[0:02] Good evening, everyone. It is now 5:30 and I will call this

[0:07] regular work session of the Burnsville City Council to order.

[0:11] Um all council members are present and the

[0:16] members of the public are always welcome to attend in person

[0:20] or the public can also watch us uh on

[0:25] burnsvillemn.gov/meetings

[0:29] or Comcast channel 16 or 859. The public can also participate

[0:34] through Zoom by joining us at zoom.us/join.

[0:40] More information is available on our meetings webpage and in the

[0:45] council agenda packet. So, this is a work session and we go

[0:49] directly to the items on the agenda and the first item on the agenda this

[0:54] evening is the city-owned property study and our deputy community development

[1:00] director uh is presenting, Travis Bersetdo.

[1:05] Travis, the floor is yours. >> Thanks, Mark.

[1:09] Uh thank you, Madam Mayor, council members.

[1:11] Um the item before you is another in the a series of capital improvement uh plans

[1:17] and studies that the city has been engaged in uh over the past couple of

[1:22] years. Uh specifically, this study is a comprehensive review and assessment of

[1:28] all of the city-owned uh properties located uh

[1:33] or owned by the city uh or the economic development uh authority. Thanks, Mark.

[1:39] It's worth mentioning before I get into it, um this study was led by community

[1:43] development, but it wasn't completed in a vacuum. Um staff from uh the clerk's

[1:49] office, IT, parks, and uh public works, and the city attorney helped us with uh

[1:55] this analysis. Um so, the initial purpose of the study

[1:59] was to evaluate all of the city and EDA owned parcels uh in terms of where are

[2:05] they all located, how big are they, how are they being maintained, what's the

[2:10] zoning status of all of those parcels, and uh of particular interest to our

[2:15] department, are there any opportunities for us to market and sell some of those

[2:19] properties to support housing or economic development goals of uh the

[2:23] city and the council.

[2:26] So, breaking it down uh by the numbers, um

[2:30] uh city services, which are lands that uh

[2:34] » [clears throat] >> contain parks, trails,

[2:37] um city facilities, or other open space was our largest category. Uh 51% of all

[2:43] of the city-owned parcels uh have that type of city service on them. Uh the

[2:48] next biggest portion were the uh parcels that contain utilities. Uh 23% of the

[2:55] 424 uh parcels that the city owns uh have

[2:59] significant utilities running through them.

[3:02] Uh 56 of the parcels, which is 13% of the total, are vacant and don't clearly

[3:07] have uh uh a city use uh occurring currently on

[3:12] them. And then another 13% are uh right-of-way uh properties used to

[3:19] support city right-of-ways, particularly for transportation needs.

[3:25] Couple of interesting notes as we were looking through these parcels, five of

[3:28] the properties are currently owned by the EDA. Um we believe those uh

[3:34] properties were uh acquired by the EDA for assembly

[3:38] purposes in creating the heart of the city uh neighborhood, but they're still

[3:42] currently owned by the EDA. And then we also have much to our

[3:47] surprise, we found two properties owned by the city that are not located within

[3:51] uh the city of Burnsville. They're actually located within the city of

[3:55] Eagan and I did add a slide here that shows we have about 10 acres total

[4:01] of properties that are located in Eagan, which are primarily wetlands, um

[4:06] stormwater ponds. Um these are not creating any sort of

[4:10] problems. We don't have any complaints. We're not doing any maintenance on them,

[4:14] but much to our surprise, we do own these two uh small parcels that are

[4:18] located within uh Eagan.

[4:24] We did conduct a um maintenance analysis of all of the parcels.

[4:29] Uh 57 58% of them are currently receiving regular maintenance by public

[4:35] works, regular monthly or bi-weekly mowing. Um and these are sites that are

[4:41] um integral to city a city function like a

[4:44] park or a major city facility. There's another

[4:48] subset, another 10% receive minor maintenance. These are parcels that are

[4:54] uh vacant or might be trails where just a buffer strip is mowed regularly um

[5:01] uh along that particular parcel. There's There's another subset, just

[5:06] another 1 and 1/2% that receive annual mowing. These are parcels that have

[5:11] significant utilities running through them, primarily down in the river valley

[5:15] and those um the vegetation is cut back to prevent

[5:19] any interruptions to um or any damage to those um

[5:23] uh utilities that are running underground. And then the other big

[5:26] portion is 30% are not receiving any maintenance at all

[5:31] except for when we receive a complaint. If there's a tree that falls down and

[5:35] it's impeding on a uh adjacent sidewalk or something like that,

[5:40] uh public works will go out and uh address any complaints.

[5:47] We also looked at the property tax status of all 425 parcels and the good

[5:51] news is 99.7 I think percent of those parcels are tax

[5:56] exempt. We do have two parcels that are um currently leased to private entities

[6:03] and in those cases the private lessees are paying those property tax

[6:07] any property tax payments. The two properties are there's one little

[6:11] splinter parcel that has a telecommunications building on it um

[6:15] and that company pays for any uh taxes due on that parcel and then there's a a

[6:21] more significant parcel that is located just south of Ali Magnet um

[6:26] that the city owns that has a small uh group home on it and in that case the

[6:31] company that leases that parcel pays those property tax payments

[6:35] and any special assessments.

[6:39] We did also look at uh zoning classifications of all of the city and

[6:44] EDA A-owned parcels and unfortunately we learned that 46% of them um are um

[6:53] uh the zoning is misaligned with the current use.

[6:56] So for example, we have stormwater ponds that are zoned uh residential. We have

[7:02] some city facilities that are are zoned multi-family. We have other city

[7:06] facilities that are zoned uh parks properties and it's a best practice for

[7:12] and I don't need to tell you this, but it's a best practice for uh the zoning

[7:16] to reflect the actual use uh of those of those properties. However, fortunately

[7:21] we're stepping into the 2050 comp plan update season and this would be an ideal

[7:26] time for us to address those um challenges.

[7:33] We did also look at um all of these parcels to identify if any

[7:37] of them were available or readily available for uh potential development.

[7:43] And in terms of how we decided this list is

[7:46] this analysis is somewhat subjective, but we we looked at each one of these

[7:50] parcels and and identified are they currently being used to support any city

[7:55] service. How big are they? What are the lot

[7:58] dimensions? Are they developable based on their shape? Um what is the access?

[8:04] Is it Is there easy access to um get on to one of these sites and develop it?

[8:09] Are the slopes um uh

[8:13] manageable in terms of uh getting construction equipment out there and

[8:16] developing it? Are there any major utilities? Are there any wetlands? And

[8:20] then we also in a very subjective manner looked at each parcel and said,

[8:25] "What would be the neighborhood friction if we were to develop any of these

[8:29] parcels?" So again, that's a very subjective analysis and from that we

[8:33] identified 22 that we thought uh have the potential of of being developed. I

[8:39] also want to point out that we did not consider any parcels that are identified

[8:43] as natural areas within the parks plan. So, we immediately carved those out when

[8:48] we looked at our or we conducted our initial analysis. But the good news is

[8:52] there's 22 that have potential in our opinion.

[8:56] And then we also identified 19 splinter parcels that are currently vacant and

[9:01] also undevelopable. Um the challenge there is our current

[9:05] policy doesn't allow us to readily transfer ownership of those parcels to

[9:10] an adjacent property owner. Um and the fact of the matter is the the cost the

[9:15] administrative cost and workload associated with transferring ownership

[9:19] probably outweighs the value of the parcel itself. So, we might be looking

[9:23] for some future direction from council on how we might want to treat those.

[9:28] So, from that we have six um kind of recommendations and next steps.

[9:34] Uh the first is um we need to share this information with uh public works,

[9:38] especially with regards to the uh maintenance occurring on vacant

[9:42] parcels. There's very little of that, but we [snorts] want to make sure that

[9:46] uh uh public works is aware of those

[9:49] parcels. But then the second, and perhaps the most interesting piece for

[9:52] for our department, is uh how do we want to deal with those 22 potentially

[9:57] developable properties? And our recommendation is that we come back to

[10:00] you in 2027 with a prioritized list of properties that we would recommend uh

[10:07] » [clears throat] >> developing. This also would require us

[10:09] to do some uh due diligence on the title side of things and ensure that there's

[10:14] no encumbrances in place that would prevent us from developing those, but we

[10:18] would recommend coming back in 2020 uh 2027 with that uh updated list.

[10:25] We also noticed a number of encroachments as we were conducting this

[10:29] um exercise, where folks are building sheds or fireplaces or patios

[10:34] um on city property, and um we need to take a closer look at our current

[10:39] ordinances and policies, and and if they're not um

[10:43] satisfactory, perhaps recommend um a policy change to address any

[10:48] encroachments. Should we get a complaint around any one of these um situations?

[10:54] Fortunately, that's not something that neighborhood services deals with a lot,

[10:58] but if it were to happen, it'd be great to have an updated policy to address

[11:02] situations like that.

[11:05] Our fourth recommendation is to address the um

[11:09] um zoning situation on city-owned

[11:12] properties. And like I mentioned earlier, now is a perfect time for us to

[11:15] do [snorts] that as we kind of step into updating our zoning code as part of the

[11:20] comprehensive plan. So, we're anticipating that would happen in 2029,

[11:24] 2030 in alignment with our comp plan update.

[11:28] Uh the fifth recommendation is to um explore

[11:32] uh updating our land sale policy to address splinter parcels and see work

[11:36] with our city attorney's office to see if there's a

[11:39] economical way and easy way for us to transfer ownership of those parcels

[11:43] perhaps to adjacent property owners that would be interested

[11:47] in owning them. And then the last recommendation is to

[11:52] consider transferring ownership of those five EDA owned properties to

[11:58] the city in in future years. And with that I can take any

[12:04] questions or comments. >> Okay. Questions for um

[12:09] Travis. Okay, Dan. G. >> What would be the purpose of

[12:12] transferring EDA property to the city being that

[12:16] if at sometime the EDA property were to sell the money would go back to the EDA

[12:21] who originally bought it as opposed to go back into just the general fund for

[12:24] the city. >> Madam Mayor, Council member, the initial

[12:27] discussion that we had was just to simplify especially for property

[12:30] insurance purposes that if we just consolidate these under the city owned

[12:35] category versus EDA that would be one piece of it is that we could just

[12:40] streamline our ownership portfolio. But in terms of

[12:44] transferring back and forth that's not something that we've explored.

[12:47] » Yeah. And the properties that he's talking about are all in the heart of

[12:51] the city. >> I know what they are but there's in the

[12:53] future someday some of those properties might not be some property we're going

[12:57] to have anymore and if we sell it >> and the

[13:00] in center >> it is.

[13:02] » Yeah. So and the and the parking deck. So those are the those are the

[13:06] properties >> out for the interest of the EDA.

[13:09] » Yeah. But you know, the EDA and the city are the same thing but

[13:14] what Travis is saying what staff is saying is that it is

[13:19] uh insurance purposes and making sure that everything is within one bucket.

[13:26] Any other questions for Travis? Yes, Vince.

[13:28] » Thank you. Um are any of these properties

[13:32] potential for us to do something with like potential new park or something

[13:37] where we could get creative in house instead of

[13:40] selling? >> Madam Mayor, Council Member Yes.

[13:43] » I don't see why not. They're city owned at this point. That would be a decision

[13:47] that um the council would need to make, but

[13:50] yes, I think they could be used for a city service that's not currently

[13:55] contemplated on those properties. >> They're not like tucked into I mean, we

[13:59] don't have to review every single one of them, but there's some that would be in

[14:02] viable locations that we could get creative with. They're not

[14:06] » Yes. >> all tucked into industrial zones or

[14:10] things like that. >> Yes.

[14:12] Yes. Madam Mayor, Council Member

[14:14] A lot of them are Frankly, I don't know why there's not something a little bit

[14:18] more useful on those on those parcels. Many of them are tucked away. There's

[14:23] you know, sandwiched in between a couple of privately owned parcels, but there's

[14:27] a few out there that um potentially could be you could do

[14:31] something interesting with them or if a park or something that the council

[14:35] wanted to explore, that's possible. >> We don't get to do a lot of new stuff

[14:39] like that um just given that we're built out. Um so it might be worth at least

[14:44] considering if it's >> Well, one of the things that I've looked

[14:49] at because I've walked all those properties.

[14:53] And we have the opportunity here in some of those properties ex-

[14:58] especially the 9 acres down in southwest Burnsville.

[15:04] Where we need single family development and it'll help to grow our tax base.

[15:11] And so there are other properties that I would say that staff coming back to us

[15:18] um next year after you evaluate and really identify what

[15:24] uh the best use. And I would say

[15:29] grow the tax base. One of the things we are in need of here in the city of

[15:34] Burnsville is single-family housing. We have no

[15:37] single-family housing uh land left.

[15:42] None. And so we have the opportunity here to

[15:46] grow the tax base and to have some single-family housing.

[15:51] And uh those 22 potentially developed developable parcels, I would like to see

[15:57] some evaluation and investigation of all of

[16:01] those and to see if it is something that we

[16:05] can do

[16:08] um because it is

[16:11] something we need. >> Madam Mayor, just a

[16:15] clarifying question. We did carve out any parcels that were identified as

[16:19] natural space within the parks plan. >> Yeah.

[16:22] » The parcel that you're speaking of is identified as a natural space in the

[16:26] parks plan, so >> Yeah.

[16:28] » It'd be good to have direction on that. >> But it's

[16:31] natural space. I have walked that. It's just

[16:37] it can be re-

[16:42] um zoned to housing.

[16:46] 9 acres is huge that we can add more

[16:51] single-family housing. Now we have to talk with the

[16:56] neighbors around that because usually when somebody something sits

[17:01] there for a long time, then it's taken for granted that it's going to be that

[17:04] way, but but we have a need for single-family

[17:08] housing. Any other comments, thoughts?

[17:11] » Yeah, Travis, I'd still think it'd be worth investigating if there is room to

[17:15] do something like a park. We had talked in our one-on-one about like

[17:21] you know the bike [snorts] parks at various communities if if there's a

[17:25] way to embrace those areas if they are in fact

[17:29] going to have to stay natural areas it'd be worth at least knowing that

[17:32] information. >> Sure.

[17:34] » [snorts] >> Council member remembers the council

[17:37] both the council member Gattis's question and the council member

[17:40] Workman's question or comment.

[17:43] Six items as Travis went through in terms of next steps coming from this

[17:48] study really our intention with all of our capital studies is to understand

[17:51] what we have what condition it is in and what we ought to do about it.

[17:55] In this particular case we plan six conversations that will both

[18:01] address how we we might consider use of some of

[18:05] the those more usable parcels as the council has discussed tonight

[18:09] and then also later on down the priority list would be

[18:13] a discussion of city-owned or EDA-owned versus

[18:17] city-owned parcels and at those particular times

[18:23] we're going to plan out these conversations of what is the council's

[18:26] desired use or plans for for the property and then also questions get get

[18:32] more into the details of questions on city versus EDA ownership.

[18:36] » Yeah and and I like all of the six recommendations that you have here

[18:41] because that will give us more information as we look into it

[18:45] because if we're going to look at parks we have 76 parks now and I know we have

[18:50] three categories of how we fund those. On the replacement and Jenny

[18:56] the other is that you know how much money do we have if

[19:00] we're going to build new parks and how much is in that

[19:05] fund but you guys are going to do that but that's going to come back

[19:09] when you're going to evaluate all of those properties because

[19:14] we have so much money in replacement cost and in

[19:21] uh enhancement What do you call it, Jenny, when we're building new new

[19:26] parks? And I know that fund isn't big.

[19:30] » Oh, the parks investment fund. >> Correct.

[19:32] » [clears throat] >> Yeah. Okay.

[19:34] So, members of the council are you in agreement with the six

[19:40] recommendations that staff is um

[19:43] presenting to us this evening and they're going to come back to us

[19:48] with more information on each of these items

[19:51] in 27.

[19:55] » Yes, Mr. President. >> All right. Thank you so much and you

[19:59] know that was very good work. Excellent. Thank you.

[20:04] Really appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mayor.

[20:06] » Okay, now we're moving on to sidewalk and trails. And

[20:11] and our public works director, Mark Brey, is going to be presenting.

[20:16] » Good evening. Excuse me, Mayor and council members.

[20:19] Uh as with all of our studies, uh this one looked at kind of a comprehensive

[20:22] analysis of the conditions, operations, maintenance, and system connectivity.

[20:25] Again, what we have, what's the condition it's in, and what do we need

[20:28] to do to maintain it going forward. Taking a large kind of step back,

[20:32] looking at the city, we have 78 miles of sidewalk in the city with a value of

[20:35] just over 70 million dollars. 12 miles of trails, generally those are

[20:39] asphalt trails, just over 7 million. And then just for the community's reference,

[20:44] little over 21 miles of sidewalk in Dakota County right away, little over 18

[20:48] miles of trails in Dakota right right away or just

[20:52] Dakota County trails. I do want to note that we do plow both the county sidewalk

[20:57] and trails. Looking at funding for existing sidewalk

[21:00] and trail system, preventive maintenance, kind of those day in day

[21:03] out routine things, is a planned expense. It's is through the operating

[21:06] budgets. Snow removal is funded through a bill on

[21:09] the utility bills. And then we do work with our partners,

[21:14] um, generally Dakota County, and then use

[21:16] state aid to fund, um, some trails that we have in the city. Uh, otherwise,

[21:20] grants are another big option, too. So, Greenwood sidewalk, for example, was a

[21:25] grant. We got a regional solicitation. We got another grant for the trail on

[21:30] Williams Drive, for that corridor, for example.

[21:33] The condition rating that you see is the same as what we use for our pavement

[21:37] manager plan. That was very intentional. This will be a consistent methodology

[21:41] that you all are familiar with. Uh, as we look at the system as a whole,

[21:46] the vast majority of our system is in a good to fair condition.

[21:49] Uh, we do have a little bit of poor and critical needs

[21:53] in the system, but as a portion of the large system, it is a a pretty small

[21:56] percentage there.

[21:59] This, for example, is a a shot of one of the sidewalk panels. One of the

[22:03] challenging, not challenging, one of the deals with sidewalks is you can replace

[22:07] one or two panels and address the worst part of it, and the rest of it might be

[22:11] fine. So, while we scored sections of sidewalk

[22:15] based on the worst panels, it's not like you need to replace the whole thing to

[22:19] address the critical need. And so, that's why you see the value or

[22:23] the condition of the sidewalks is in that fair condition,

[22:26] but it's pretty easy to address the the panels through normal operations and

[22:29] maintenance. This is a shot of, um,

[22:33] the paver section in the heart of the city, right behind right off Pillsbury,

[22:36] behind the Ames Center. As you can see, pavers are sliding off. There's a lot of

[22:41] undulation there. And so, this actually is a scheduled replacement to be

[22:44] replaced with concrete. Overall, our sidewalk conditions have a

[22:50] score of 61. Again, that is lower than the trail condition score of 81,

[22:55] but through fairly routine things, we can

[22:58] address the problems with our sidewalk and and that life will extend much

[23:02] longer than the normal kind of deterioration that you see with asphalt

[23:06] trails. We do rate all of our asphalt trails

[23:09] consistent to our streets every 3 years. Our concrete sidewalks do not

[23:14] deteriorate the same way as asphalt and our snow removal operations clearly

[23:18] identify issues in the sidewalk. So, for example, um trip hazards, so anything

[23:23] roughly half inch or more, as we're clearing them, our drivers will come

[23:26] into adverse contact uh with those trip edges and then we'll either, you know,

[23:30] replace the panel or grind the trip edge down to address that need. So,

[23:35] the sidewalk system is made because we're plowing it, we're very uh familiar

[23:39] with where the problems are and we get them addressed. Fundamentally, the goal

[23:42] is to maintain an off-street trail and sidewalk network that is accessible for

[23:46] all users. Looking at the different management

[23:50] methods we use, we're on the right half of the screen, so rehabilitation and

[23:53] maintenance. As you can see, sidewalk, again, it's just panel replacements,

[23:58] trip edges, and then sweeping. For asphalt trails, we might have a mill

[24:01] and overlay, sweeping, crack sealing, and kind of similar things that you'd

[24:05] see with uh street pavements.

[24:10] Overall, the recommendation coming out of this is, pending what we see with the

[24:14] comprehensive plan for 2050 that you all see, that would inform any plan on um

[24:21] future potential sidewalk or trail things. I do want to note, we are

[24:25] working with the county on some gaps along County 5 as well as County 42 uh

[24:30] where there's not off-street facilities on both sides of the roadway.

[24:34] Very clearly, we do not want pedestrians in the road on county roads. And so, um

[24:40] we're working collaboratively with the county

[24:42] through some grants to to close those gaps in the system. So, that is within

[24:46] the next 5 years, those are planned. But, beyond that, any new sidewalks or

[24:51] trails would be informed by the comprehensive plan.

[24:55] With that, I'll take any fun questions.

[24:58] » Any questions for Mark and the plan and it'll be updated in 2025,

[25:05] but any

[25:08] questions, comments?

[25:11] » I just want to comment. Generally speaking, these comprehensive plans are

[25:16] just as the city manager pointed out and they're from I think from all of our

[25:21] perspective, they're one of the best tools for us to really make a

[25:25] » decisions >> thoroughly educated decision, not just a

[25:29] cursory review and some basic information and we're we're making a

[25:32] decision. These are phenomenal tools for us.

[25:35] » I love it because I have the information [clears throat]

[25:37] to to evaluate and make good decisions

[25:41] from. And especially when I'm looking

[25:46] » [clears throat] >> on the strategy you have presented in

[25:51] page 17 and 18, Mark, of the plan. That really gives us a lot of good

[25:58] information about how you're going about all of this. And

[26:02] also, I didn't know

[26:07] but we are uh

[26:11] snow removing and taking care of sidewalks that are on county roads, 5

[26:17] and 11 and 42.

[26:19] » Cliff Road as well, yeah. That's correct, right?

[26:21] » Cliff Road, yeah. So,

[26:25] good job because it it's about our vibrancy. We say one of

[26:30] our the vision for the city is a vibrant community, but if the county's not doing

[26:35] it, then we're doing it. But we don't get

[26:39] reimbursed. We don't bill them, do we? >> That is correct. We do not.

[26:43] We're good partners. We do things. We do it.

[26:46] » We're [snorts] going to have to be better partners pretty soon, I have a

[26:48] feeling. >> Yeah. Any

[26:52] Any other comments for Mark?

[26:57] Thank you so much. >> Thank you.

[26:59] » Well done. Travis and Mark, great information and

[27:03] Greg I know there are 13 of these studies.

[27:06] They're very good. So, thank you. Okay. Um

[27:11] council members, uh we're at round table.

[27:16] Vince. >> Don't forget to vote tomorrow.

[27:19] » Okay. Yeah. >> [laughter]

[27:21] » Yeah. Now, any reports from you? >> Uh no. Uh we got a going away party, I

[27:26] think what next week for Amy? >> For Amy? Yeah.

[27:29] » the Med Cruise at 4:00 next week or the week before after.

[27:31] » I think it's the >> May 1st.

[27:34] » Uh a week from this Friday. I believe. Or is it this Friday?

[27:38] » No, it's next week. >> Next week.

[27:39] » Next week. Yeah, that that's a going away party at Med Cruise for her at

[27:42] 4:00. I think everybody should have gotten a

[27:46] message [clears throat] on all that. >> Well, you Well, but

[27:49] » And it's on Facebook, so I think the city got invited.

[27:52] » Yeah. Well, just let our res- residents who are listening to us say

[27:57] What? >> Oh, Amy is the the executive vice or the

[28:00] executive president of the Experience Burnsville and she's leaving

[28:04] us for a job in Green Bay because like

[28:07] Diane Keeley, she's a Green Bay fan. And so, she's going home.

[28:11] » I knew there was something about >> the championship rings. She's going home

[28:13] to represent the Pack, so. >> I knew there was something dodgy about

[28:16] her. >> [laughter]

[28:17] » But it's a it's really a good opportunity. You know, she's been a one

[28:20] person show for a long time ever since COVID and it's an opportunity for her to

[28:24] work with a big staff in a in an organization that's so much larger than

[28:28] our organization is and so, it's it's it's a great opportunity. And just so

[28:32] you know, we already started our executive search for a new director, so

[28:36] that is out there and we'll update you that. I'm I'm part of the search

[28:39] committee, so >> Big shoes to fill.

[28:42] » It's some big shoes to fill and it's I mean, she did a a from from payroll to

[28:46] marketing to emails. You name it, she did it all. So,

[28:50] uh she will definitely be missed.

[28:53] And that's it. >> Okay.

[28:55] » Madam Mayor, members of the council, just so uh the date for Amy's farewell

[28:59] is Friday, August 21st for 21st at 4:00 p.m. at

[29:03] » Thank you. >> uh at Mad Cruz.

[29:05] » Yeah. >> And uh the board shared that information

[29:08] with staff, asked us to invite our team, and to invite you. So, I think you

[29:11] probably saw it in my weekly email to you. And anyone who is interested in

[29:16] wishing uh Amy well and and farewell um is

[29:20] welcome to attend. >> Okay. Very good. Cara, you have any

[29:25] anything to report? >> I do not.

[29:30] » Okay. Dan?

[29:32] » Just a few [clears throat] quick things. The Chamber of Public Policy

[29:35] Committee was last Friday, and uh it featured our new Chief of Police as the

[29:41] guest speaker. He gave a

[29:43] uh Chief Smith gave a really good

[29:46] presentation uh showing the history of the department

[29:50] going way back. I do remember that some of those photos

[29:54] uh when uh your predecessor took office, but the way you did it, and there was

[29:59] seems like there was a so much more information, and it really was

[30:02] extraordinarily informational for everybody on the call

[30:06] uh in the virtual meeting. Um it was great. Really great job.

[30:11] And uh I I think hopefully the Historical Society has

[30:14] tabs on all those photos, cuz there's some great photos of squads from way

[30:18] back. >> Mhm.

[30:20] » [clears throat] >> Uh the meeting it was recorded and his

[30:23] presentation, so I think you can get the link on the Chamber website or their

[30:26] YouTube channel. Uh Metro Cities Transportation and

[30:29] General Government meeting uh was held in July, our first one, and next one's

[30:33] coming up in late August. So far, no major contentious issues within the

[30:37] General Government section or Transportation.

[30:40] Uh Transportation got a big shot in the arm with the additional

[30:44] uh, sales tax boost, so

[30:46] a lot of projects are getting funded in Burnsville, ironically,

[30:51] lately. Uh, NLC announced their leadership

[30:54] applications opens on Monday the 17th and I'll run open till September 28th.

[30:59] That includes the board, federal advocacy committee chairs and council

[31:03] chairs, second VP and many more. They do note that you have to log in

[31:07] your myNLC myNLC uh, to complete the application for

[31:12] those interested. And then MVTA ridership report came out.

[31:15] I sent it to Greg to share as he did. It just really showed strong growth across

[31:20] the system. We did, I want to point out we did refine some routes.

[31:25] Um, and it's it's really great to see when

[31:29] we change a particular route based on some studies and feedback

[31:33] when it gets a big jump in ridership, like instantaneous 20-30% jump in

[31:39] ridership uh, after changing the route is is

[31:42] really good good to see. Obviously, it affirms uh, the data set

[31:47] the data pointed to making a route change.

[31:50] That's it. >> Okay.

[31:53] Uh, I don't have anything to report, but we had a great

[31:57] turnout, I thought, for um, the distribution of soccer balls

[32:04] for the uh, our youth. Our new emerging young soccer

[32:10] players. So, that's it. And our Burnsville-Savage meeting was canceled

[32:16] because nobody had anything to report. So, um,

[32:22] that's it. And so, if there is nothing else, Greg?

[32:28] » Nothing from staff, Mayor. >> Okay. We stand adjourned adjourned by

[32:31] acclamation and then reconvene uh, Uh, at um,

[32:36] 6:30. 6:30 >> 6:30

[32:39] » 6:34 uh, the budget meeting. Okay, very good.

[32:44] Thank you.

City Council Work Session - 10 Aug 2026

Transcript