[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.