[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.