48] monument sign there that doesn't. And I don't I couldn't even find a sign. If

[1:10:51] they have a monument [snorts] sign, it's not showing up on Google Maps. When I I

[1:10:55] did the street view, I was thinking they must have something like that. But um

[1:10:59] couldn't find anything unless it's it's hiding behind some bushes.

[1:11:03] But that's the that's the circumstance that drew our attention to it, which is

[1:11:07] kind of the way even when we go through the code and we do a thorough review,

[1:11:12] you can't predict everything. And that was the one that I remember thinking

[1:11:17] about like maybe we should allow signs like these types of buildings have on in

[1:11:21] other cities. And we didn't address it at the time because there wasn't really

[1:11:25] a driving need. Now there's a there's a there's an inquiry. And I thought about

[1:11:30] it. I thought, well, there's another building. Um, Grand Market Square is

[1:11:34] » We do have a sign for Grandtory. Yeah, it has the

[1:11:36] » There's It's right on the at the top. >> It doesn't have a brand sign. It has the

[1:11:41] » building name sign, right? Not not the tenants name.

[1:11:45] » Uh, so, uh, you know, as a city, um, we certainly want to attract corporate

[1:11:51] tenants, uh, because they usually bring good paying jobs. Um, in past years we

[1:11:56] we did a process where council member Scholes pride up eliminating building

[1:12:00] heights in certain zones. Hard the city was one, the mall center village was

[1:12:05] another, and then I think it was maybe a portion of Highway 13, and maybe that's

[1:12:10] just all part of HOTC, but I remember you specifically saying like Highway 13

[1:12:14] and like I35, but that might be encompassed in the HOTC. Um, and so we

[1:12:19] did we we removed the building height. So we were hoping that would draw some,

[1:12:23] you know, when when some of those areas get redeveloped, some of those office

[1:12:27] complexes that are one-story, if somebody comes in and buys it and they

[1:12:30] want to do a multi-story building, that'd be great. Um, so I think this

[1:12:36] this is not just about that one application. This made me think broadly

[1:12:41] about um these two major zones with no building height and the future. what is

[1:12:46] it going to attract and how could that be enhanced to attract more people who

[1:12:52] might build a multi-story building especially if they it usually starts I

[1:12:56] mean office construction isn't pure speculative they usually have two or

[1:13:01] three major tenants lined up in advance of acquiring the property and building

[1:13:05] the multi-story building and those major tenants will look for can I have my

[1:13:10] brand on the outside of the building in our city right now they cannot um so My

[1:13:15] suggestion is to for us to consider changing our ordinance for buildings

[1:13:19] that are three stories or higher uh that are office or office mixed use. Right?

[1:13:25] This is not meant for residential or apartment buildings. This is strictly

[1:13:29] business buildings. And we have two Grand Market Square and Gateway Office

[1:13:33] Plaza that would fall under this. So here's some examples of what you see

[1:13:37] when you drive around. Health Partners corporate office in Bloomington. Um

[1:13:41] formerly Seridian the Day Force headquarters. uh multi-story buildings

[1:13:44] in suburbs. Richfield has Best Buy, of course, that's ginormous uh multiple

[1:13:50] buildings. Um St. Louis Park has Bridgewater Bank corporate headquarters

[1:13:55] and they're a first tier suburb. Eden Prairie and Minnetonka have uh Optum

[1:14:00] United Health has some monster buildings and of course they want their brand on

[1:14:04] the outside. >> So does M Health here in Burnsville.

[1:14:07] » Yeah. So, it's I think we we just didn't have something compelling at the time to

[1:14:12] draw attention to it. Now, we do, and I think it's the right thing to do, not

[1:14:15] only for today, but for the future, for both of these buildings and hopefully

[1:14:19] some future buildings that get built. Um,

[1:14:23] I think that it's a it's a common sense recommendation because it's really not

[1:14:28] uncommon in other suburbs and certainly cities. And I think I would suggest that

[1:14:33] we adjust the uh the ordinance to allow these to have and and I'm talking very

[1:14:39] specific. These are right along the roof line. These are not down on any given

[1:14:44] floor. These are only uh what you would uh consider a roof line sign and it

[1:14:50] would have to be individual backlit letters the quality that we require uh

[1:14:55] in the rest of our city. uh fitting within a particular size that

[1:14:59] can be those kind of details can be worked out by staff uh if they bring it

[1:15:03] back to us if the council agrees with this concept.

[1:15:07] I agree that we need to amend our sign ordinance, Dan,

[1:15:12] but it's from my perspective that's something that we're going to

[1:15:18] have staff would have to do a lot of work to look at that and to do it

[1:15:24] throughout the city. And uh I believe there is amendments coming in I think in

[1:15:33] a second phase for zoning. Jeff, am I correct in that? The zoning amendments

[1:15:39] that would fit right in to that. But I want to address

[1:15:45] what this applicant wants and we can make I think staff had a

[1:15:51] pathway for this applicant to get that done for what they want to do at the

[1:15:58] gateway building. And then because the bulk of the work in looking

[1:16:04] at a comprehensive sign ordinance is going to take time but I want to address

[1:16:12] the immediate need um for this particular applicant. So, if

[1:16:18] we can do that and then have staff look at the sign ordinance during the work

[1:16:27] that they're doing with the second phase of the zoning ordinance

[1:16:33] and so they know that we want it throughout the whole city, but I want to

[1:16:38] get this one done for this applicant for gateway if that's okay. Yeah, I think I

[1:16:43] just I wouldn't want >> I think we have a concept that I I

[1:16:46] believe they have a concept they want to bring to us and we can amend because

[1:16:50] this is only about the DOT the the transit oriented development

[1:16:56] » the to do they have to pay >> that's that's the one that Yeah. And

[1:16:59] what they're proposing is I have a picture of it. It's it's a sign that

[1:17:03] runs right along the roof line. That's [snorts] exactly what I'm talking about,

[1:17:06] which is what other, you know, that's why I'm saying

[1:17:11] » let's just address that so they can move forward.

[1:17:13] » I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want to go I don't want them to go

[1:17:16] through any additional expense as a result of them coming in as a special

[1:17:20] because our ordinance doesn't support it. I think our ordinance is wrong and I

[1:17:24] think we need to fix the ordinance and that they or anybody behind them can do

[1:17:29] this like a normal assignment. >> I agree with that. But this is this is

[1:17:32] the concept. They're not going to be it's like any concept development that a

[1:17:37] a developer brings before us before they spend any more money. You know, is it a

[1:17:44] go or no go? >> Yeah.

[1:17:45] » So, [snorts] that's all I'm saying. It's it's not something that we haven't done

[1:17:50] with concept development >> and and I think that's what staff had

[1:17:56] asked them to do. It's not going to cost them any money

[1:18:02] » to do the concert. >> Is that correct? City Manager Lindber.

[1:18:08] » Madame Mayor, members of the council, I it is correct that there is a that our

[1:18:13] team planning team uh has been uh talking with the property owners,

[1:18:19] individuals involved. Uh there is not a current application. uh our team uh and

[1:18:25] you might recall that there I shared with you in early June uh that our team

[1:18:31] had offered the councils at the time brand new newly adopted consulate plan

[1:18:36] review process in order to expedite an opportunity ahead of an application

[1:18:41] ahead of >> the applicable fees for the applicant or

[1:18:46] escrow that would be required uh in the city's adopted fee schedule. um the

[1:18:52] opportunity to come talk to the council about the concept which is the spirit of

[1:18:57] that that planning tool as it's now adopted into ordinance. Uh so um at the

[1:19:03] end of the day >> uh hopefully that helps clarify process

[1:19:07] and where we're at. Uh but there's no there's no application right now and

[1:19:11] there wouldn't be fees until the point of application. But they they bring a

[1:19:15] concept just like the >> I just want to I I think they'd be

[1:19:20] perfectly acceptable to that. >> I think they were thrown a curve on the

[1:19:26] success rate and it made them a little apprehensive. And so I just said, you

[1:19:30] know, you can come back and and deal with staff. I want to deal with the

[1:19:33] ordinance. The ordinance is changing is >> because it's not about them. It's about

[1:19:38] Grand [snorts and clears throat] Market and any other building that might be

[1:19:41] looked upon as built in Burnsville and having the ability to put those brands

[1:19:45] along the top. >> I I agree with that, but I but that

[1:19:48] takes such a long time, but they need to get this done now

[1:19:52] » and we've done and we've done concept before. Uh look at old old Highway 34.

[1:19:58] They came with a concept >> because it was a residential area. They

[1:20:02] didn't have and so when we said sure go ahead they were able to move forward

[1:20:07] then and then file an application >> cara

[1:20:11] » so what is the cost

[1:20:15] » of an application >> yeah madam mayor members of the council

[1:20:18] I would have to look that up I looks like Jeff might have the information

[1:20:22] available >> mayor council

[1:20:24] » come in with a concept >> yeah I was just looking at our 2026

[1:20:27] adopted fee schedule and there's uh for us uh concept plan review uh which is

[1:20:32] the coming directly to the council for policy direction ahead of a formal

[1:20:35] application. >> There's there's two charges that the

[1:20:37] city has. There's the application fee which is $422

[1:20:42] and that's to cover um hard costs of the city, right? Mailings and stuff and then

[1:20:47] there is also as as we do with every development application a $2,000 escrow

[1:20:51] deposit and that's to pay for any um external costs that the city

[1:20:55] » may have to pay that for a concept to come before us. uh mayor, in the fee

[1:21:01] schedule, it still includes that escrow for a for a concept plan review because

[1:21:06] there have been a couple times where we've done um some

[1:21:10] it's usually engineering consultants, not applicable in this case, or uh legal

[1:21:14] fees, anything any um external costs that we incur, would they be paid from

[1:21:18] that escrow? If there are none, we would re we would return that money. Um um

[1:21:22] otherwise, we would pay those expenses and and reimburse the any sort of

[1:21:25] difference between the deposits. Is this an engineering thing or or just a

[1:21:29] aesthetics thing that we're talking about?

[1:21:32] » Yeah, Jeff. >> I mean, when you talk about signs,

[1:21:35] you're >> mayor and council. I would anticipate in

[1:21:39] a concept plan review such as this, the I I would anticipate the only expense we

[1:21:43] could incur is any legal fees that be necessary just to draft the ordinance

[1:21:47] changes or or whatnot. But that's the only the concept uh fee I can anticipate

[1:21:52] for this project. >> Yeah.

[1:21:56] Okay. >> City manager, did you have a thought?

[1:22:00] » Yeah, >> I was going to I was going to say I have

[1:22:02] uh first of all, three stories I think is too high. I think it should be two

[1:22:06] stories on signings if we're going to do signage. But we we do have a process

[1:22:11] we're going through with our planning commission right now with the title 10

[1:22:13] and title 11 and all that which that can be addressed at that. Uh staff has shown

[1:22:18] us a way or shown this applicant a way to come in with a concept and we can

[1:22:21] look at and say, "Yeah, we like that, we don't like that." and he can move

[1:22:24] forward with it uh rather quickly. I I'm reluctant to just make an ordinance

[1:22:29] change without looking at the whole city and all the different zones that we have

[1:22:32] in the city and so that we get it right the first time and we don't keep

[1:22:36] peacemealing this all the time. Uh you know, you referred to the track record

[1:22:40] of turning down signs. I don't recall ever turning down a sign in the 20ome

[1:22:45] years I've been here. >> Have you seen Bob signs?

[1:22:47] » I'm not sure where that track record's coming from that he's concerned about

[1:22:50] because >> you I'm not talking about leaving the

[1:22:53] meeting >> whatever you're referring to.

[1:22:55] » Well, you had referred that he was reluctant to do things because of the

[1:22:58] track record of getting things done with the signage and

[1:23:01] » it's not nothing to do with anyone but him.

[1:23:04] » Okay. >> Well, what was the track record?

[1:23:07] » Nothing to do with anyone else but him. >> I wasn't referring to any past history

[1:23:11] of any other just his situation. >> Okay. So, he's had a track record with

[1:23:15] other cities, >> not this city.

[1:23:17] » No, that is not true. >> I think we'll just let staff handle it.

[1:23:22] » Well, I'm Okay. I'm just saying I don't recall ever turning down a sign. That's

[1:23:24] all I'm saying. >> No, I I never said that.

[1:23:27] » Okay. >> Civility.

[1:23:29] » That's not a track record problem then. >> I'm saying we're good. We're very pro

[1:23:33] business. Yeah. I I believe. >> Yeah. So, so we can give some direction.

[1:23:40] This is the policy question. Do we want to just focus on this one

[1:23:47] application to come in for a concept?

[1:23:50] » Well, that's a separate thing. What I'm presenting is a change to the ordinance.

[1:23:53] This is I'm not >> that's just the thing that brought my

[1:23:58] attention to the ordinance. >> I agree with you with that. It's just

[1:24:01] that >> I think staff can handle that situation

[1:24:05] » just fine. >> We have no problem change the ordinance

[1:24:07] as we go through the process with planning because that's what they're

[1:24:09] there to do. >> Yeah. If there are if that's already on

[1:24:12] the boards to get and it'll get caught up in that scoop. Sure. Absolutely.

[1:24:15] » That so yeah, and that's where I'm saying we're in that process. So

[1:24:21] » that's a good idea. But this Yeah. >> Okay. So stay with the process that but

[1:24:27] do we >> for the applicant let them know that

[1:24:31] they can come in >> staff will handle it.

[1:24:35] » Okay. All right. So >> next

[1:24:40] » ju just just so we're clear uh madam members of the council the your current

[1:24:44] your current current ordinance and how we would uh approach administration of

[1:24:49] this uh would be either what the planning team has currently suggested to

[1:24:55] the applicant which is come in for a concept review uh that would would would

[1:24:59] then necessitate the fees and escrow that we discussed. Um uh an alternative

[1:25:06] that council member Keley did suggest tonight and I just want to make sure

[1:25:09] that we're we're clear would be a uh really at the end of the day and Dan

[1:25:15] explained this well uh but as I understand it uh the the your current

[1:25:21] ordinance current city regulations uh the TOD is the only zoning district

[1:25:28] where this particular issue would prohibit uh top of building signage.

[1:25:33] age. So a a potential shorter term opportunity would be deal

[1:25:40] with that issue. If a majority of the council wishes to change policy

[1:25:44] direction, deal with that issue, which then would expedite the process and

[1:25:49] eliminate the need for a concept review. Now, that would be outside of what I

[1:25:56] could do administratively, right? And that would require city council

[1:25:59] direction tonight. So, I just want to make sure that we're all on the same

[1:26:02] page when it when it comes to the most efficient and effective way through what

[1:26:07] council member Keely has raised tonight. I I think I'm hearing general support of

[1:26:12] the city council to >> Yeah. So, you're

[1:26:14] » I like the second thing you said. >> Yeah. supportive of

[1:26:19] looking at the ordinance amendment for >> simple change

[1:26:22] » just the tod right itself we would narrowly have the council

[1:26:27] address >> the the the tod the the the narrow topic

[1:26:32] and then I've also heard the direction from the council that as part of the

[1:26:36] plan title 10 and title 11 process we want to look holistically at the issue

[1:26:40] of signage I need to talk to our team more about what that looks like to be

[1:26:44] very honest with you there are many priorities ities that are going to come

[1:26:47] up through that review process following the comprehensive plan and we'll have to

[1:26:51] talk capacity timing. >> Yeah.

[1:26:54] » Conversations with council to make sure that we're looking at the nuance.

[1:26:58] Council member Gustoson, you brought up a good a good point. There are

[1:27:01] » there are a number of factors uh across zoning districts that that would

[1:27:06] potentially need to be dealt with and we can mark that for mayor to your

[1:27:10] suggestion other suggestion the the longer term future solution if that's if

[1:27:14] that's the desire of the council. Again, I don't want to get ahead of the

[1:27:18] majority of the council here, but just looking for clarity and efficient and

[1:27:22] effective outcomes based on where I think I'm hearing the majority of you

[1:27:26] are are talking from. >> Yeah.

[1:27:28] » So, to first part and second part. >> Yeah.

[1:27:32] » Yes. >> Do do the comprehensive sign ordinance

[1:27:36] review with with everything that's going on with title 10 and 11

[1:27:41] » which separately from just the to as a carve out because That's yeah,

[1:27:48] we can do that real quick and easy. >> And that's Yeah. And that's what I'm

[1:27:51] saying. >> Address this item.

[1:27:55] » Okay. Again, I didn't want to get I don't want to get in the middle of the

[1:27:58] council's policy discussion here. I just >> You're just clarifying.

[1:28:01] » You offered a fast lane. You know, if you've been to Valley Fair, there's a

[1:28:04] fast lane. We're to the fast lane and let the other the whole rest of it take

[1:28:08] the >> And that's what I said at the beginning.

[1:28:11] Let's deal with this so it it expedites the desire of the applicant. Deal with

[1:28:19] the heart of the city, the city with the to and scoop up the everything else.

[1:28:25] » Yep. >> Yeah, I think that's what he said. Yep.

[1:28:27] I'm That's sounds great. >> Okay. And that's

[1:28:33] » Let's back up a minute here. >> It's

[1:28:34] » so we've got lane too fast. >> We've got heart of the city. We're just

[1:28:39] talking. >> So you remember that the heart of the

[1:28:42] city is now the whole city. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's no longer HOC1 and

[1:28:47] HOC2. The whole thing has been >> identified as a transit oriented

[1:28:53] development. >> We're going to tot it.

[1:28:55] » Um I'm fine with that. I again I didn't speak to this because I don't have any

[1:28:59] background or understanding of that. I didn't even know we had that restriction

[1:29:03] in our to um and it's kind of seems silly that we do now that I'm aware of

[1:29:08] it. So, >> well, so

[1:29:11] » because we have Hey, there's there's a grand marketplace

[1:29:16] » and there is a and there's a grand market.

[1:29:18] » I mean, I go down the road, you see the building where part of the city dental

[1:29:22] is uh old national bank and that looks great there. I don't know why we

[1:29:27] couldn't replicate that on Gate building.

[1:29:29] » You got First National Bank and you also have the Ames Center. Madam, mayor,

[1:29:33] members of the council, um, in spite of my attempt to be efficient and

[1:29:37] effective, it looks like Jeff might have a question that I want to make sure gets

[1:29:40] asked. >> Just mayor and council. [laughter]

[1:29:42] » Nope. >> I am now going to listen to Jeff.

[1:29:45] » This is a me problem. >> Again, just for Yeah, just for clarity.

[1:29:50] » Um, I understand that the the discussion is happening, you know, doing a targeted

[1:29:55] amendment for the TOD district. Just to clarify, that is for rooftop wall

[1:29:58] signage for office and commercial buildings within the to district, not a

[1:30:02] comprehensive review of the todd district.

[1:30:05] » Correct. The the comprehensive is on your process.

[1:30:08] » Yeah. The comprehensive one is on the process that's going on right now with

[1:30:14] phase two of the zoning ordinance. Phase two of the zoning

[1:30:19] » and that's why we have expert professional staff that aren't me.

[1:30:22] [laughter] So, thank you, ma'am. >> Okay.

[1:30:23] » No, that's good. >> Okay. Everybody,

[1:30:25] » I think that's the only thing we missed when we did that to thing a few years

[1:30:28] ago is just this. >> Okay.

[1:30:30] » Everybody understand? We're just dealing with the amendment for this applicant

[1:30:36] in the to >> Yep.

[1:30:38] » Everything else is on your uh comprehensive view of um our

[1:30:46] zoning ordinance second phase. Okay, everybody on board? Okay, we're moving

[1:30:52] on. Um, and now

[1:30:58] Michelle, you want to schedule a meeting to canvas the primary?

[1:31:02] » Yes. Thank you, madame mayor, city council. We um do have a city primary on

[1:31:07] the um primary election August 11th. And so we will need to schedule a special

[1:31:14] meeting to canvas those results. uh the statute is not very flexible whereas it

[1:31:21] says we are required to do it three days after which makes it August 14th

[1:31:28] and um >> so we have to do it 12th 13th or 14th

[1:31:32] » the 14th >> just the 14th

[1:31:34] » the statute also >> just telling us we have to be here on

[1:31:36] the 14th is what you're telling us >> the statute says

[1:31:40] » the statute says that it we can do it on the 13th if the county allows us to and

[1:31:45] we tried to do that one time and it was two two days is just too fast of a

[1:31:49] turnaround. >> So you're saying the 14th. Is everybody

[1:31:52] okay on the 14th? >> Mon Monday the 14th. [clears throat]

[1:31:55] » No, it's Friday the 14th. >> August 14th.

[1:31:58] » August. Sorry. >> August the 14th

[1:32:01] » at 5. >> Yeah, go for it. I won't be here.

[1:32:05] [laughter] >> It can be it can be at noon. It can be

[1:32:10] » Yeah, I'm good any time of day on that day.

[1:32:12] » Okay. >> Okay. So, uh, Vince and Dan G. Dan K,

[1:32:20] » uh, the 14th. >> Yeah.

[1:32:21] » What time you want to do it? >> Do you want to do line? Um, noon or

[1:32:25] » It takes 10 minutes. >> Takes 10 minutes.

[1:32:26] » Yeah. Oh, noon's fine. >> Noon.

[1:32:28] » Noon. >> Noon. Sounds good.

[1:32:30] » Okay. >> Okay. Very good. Okay. With that then,

[1:32:35] um, reports, Vince? >> No reports. Oh, come uh watch uh Never

[1:32:41] mind. We're good. [cough] Oh, >> what was that?

[1:32:44] » I was going to put out a word for Burnsville. Burnsville is hosting the

[1:32:48] MBL state baseball tournament at Sue Fisher

[1:32:52] and Savage Community Fields this weekend. So

[1:32:57] 10A, it's very specific, but >> yeah,

[1:32:59] » experience Burnsville cancelled their meeting on Thursday. Our next meeting

[1:33:02] will be in August. Okay, Carol,

[1:33:07] » Dad, >> I have a small

[1:33:13] you don't have to listen. [laughter] >> Metro Cities Transportation General

[1:33:16] Government starts Monday the 27th. All of us that are on assigned committees

[1:33:19] will start probably that week if not before. Uh National League of Cities

[1:33:24] held their summer leadership conference in Louisville, Kentucky. It's about a

[1:33:27] three and a half day event. Um, it's held at the current president's uh

[1:33:32] hometown which uh he's a council member in Louisville. Louisville if as I

[1:33:37] learned >> actually that's how they say it.

[1:33:39] » Uh just uh sitting on the executive committee we talked about the 2027

[1:33:43] budget and the challenges um membership growth u managing cost. There's a giant

[1:33:49] reduction in federal grants which is uh going to have a corresponding reduction

[1:33:53] in staff because a lot of staff is there to um write and nurture grants. Um we

[1:34:00] talked about the office of uh management budgets proposed grant changes which is

[1:34:04] there's out it's a public uh comment period right now which is has some

[1:34:08] significant impacts. We also discussed the success of the road to housing act

[1:34:13] um and the large effort by NLC's lobbying and and membership cities

[1:34:18] across the country. Um we also talked about u the new I think it's A250 it's

[1:34:23] it's probably not that [cough] it's signing the Declaration of Independence.

[1:34:27] It's a it's a website where you can go on and I'll I can share the QR code

[1:34:32] where you can actually sign on behalf of your city. All of us can um essentially

[1:34:38] reaffirming the Declaration of Independence. So, it's a effort that's

[1:34:42] going across the country uh through the National League of City.

[1:34:46] » So, my signature wasn't good enough the first time?

[1:34:48] » No, it wasn't big enough. We need to do it larger. Um, and then they released

[1:34:52] the uh the 2026 state of the cities report which uh which was a recorded

[1:34:57] presentation and uh it included a panel which included Mayor Kim Norton from

[1:35:02] Rochester uh who I I sat with and presented to the League of Minnesota

[1:35:07] Cities board earlier this year on the civility um uh deal. So the sorry um the

[1:35:18] civility index and etc. So uh she was there with uh a mayor from a really

[1:35:24] small really small like a couple thousand people suburb of Birmingham

[1:35:27] Birmingham Alabama. So we had fairly goodsized city and a really small city

[1:35:32] represented u talking about all the issues which I'll run through them very

[1:35:35] quickly. Number one across the country economic growth was the first priority

[1:35:39] on city's minds. Infrastructure and housing are more are the most critical.

[1:35:45] uh concerns for an infrastructure cliff with ARPA and IIGJA in the uh sorry uh

[1:35:53] infrastructure investments act uh are ending and cities expect negative impact

[1:35:58] on infrastructure investment. Then of course housing affordability is a

[1:36:02] widespread structural issue for every city across the country and public

[1:36:06] safety strategies continue to evolve. Uh it was a very interesting report. Uh

[1:36:11] it's out and available on their website. And then lastly, the suburban municipal

[1:36:16] council got together uh aka first tier suburbs uh which is uh one of the

[1:36:21] councils uh under the national league of cities uh I've been a part of for many

[1:36:25] years. I didn't I didn't join right away because it said first year's suburbs and

[1:36:30] we're a second tier. So I thought we don't have a party we can join. And then

[1:36:34] somebody told me just I mentioned it rand randomly to a member of the the

[1:36:39] lobbing staff and she said oh no that's open to all suburbs. I went, "Good. We

[1:36:43] need to rebrand that." That was [snorts] four or five years ago, 5 years ago. We

[1:36:47] finally got it done this year and it's going to be called the Suburban

[1:36:50] Municipal Council. And the reason it couldn't be Suburban Cities Council is

[1:36:54] that is the same acronym for small cities council. So, they wanted a

[1:36:59] separate acronym because they use that structurally. And uh so I'm going to

[1:37:04] refer to it and I told them I'm going to always say it's the suburban cities

[1:37:07] group council but suburban municipal council that will become officially

[1:37:11] effective at November's city summit which is held in Nashville, Tennessee.

[1:37:18] And we took a tour uh our group the council members took a tour to a small

[1:37:24] suburban town that's going through some major um redevelopment. It's called uh

[1:37:30] uh Jamestown, Kentucky. And uh it was very we had the mayor

[1:37:35] there who gave a a nice speech and and their economic development director and

[1:37:40] uh some other folks and and talked about what they have going on. The one thing I

[1:37:44] will I will say to in close, they have a massive industrial park. When you look

[1:37:49] at the map of their city limits, 40% of the square miles

[1:37:55] is is an industrial park. It's enormous and of course it brings an enormous

[1:38:02] amount of prosperity to the city. It's a huge income source. What they use, they

[1:38:08] don't have property taxes like we do. They have an occupation tax. It's based

[1:38:13] on your salary. It's like a an income tax that goes locally. And that is a

[1:38:18] very big part of Kucky's economic model for cities is occupational tax. And

[1:38:23] because they have that that largest industrial park I've ever seen in any

[1:38:27] city, certainly a city of that size, um that provides a lot of financial support

[1:38:32] for the city to operate. That's it. Thank you.

[1:38:37] » I won't give a USCM report. >> Go ahead.

[1:38:43] » Go ahead. >> It's okay. Uh and there's nothing else.

[1:38:47] Burnsville Savage meeting is cancelled. Was supposed to be this Thursday. So,

[1:38:53] but otherwise I know you need to go. >> Oh my goodness.

[1:38:57] » There is nothing else. Anything from staff

[1:39:01] with that? I did not. >> We stand adjourned by acclamation.

City Council Work Session - 14 Jul 2026

Transcript