City Council - workshop

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is now 5.30, and I will call this regular work session of the Burnsville City Council to order. It's good to see members of our community present in the council chambers. Welcome, everyone. Members of our community and the public are welcome to attend also by watching us on BurnsvilleMN.gov slash meetings. or Comcast Channel 16 or 859. The public can also participate through Zoom by joining us at zoom.us slash join. More information is available on our meetings webpage and in the council agenda packet. This is a work session and we go directly to the items that are on the agenda. So the first item on the agenda is a study that was done. And Garrett Beck, you're on deck.

Welcome. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I like the way that rhymes. Good evening, Mayor and Council. This evening we are going to talk about a way finding study that our team has been up to over the last year or so you may recall back in june of 2024 the team presented a parks plan which really inventoried and assessed all of our our park amenities within the system and as part of that process of the presentation we indicated that evening that we were going to also be Completing over a period of time a park away finding study as well, which would be part of the parks plan in the future so just a quick overview a Wayfinding study of essentially establishes a comprehensive citywide framework for how visitors can navigate navigate our park system This particular study assessed all 76 of our parks we used a variety of ways to engage our community through different events and platforms. And the final product will be aligned with Burnsville sign standards. So the goal of the project was strictly related to the community benefits as well. So having a comprehensive way finding plan will improve orientation and navigation for our guests. It promotes accessibility. It increases the awareness of the amenities within the park system. It helps us to effectively communicate to the public and it supports multimodal access. So the baseline assessment done by our consultant looked at 473 signs in our 76 parks and they determined based on their standards that 23 of our parks currently meet appropriate wayfinding. They indicated that 149 new signs should be considered and I'll talk about those signs later on in the presentation here. They also propose that we remove 44 signs with 89 signs currently being in condition one and two. And I'll just share right now, part of our process over the last few years and into the near future is that we're working to replace condition one and two amenities. The reason why there's still 89 out there for signs We wanted to complete the wayfinding study first. We didn't want to be replacing signs that are condition one and two only to determine that they might be one of the 44. So now that this study is complete, we'll work on taking care of those signs as well. I talked about community engagement. We did eight on-site park intercepts. So that's really just the team going out to a park, setting up a table and a tent, sharing what's going on for the project, giving people opportunities to communicate in person about their ideas and concerns and also an opportunity to visit a website and provide more information in a future time if they wanted. We had online mapping opportunities so someone could go on to their park and put a pinpoint on there and then put a note about thoughts about wayfinding in a particular area. And then they also were present at six of our city events. So from a community engagement feedback process, we heard that there was an opportunity to, or I shared that there was an online opportunity to request signs in the park system. So people were doing that. They felt overall there was a need for clearer, more consistent signage and maps in the park. an opportunity to expand signage for trails and access points, and then directional signage to specific amenities once you're in the park. So a little bit about the signage family and the different types of signs you may see in a park system. So amenity signs basically distinguish specific features in a park. So if it's a playground, there's usually a name of a playground and whatnot. The arrival signs are your park entrances. It may be an amenity. For example, in Civic Center Park, we have a skate park, right? So there is an arrival sign for coming to Civic Center Park, but then when you get to Lions Skate Park, then there's a different amenity sign there. It also includes rules and safety and guidelines for the park system. A destination sign. highlights a key destination within the park. So for example, if you're out at Lac Lavon, there are six ball fields out there. And so a destination sign may be you're at field A or field B or field E or whatnot. Directional signs provide clear guidance at decision points. So if you're at a road fork or a trail fork, it helps you to to determine what direction you want to go based on what your goal is. And then there are also actual trail and path signs that help you to know where you're at on the trail and the path and within the park. So insights from this. Directional signs that guide visitors are severely underrepresented at only 4.2% of all of our signs. And so what that means at the end of the day is that people uh, shouldn't in general have, uh, are able to find our parks, but once they get inside of our larger parks, uh, they may have some difficulty navigating through the park system at that point. So I talked about, um, the recommendation for signs that, um, need to be added to the park system based on the proposal and the, and the plan. And this is just an example of what, obviously this is not what one of our signs look like at this time, but it gives you an idea that if you were at this particular park, there's a, inside the parking lot, there's an arrow there that says you are here. And then a person can then see based on where they're at, when they're looking at the sign, if they want to get over to the fitness area, what direction they would need to go to and whatnot. If you think about our park system specifically, we have some very large community parks. If you think about Neal Park, for example, there are actually five different major parking lots that you could go to park to within Neal Park. So an example of where a sign like this would be appropriate is that at each of those five locations where people are coming and parking and getting out and getting ready to use the park. There may also be other situations where there's major forks within a larger park where a sign like this may be appropriate as well. So again, the recommendation from the study is to replace or remove 44 of the signs that provide minimal effectiveness to install 149 new signs of which a lot of them will look like the sign that I just mentioned where it's an overview of the park helps people to figure out what amenities are in the park. How are they going to travel to get to those? Um, and then a thoughtful use of the city's messaging and consistent standards. The implementation process for this would be to finalize our sign standards. Our team will work, we'll look at the needs of those signs that need to be added, work with our communications department, develop the standards, what the sign will look like, make sure it's consistent with our sign process. We'll then develop a cost estimate and identify a funding plan to pay for those signs and then prioritize by category. In general, we will look at our larger parks that have more visitors to try to make sure we get those up to speed as quickly as possible and then work our way through the neighborhood and mini parks and finish it off that way. So, I will pause and see if there are any questions or comments.

Questions, comments for staff? Questions, comments?

I think it's a good idea. The signage, it's not only for the current residents, but we have a lot of new residents in this city that are just starting to learn our parks, so that's going to really help them a lot.

Agreed. I think this is a nice thing to have.

Okay. Any other comments?

Yeah. I have noticed visiting other cities that they have some pretty good parkway finding signs, and I have Felt a little jealous that we don't. Just never was a big, huge priority until we did this project or staff did this project and kind of shined a spotlight on that.

Well, when we did the parks analysis, that really told a big story about the inventory that we have and the analysis that was done that identified what we needed to invest in.

Yeah, I think for the most part, for the parks that we have, it's a visual thing, right? You see where stuff is at, but sometimes there's parks that you can't see all of the amenities that are there. But I think there's a lot of good reasons to do this, so I support it.

Yeah. My only thought is if we, and I know we're not to the design phase yet, but... restrict or reduce the amount of branding. I mean, we obviously can do colors, but if we do logos and stuff, so that way if there is an overhaul, then we're not having to go back through and replace all 100 and so of those.

So it's been mentioned, and I agree, we have a very diverse population here in Burnsville. So in going through, and this is page 13 of the plan, the symbols need to be defined so people know what those symbols are. Because it might be interpreted one way for somebody and a different way for someone else. So what does the symbols mean? Because people can look at the symbols and some will understand, but some would not. So that's good. The other thing is that I just love going through the whole plan. 235 pages, by the way. And you had all of the trails marked. I liked that. However, down at the river park, the riverfront park, the trail that's missing is around Black Dog Lake. If you can take a look at that.

Take a look at that.

Yeah. Excel built that, but it's still within the trail system because when we come around, you can do that. The other thing that I, so when we do the trail map, I think it would be something that we need to take a look at. But it was interesting. So Keller, I did not realize that the trail at Keller Lake goes all the way and winds into Apple Valley and circles back into Burnsville. So I was thinking that maybe on my walks, I was into Apple Valley, did not know it. So is there going to be signs that say you are leaving Burnsville? Because the same thing is in Ella Magnet. Because when you take that trail in Ella Magnet, when I looked at it, it goes right out into Apple Valley and then curves all the way back. But I didn't know that I was leaving Burnsville and was in Apple Valley. Just some thoughts when you do the trail, because this is, I love the fact that you also identified the trail from Fisher Park going all the way down to Lac Le Bon, that whole trail. I don't think a lot of people realize that that goes all the way down to Lac Le Bon Park.

Madam Mayor, I would agree. That's why, yes, I think the signs at the different entrances really help. Those overhead ones really help people to see all the different things. And that's a great example of a park where you may not know that those amenities are even there, depending on why you're visiting the park in the first place.

The only way I found it was doing COVID. Just keep walking. Just keep walking. And... so those were just i was thinking people should know about this because it's a really nice trail and it goes down into laklaman and winds around and yeah so yeah then well there in addition to enhancing there's maintenance and replacement like the sign at the dog park bulletin sign is is an absolute embarrassment

it's in such horrific shape that it really reflects poorly on the city so i think some of those things have to be addressed sooner than later i mean to me they're they should be addressed on the front end of this project because they they that's that is a i don't believe how bad that is well they're going to get to all of that because that's one and two in in the plan yeah and and then page 34 you have all of the

different family of signs for the different parts.

And we have some really great signs that are really nice. And then we have that one, which is the other end of the spectrum.

Yeah. The route signs are really nice. I think that'll give the system of what you're looking to put in place. And then the examples that you have on page 35 really gives people an understanding of what it's going to look like. Yeah. I like all these things because it really helps us to understand when we're going to invest in these signs and what it's going to cost. But I can't wait now to see the trail plan. Because this is really good. But it really, really lets people know where things are. But I don't know. The folks who live over in Alameda, did you know that you were leaving Burnsville and you were in Apple Valley? Yeah, probably those of us who don't walk those trails all the time, you know, because I try to walk all over the city. So it's not, but I looked at it and I said, wow, that's a lot. So we share quite a bit with Apple Valley, Keller, Alamagna. Yeah, so very good. Anything else? But I think the trail system plan, I know we've been working on it because we also work with Dakota County on the Marion. It'll come. I like all the plans you're putting in place. Just curious. Okay, thank you. Anything else? Those are just my thoughts.

All right. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Councilmembers. I am also up on this next one, but... Oh, that's right.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, no, that's all right.

This is his night.

Yeah. And so it's not. Item two, because you've got all of it, so okay. Yeah, this is the Rose Park Land Use and Cabal Project. And Garrett, you're up, and so is our Deputy City Manager and Community Development Director. It's such a long title. Jeff Thompson.

Thank you Madam Mayor. Just so people don't get sick of hearing me talk, Jeff's going to help me out along the way here. So this evening we're going to take a look at the Rose Park land use and pickleball project update. So you may recall back on October 14th of 2025 at a city council work session, council had the opportunity to review a pickleball feasibility study that informed the possibility of a pickleball project at Allomagnet, Cliff End, Hollows, and Rose Parks. So after a review of the schematic designs and hearing about the community engagement results, council shared a consensus that evening for a preferred location in the order of Rose Park first, followed closely by Cliff End Park, and then Allomagnet and Hollows. So council direction that evening was that staff continue the development of a pickleball facility at Rose park by continuing negotiations for a land use agreement for Rose park with the owners of that property, which is RTX slash Collins aerospace.

So, um, mayor and council, you'll recall, um, as part of the feasibility study, as we were exploring opportunities for the pickleball project across the entire park system, One park that was identified as a potential is Rose Park, which we talked about in October. And as part of the feasibility, we wanted to explore the park, but recognizing that there's a unique agreement on that park and that we don't own it, but there's a long-term lease that the city has had for the use of that land for a park. So we had engaged Collins in conversations as part of the feasibility study just to see if it was something that we could continue to explore and bring forward for the council for consideration. At that October work session, this is information that we talked about, which is RTX and Collins were open to a potential partnership for potentially constructing the pickleball courts on that land. And we had had very early and high level conversations with them about what a land agreement for that could look like. And they had kind of framed three larger options for the city for potential future consideration. At the time that was the three options they had framed for us were extending the existing ground lease for an additional 20 years to allow for the construction of the project. The other two options were extending the lease for a shorter duration. That's like a three year duration with the option for the city to purchase the land after that three year lease. um, an option to sell the land to the city, um, uh, uh, for the project to proceed. So those were the, again, we didn't have in October any specific terms for, um, for response or information to, to be able to respond to it. But those were the three high level options that had been provided. And there was a question that they had asked of us, which was whether the property could be considered tax exempt for property tax purposes because it is currently and has been previously classified by the county assessor as industrial land, vacant industrial land, and tax at the full market value of industrial land. So that was the information. Again, this isn't new. This is what we had talked about at that October work session. Before we get in, and then as Garrett said, the direction from the council was for us to continue those negotiations with the landowner, RTX Collins, and bring back specific terms for the council's consideration. We'll talk about that, but before I just wanna just do a little reminder of the existing arrangement. So as I said, the land is owned by Collins RTX. The original lease agreement for the park was signed by the city and the parties in 1992 when the park was developed. It was a dollar lease for a 20 year period and allowed us to build the park amenities that are largely out there today, the ball field and the soccer field. And as I said, that was originally a 20-year lease. There have been two amendments since that original lease, a first amendment in 2010 and then a second amendment in April of 2019. So the germane points of the existing ground lease term is the current lease runs through September of 2032 for the portion of the property that is used as the park. There's a portion of the property that is, uh, the Collins constructed up an employee parking lot on and that area is not included in the lease agreement because the original 20 year lease term has, has, um, has expired. Um, there is no, um, they are no longer responsible for compensating the city if, if they terminate it. But either party does have the ability to terminate that existing lease agreement with 180 day or six month notice to either party. But as I said, because that original buyout clause from the original lease has expired. Collins wouldn't be responsible for paying us should they terminate that lease early that's allowed under the lease agreement. So first, I'll just talk a little bit about the property tax exemption conversations that we've had. For information, the Dakota County Assessor is ultimately the agency that determines and sets the property tax classification and the property tax valuation for all properties in Burnsville. And so we facilitated, since the October work session, we facilitated conversations with the Dakota County assessor. And initially those conversations, the assessor indicated that based on their review of the statute and the guidance provided by the Department of Revenue, The unique agreement we have did not qualify the property for tax exemption, which is why that determination had been made over the years to tax it as the industrial land value. We did then just reach out to the Department of Revenue, the state agency that oversees it, and ultimately they provided some guidance documents to the city for a comparable situation in a different county in Minnesota, which said that a an agreement such as a ground lease for a potentially exempt use could be classified as tax exempt. So the city provided that guidance document provided from the Department of Revenue as well as the copy of our lease agreement for the property to the Dakota County Assessor. They reviewed all of that and ultimately made a decision that the city's leased portion of the property will be exempt from properties taxes starting in 2027. So as you know, the, the property tax system works that essentially the, the values that are the classification values that ultimately determine tax your tax, your property taxes are determined the year ahead of the payable tax year. And so, um, ultimately it becomes effective, uh, next year in 2027.

Jeff, well, let's bring back when the lease expires then.

Um, mayor and council. Yeah. I mean, ultimately, yes. Um, as it says on the slide, right, any futures change, the determination that the county assessor made says that if there are any changes to the property use, the improvements or the lease, they would re-review that and ultimately determine if it still qualifies for exemption. We would assume if there's not that ground lease in place that qualifies for exemption, that property tax exemption would likely go away. And the only other caveat is that exemption is only pertains to the portion of the property that we lease for the exempt use for the park. So the area of the park, the area of the property that's used for employee parking would remain taxable for property tax purposes. Just provide a little bit of information what that means. So in 2026, the total property that the total property taxes on the property for the full valuation It's just over $104,000 and that's based on the industrial land value, the taxable market value at full industrial land at over $3.5 million. The 2026 amount for the city's portion of those property taxes is $22,488. Since the exemption applies in 2027, we don't yet know what those 2027 property taxes will be because all the taxing agencies are currently working through their budgets and levy process. But as part of the normal taxation process, Dakota County Assessor has released the proposed taxable market value for the property, reflecting those changes of the exemption for the city's ground lease area. and reduced the overall taxable market value of the property to $558,000. So there's a year gap in there, but you can see the overall reduction is about $3 million in total taxable market value for property tax purposes. And again, that's independent of the city's lease negotiations with RTX Collins. This is a determination the county assessor has already made and implemented based on that Department of Revenue guidance and the city's existing lease. So the original options that we had talked to Collins about, ultimately they gave us a specific lease term proposal for one of those options. And so I just want to walk through what the framework of those terms are. That would be a 20 year lease extension to the existing lease with an initial annual rent of $90,000 per year. with an annual rent escalation for essentially inflationary purposes of 2.5 percent annually. So that 90,000 would be the first year, and then it would increase 2.5 percent each year for the 20-year terms. The lease extension would be premised on the land that the city is owning being property tax exempt. And should the county assessor make a different determination, the annual rent would be adjusted under the lease terms to fully account for the city's portion of the property tax liability. Now, we don't expect that, right, because of the guidance we've received. And the ground lease qualifying for exemption, we wouldn't expect that, but it was terms that Collins and RTX provided in the lease agreement should that change based on the clause that the county assessor said, which said they could re-review it if there is a change.

So toward the end of this lease, it would be about $140,000 a year? Yes. Two and a half percent?

Twenty-two.

Correct.

Thank you.

We also had a lot of conversations with RTX and Collins about the termination clause, recognizing that the city is making a substantial investment in this property and under a lease term for building an asset on land we don't own, there is a risk to the city that if RTX and Collins has the ability to terminate the lease, it would result in the city having built improvements that would no longer be available to us. The terms that they have given us is that very similar terms to the original 1992 lease, which is essentially either party may terminate the lease with a 12-month notice. Within that 20-year term, either party could terminate the lease with a 12-month written notice. If RTX terminates it, there would be a simple depreciation clause, which essentially says we were using for planning purposes a million dollars of planned capital investments the city would make. that that amount of total project investment would be depreciated over the 20-year term of the lease, such that the termination payment would decline by $50,000 per year. So in year one, we'd get $950,000, and by year 19, we would only receive $50,000 in payment. And at the end of the lease, there would be no compensation for the city's capital investment.

Question. Yes. What's our normal depreciation of an asset like that? We have to basically go in and completely overhaul it because, right, I mean, is 20 years the time where we would have to go in and spend a lot of money to rehab the whole facility to make it, you know, maintain it well?

Council Member Keeley, yes. With tennis courts slash pickleball courts, there is ongoing maintenance about every five years that you want to do for crack sealing and resurfacing, but the general life expectancy of a court is right around that 20-year period. Fencing can last a little bit longer, so can lighting systems, but if you're looking at the actual court process itself, that's the general time period.

This is a logical depreciation schedule at 50,000 a year over the 20 years, so if they were to cancel after 10 years, We would get half a million, right? But they would also have the costs that we would normally bear if we kept it. They would have the costs of maintaining it and eventually replacing it. So it's just how assets work. End of depreciation.

Okay. Kara?

Would they maintain the pickleball court? I mean, I would assume if they take the lease back, it would be to take the pickleball court out to do something that they wish to do, like a building or a parking lot or or something like that. So there is depreciation of the built asset. But what we don't get back is the money that we put into it to get everything prepared and the water management and all that kind of stuff. Which you put that money into it and then after 20 years if you need to redo the court, you're redoing the court but you're not having to redo the site prep and the like water management, that type of thing. So do we have a breakdown of what that is? Like how much are we putting into it that would not be the actual pickleball court?

There are just one comment. So we asked When we were talking to Collins Aerospace RTX about this, it was a depreciation of all of the investment that went into it, not just the specific amount that went into the pickleball court. So there's some parking lot spaces, there's lights, there's the court, there's the wetland management type things. It was the total package. So it'd be a depreciation of, as Council Member Keeley mentioned, let's say it for round numbers, it was a million dollars. If after 10 years, they would give us $500,000 back because that was the cost of the total project.

Okay, I get that. Okay, so say we have to redo the pickleball court, 20 years, and they're like, yes, we would like to give you a lease again, right? Do we have to pay for site prep all over again and water management and those costs again?

We would not at that point.

Okay, so it would just be rebuilding the pickleball court. So the difference I'm asking is how much of what we have to do is prepping the site and how much is pickleball court? Because even with the depreciation, say they boot us off in 10 years and we get the depreciation on the total amount, right? That still is like we have to 100% site prep somewhere else. So that's a cost that we incur that we would not have to incur again if we were able to rebuild on a spot. Does that, am I asking the right question? In the right way, I should say.

Yes, Mayor and Council, again, at a planning level budget perspective, yes, I would agree that the if we look out 20 years, the cost of rehabbing the courts in place in their current location would be less than constructing courts, removing the courts, and or then building an entirely new pickleball project on a different park location and going through all of the planning and design and total site construction costs. We would assume those would still be higher than being able to replace the asset in place. We don't have a breakdown of what those dollars are because there's also 20 years of construction inflation that we can't fully hedge for. But yes, we would, from a planning level perspective, assume a new project cost would be higher in 20 years than a project that's replacing the courts in place.

How much is it? Because we can't say 20 years from now, but looking at today, is there a percentage?

I would have to go back and look at the October... Presentation I I believe we had I I know we had an opinion of probable cost and it was broken down by line item there were I want to say 25 to 30 line items in there that made up the million dollars, so I unfortunately Council member Schultz. I don't have I can't tell you my estimate right now on the spot if I had to say it's gonna that would be about seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars of the project would be courts and lights and fencing and things like that, but the courts themselves, if just the courts.

But we still have to pay $90,000 a year.

You don't have $2 million in lease payments by the time this is done.

$90,000 a year for.

We pay a dollar right now for the same amount of time.

Yeah.

I'm trying to remember off the top of my head when we renovated courts at North River Hills, for example, that was in the neighborhood of $300,000 for an on-site location, if that's helpful.

That is, thank you. Just the courts, right? Yeah.

So, and the fencing, but we already had the lights in place, so.

Right, right. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yep. I appreciate that, thank you. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I just wanna pick up on But Councilmember Gustafson said, I mean, we're talking about the cost of the investment and what it looks like if either party gets out, which we probably wouldn't, but they might, right? You never know. A company could get sold again in a new direction, and they want to use the property. But maybe the bigger concern is $90,000 a year. Yeah, $90,000.

And right now we'd pay $1. It escalates.

Yeah, and it escalates. I mean, it's...

That's a very bad deal for the city. MS. For me, that's the cost. Right now, it was $1. 90,000 is – and we have a plan moving forward. So would you continue, please, with

And just, Mayor and Council, to quantify that cost, you're looking at over $2 million over the 20 years for that cost of just simply using the land, right? Council Member Schultz, to your question, I'm trying to pull up just comparable what we have in terms of replacement value for the Rose Park complex in our parks plan. I'm still trying to find it. If I do, I'll let you know what that number is.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

But please proceed.

So council members, in addition to getting new information from RTX and Collins about a potential land lease, we also learned on April 3rd from BV United, which is the soccer club that provides recreational and travel opportunities for soccer for Burnsville residents and others. But a lot of Burnsville residents who choose to participate Announced that they had an attempt to dissolve as an organization effective at the end of this month in August 2026 and I did have a conversation with the president of the brunzel athletic club just to affirm this the brunzel athletic club intends to take over the recreational side of providing soccer opportunities for brunzel residents, so I During that conversation, we also just talked about if they had a plan on potential sites that they would be interested in, and Carrie indicated during that conversation that she did not foresee Cliff End being one of the sites that they would like to use, which was a location that BV United had been using pretty heavily throughout their existence. Nonetheless, what this means is that just because of soccer decline in Burnsville and the fact that that organization does not wish to continue, we will have a change in the field use requests that we receive, which will free up some additional fields at a location, as we'll talk about, like Cliff End that had been heavily programmed for soccer in the past. So for this next section of the presentation, we have the four locations based on the order that council had indicated back on October 15th of 2025. And what you're seeing the rest of this way is really schematic design, statistics, things like that that were reflective and true at the time of the October 15th. So said another way, things have not been updated for just for this presentation or anything like that. So the site we're looking at here is Rose Park. Some of the things we talked about that evening were that there'd be a proposal to add an additional 14 stalls at this location. It would have minimal impact on existing user groups, i.e. Rose Park is heavily used by the travel soccer program. But this was an area that was less used and they were more interested in a facility like this going in at Rose Park where they could absorb the impacts of it as opposed to Cliff End, is what they shared prior to the October meeting. And from an engagement standpoint, there was a strong community support for this particular location. These next two sites are Cliff End. Um, this particular one that you're looking at is the location where, uh, the, uh, the soccer club, uh, had their soccer fields laid out and we're using, uh, for their programming. Um, it was, uh, again, the designs are all similar, but in this particular case, the parking lots large enough to, to use, and we were not proposing additional stalls. However, we did note on really heavy events, um, there, were situations where these parking lots were full and people were having to cross Cliff Road and that was kind of a concern. So from an engagement standpoint, there was low community support for this particular location, specifically by the soccer club, indicating that it would have a negative impact on their program.

Council Member Gustafson.

I appreciate you going through all these slides on this. In my mind, and I don't know where the rest of the council is at, I think Rose Park doesn't seem to be a good business decision on our part. And now that we're finding out that the soccer is not going to get displaced down at Cliff Finn, I think that almost seems like the natural spot for it to move, to gravitate to. And I think we could kind of cut to that chase a little bit quicker.

And you've already talked to the club, and there's North River Hills, which is a big soccer park. So let's move it along.

Let's delay that. Because while I appreciate that we're like sitting here and we've seen these and been able to look at them, our residents really haven't. And that's what this is for is so that our residents can hear this. So I get that we're like, come on, move it along, but This is for residents.

If you can go back, because the history has been there and you've already had engagement with a lot of the interested parties on all of this.

Do we not want our residents to hear the presentation?

Well, they saw this presentation last year, but if you want to go through

I'll go faster.

And then of course all of the history of once you understood where things were with the United Soccer Club, who have you talked with and what was their feedback to you? Because you've talked to a lot of interested parties from what I understand.

I'll try to, I'll speed up the process here. This was the location that would have displaced the volleyball courts. The rest of the information that I shared about the soccer location remains the same. Here's a look at Ala Magnet Park with a proposal of 18 spots. There was no displacement of users, but it had low community support. And here was Hollows Park, which would have displaced a ball field by the BAC, had new parking constructed and new on-street parking required. It had moderate community support. With that said, again, I mentioned on October 15th that these numbers were opinions of probable costs related to construction at each of the locations. Ala Magnet, Rose Park was the cheapest. Cliff End was also the cheapest on the soccer fields. The volleyball courts were more because of the need to add additional wetland because we had to fill in some wetland. followed by Alamagnet and then Hollows Park was going to be the most expensive because of the parking lot needs. So from a timeline standpoint, based on decisions from council tonight, if we determine there is a location that you would like staff to proceed with on the project, we would look to engage the park neighbors at whatever the location was. And we still have our consultant that we've been using that we could be working on survey and site design prep during that time while we were doing engagement. And then after that was complete, we would be looking to do the actual site design, develop the bids and specs where we could actually bid the project in January through February of next year with a goal to build it through the spring and summer based on the preferred contractor chosen schedule and the Minnesota weather. So that takes me to the last slide. For policy consideration, does the city council wish to continue with the Pickleball project, and if so, at which location?

So I have a question. So is there a map of where the Pickleball courts are, not just in Burnsville, but in our surrounding city, so we can see, like, Is there a spot that is more pickleball rich and a spot more pickleball poor?

Pickleball desert?

Yes. Is there a pickleball desert is what I'm asking.

Do we have a wide-angle view? I think that's a good question.

Garrett?

Madam Mayor, members of council, In Burnsville, we just have the one pickleball complex. That's an official pickleball complex. There are six courts that are dedicated solely to pickleball. There is one tennis court that is lined and temporary nets can be put in. At Red Oak Park, that is on the northeast side of Burnsville. There are no other pickleball courts in Burnsville that are dedicated pickleball courts.

Mayor and Council, we do have a map of where we currently have the Rose Park Pickleball.

Red Oak Park. Red Oak.

I'm sorry. I apologize. In Burnsville and a map that shows the, so if we don't have it in the presentation, I think Bethany can bring it up, but a map that then shows the six neighboring communities and where their public dedicated pickleball facilities are.

Thank you, because yes, that would be hopeful.

There we go.

All right, so where are our three choice, well really, we're not going for the most expensive one, so screw that. Where are the other two choices at on that map?

One is on the west side hollow, but that is real close to a lot of houses. I think Hollow's off the table. Yeah, Hollow's off the table.

So we're looking at Ala Magnet, which would be far south.

Well, no, it's closer to Red Oak.

And we're looking at Cliff Fenn.

Yeah.

Which?

North. Okay, so that's about where. Out in the center and north.

That's in that north area. And then the Ala Magnet one would be way down southwest, but by. 11 southeast. Yeah, sorry, southeast.

North of 42. North of 40, yeah.

Oh, oh, okay.

There's like the A-shaped lake. Yeah, yeah, exactly. A little east of there. Got it. To the border. Yep, yep, yep.

So they'll both be, both on the east side where Clifton is in the central north.

And then you got Savage Community Park on the west side.

And again, to be clear. To be clear, this is just simply public, dedicated pickleball facilities. So there are many other multi-striped, multi-use courts, as an example, both in Burnsville and in our surrounding communities. So this is just focused on dedicated.

And there's some privately owned for rent pickleball. I know there's one in Lakeville.

And they're indoors at a shopping center. Year-round, right.

I wish we had those two spots marked on that map. That would be helpful. We can update it.

One of the decisions that we made back in 2025, Garrett, was to say if Rose Park didn't... Do you want to go through that again? I mean, the decision that was made back in 2025, that if Rose Park wasn't, the second choice was Cliff.

2025 already.

This is 2016. I'm looking at the background as well.

Yeah.

Yeah. Madam Mayor, if I'm answering your question correctly, I believe when Council was discussing the project that evening, there was a consensus that Council would like staff to talk to Collins and RTX about the possibility of Rose Park. There was also some support that evening more than one council member had support for cliff end park as a, as kind of a one, a slash two. Um, and then there was various opinions about hollows and Allah magnet that evening. So, um, from that conversation, we did have the discussions and, uh, also with the new information, um, have presented that tonight about cliff end.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE QUESTION, THE POLICY QUESTION BEFORE US IS THAT DO WE PROCEED WITH WHAT IS PRESENTED THAT ROSE PARK, I SAID IT'S PROHIBITIVE, I BELIEVE, $90,000 FROM $1 TO $90,000 IS PROHIBITIVE TO GO TO $90,000 A YEAR. And yet we do have to build it also. So shall we say Rose Park is off the table? Yes. Agreed. Yes. Okay. Very good. So Cliff Penn is the next. And you have already talked to all of the soccer players at Cliff Penn. And then moving some of that, those courts over to North River Hills.

Madam Mayor, yes, I have had discussions with the president and the BAC. They are planning to do recreational soccer, and from our conversation, she indicated that they do not plan to use Cliff End Park as part of that process. They are still putting their plan together. It will involve some of our neighboring communities, but she assured me that at the time of our conversation, Cliff End was not a location they were planning to use.

Okay, so Cliff End is... the next best here that we have on the table. Council.

So my opposition to Cliff Fenn at the time was the disruption of soccer. So with this new information, I've softened up on that location. I do want to call attention to the fact that this is closer to a wildlife refuge that has sensitive breeding grounds for eagles and other birds and i know that that was a pretty significant talking point in opposition to al magnet and so um i just want us to be consistent here that if this is to go forward with cliff and that this could potentially have more disruption here as it relates to that specific item than it would at al magnet

Okay. Any other thoughts? Kara?

So in the survey that we did in mid-July, let's see. Do you have that on in the presentation or no? I don't think so. So we're down to Allomagnet and Cliff-Fenn. And in the would you like to see a pickleball complex at your park, it was fairly comparable. 34% said yes to Allomagnet. 28% said Cliff-Fenn, yes. Which other park would you most like to see? And they could do multiple choice. Ala Magnet had 80. Cliff Bend had 62. Hollows Park had 89. So Hollows Park actually was very high on that one. Rose Park was the highest, but she's gone. Okay. And then are the current parking conditions suitable? Ala Magnet was 54%, said yes. Cliff Fenn was 33%, yes. Hollow Park was 29%, yes. So that was not good. I'm actually good with either spot.

Well, I think one of the things that was very critical was close to residence was a critical item. And when we looked at Cliff Finn, because it was all industrial all around, that was like Rose Park where you have industry all around. so you wouldn't be affecting residents.

Yeah, that's definitely a benefit of that park, for sure.

And Clifton had soccer in the mix at that time of the survey as well.

Correct, correct.

But it's changed now, and so it appears to me that the BCA is saying, yeah, we're going to move everything. And because North River Hills is really a beautiful soccer complex, Really beautiful.

So could you pop up that map again so that we can just put a little spot to where that would be?

Very close to Red Oak.

Well, you can take a look at what you had showed before on your map because there's industry all around.

Right, but we're looking at where is it in relation to the others. Okay, so that crosshair would be, which is pretty good, where cliff fen would be. And then allomagnet would be about, go south, south, south, south, south, south, south. Right in there. So again, pretty good for not being directly by another public pickleball court. So I think they're both good. I don't think we can go wrong either way at this point.

The one thing that I would say with Cliff and why I really liked it is because it's all industry around and it's not going to have a residential impact.

Well, I mean, we have we already have ball courts at Alamagnet. Like there's already ball courts there. So, like, I understand what you're saying, but that would be totally correct if there were not other ball courts already there. MS. Yeah.

But there is a difference between softball, baseball, and over at Ala Magnet than pickleball. And what we experience from residents that live next to Red Oak.

Oh, and I have one more question. For the volleyball courts that are at Cliff Fen, are we looking at perhaps moving those anyway?

No, because they're on the other side.

No, this is just an incident. Council Member Schultz, there would be no plan to replace those volleyball courts unless we chose that as the location, and then We talked back on October 15th of 2025 that if we did do that, it might make sense to put it at a Crystal Beach or something like that.

Yes. Okay. I wanted to make sure that that was still on discussion, that if we are looking at moving those volleyball courts, Crystal Beach might be a better location for those.

So thank you. Okay. And Crystal Beach is where they play volleyball right now?

Correct. We have league play at Cliff End and Allemagne and Crystal Beaches. On any nice day, there's almost always people out there using that location. That is correct.

It's a pickup. I'd also like to add, I'm also okay not doing pickleball at all at this point as a viable option.

I understand. So the thing is, the question, the policy question is council members. Do we want to continue with the pickleball project? And do we agree that Clifton Park is what staff should be focusing their attention to?

When did we, when was this originally supposed to break ground? Like what year?

24, I think.

No, no. Like we're, three years ago, right?

Two or three, yeah. I mean, it goes back that long.

I mean, I'm actually kind of with Vince. I mean, it's... I'm surprised it hasn't gone out of style yet. It's been three years.

From my perspective, it's the integrity of our communication with everybody, the pickleball community as well as the residents and all of the other stakeholders. So... Staff is waiting for us to say, do we move on with the pickleball, and is Cliff then the next? I mean, this had been worked on with staff and the communities, both the pickleball community and the soccer community, so.

I've already said move on with Cliff then, so. Okay. Waiting for the rest of them to figure it out.

I'm actually a no for doing it at all at this point. We're way past, so.

Well, people still are saying to us that they would like Pickleball, and we said that we would proceed with a project and have set aside money for it. Dan Keeley.

I think there's a an open question that we should address. Do we have any data on what the current trends for usage and demand? I know, like, continue to hear people going to other cities that can't get on Red Oak. And, of course, there's private providers popping up. A couple of my family members go to Lakeville where they can swipe a card, get in, and play. without any staff being there. It's kind of like a self-use gym sort of like, but do we have any data?

Garrett? Council Member Keeley, I will reiterate that all of the information that we've shared tonight is from our past projects. We have not updated any new information on this in regards to community engagement, studies on number of people in Burnsville playing, anything like that.

Okay. Madam Mayor, I'll share some information that just popped up. National trends, younger, faster, and dominated by entertainment. The numbers are staggering. According to Sports and Fitness Industry Association, the active pickleball participation hit 24 million Americans. Experts project active player numbers to easily clear 27 to 29 million. The demographics have flipped. The stereotype of pickleball being for seniors is dead. The fastest growing demographic is actual players under 24 years old, which is the Gen Z. Today, roughly 70% of all players are under 45, and the average player age is sitting in the mid-30s. The top golfification of the sport, simply building concrete slabs in public parks is no longer enough to meet demand. We're seeing a massive wave of private capital flowing into the massive indoor entertainment venues, social hubs featuring professional grade courts, high-end food, craft cocktails, and lounge areas. We're not going to be in that business. Because that's what the younger crowd needs.

So what you're saying that there is a demand.

There is. There is still huge demand. It's moved to younger. They're looking for a little bit more than just public Public courts, they're looking for, you know, what Lakeville.

Okay. So what I'm seeing is that, Vince, you're saying you don't want to do a pickleball.

I'm just, I'm indifferent. You know, if there's three votes to move forward with Clifford, I'm not going to fight you on it. It's just a lot of money to spend on.

Well, and Kara, you said you don't want to move forward with the pickleball.

Yeah, I mean, that's pretty much where I'm at. I'm not like, I'm not a hard no on this, but I am definitely not a yes on this at this point. Okay. But the time to do it is like when it's doing the upswing, but yes, now we are, and I do understand the having public courts because you're not paying to use those, right? But, man, I'm just not – I'm not enthused after three years of this. And it's not even going to break ground until, what, May of 2027?

People have been patient with our process. I am trying to be – to have the integrity because people have been patient with our process. And we arrived here at the point where Rose Park isn't. a viable option for us anymore, but Cliff Fen is. And Dan Keeley, you have read an analysis that it's still a high demand and people still want to see a pickleball courts in Burnsville. So I'm a Cliff Fen because from the very beginning it was the one that isn't close to any resident. It's around an industrial area, and so it's not going to have that impact on people. So, yes.

There's sort of a takeaway statement here. Pickleball is no longer just a trend. It's cemented itself as a standard piece of municipal and commercial infrastructure. For cold weather states like Minnesota, the next phase is growing into high quality indoor access, but that doesn't replace sort of the need for free public courts for those that want to play. And it does say, even though the growth is in the Gen Z, it's still multi-generational. There's still a lot of people, seniors who still play it. It's kind of, they were the first demographic to really pick up on it. So I would say I haven't changed my position. I liked Cliff Venn the last time we talked about this. I still like Cliff Venn. I think it Vince's point is very valid. It's abutting a nature preserve. It's going to have the same type of negative impact, so both locations have that. It's in an industrial area where I would prefer to see it because of the noise. I think I might have said this last time, the inventors of the sport didn't really think through the ball texture and makeup. tennis ball. It's a lot quieter. Well, they could have actually made a ball, but they threw it together and it just caught on like wildfire before they could even perfect it. So it is what it is, unfortunately. It's noisy. So I'm in favor of moving forward with Clifford.

Okay. So there are three votes to move forward with Clifford. Okay. Is there anything else that you need from us with regard to the policy question?

Madam Mayor, there is not. We have direction to continue with the project and to focus on Cliff End as the location.

Okay. And then you can let the pickleball community also know what transpired tonight.

Yes, Madam Mayor. We would, as I mentioned, we would plan to do an engagement time period with a pop-up at Cliff End Park, do a mailing like we have to the neighborhood around there, businesses, et cetera, make sure that the Burns Athletic Club was invited to participate and continue to share the information.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Now we move on to roundtable, and there is a signed ordinance amendment on a roundtable, and I believe Council Member Keeley, this is yours?

Yes. Council Members and Mayor, the primary reason I'm asking for the Council to consider an amendment to our signed ordinance in a couple of zones, types of zones, is that the upper facade high-level roofline signage for multi-story office and mixed-use buildings has some real benefits. And when we talked about this back when we were doing the signage in the HOTC, there was one building that came to mind. I didn't think about the second building. And I wondered why they didn't have anything, it's a four or five, it's a five-story building, because As you drive around the Twin Cities, you see all those buildings have signage that runs along the very top edge of the building. And from my retail side, I think, well, every retailer wants that. You know, you want to be able to say this is where I'm at, right? This is my company. But in the case of office, it's more about being a key employment hub in a lot of large companies that are looking to locate. do want to put their sign up because they might be a large user of Square Footage. They might be a company that's bringing some good jobs, and they kind of want that branding out there. It provides visual navigation along corridors, of course, and it serves as an economic development tool to attract major corporate anchor tenants for brand visibility, which happens to be what happened here. There is an application that has been in the city for a while. In the building, it's called... Well, it's the only... It's Gateway Office Plaza.

Yeah.

It's the only five-story office building that we have. And that's the building that I remember thinking about when we were redoing the zoning, thinking, like, monument sign there that doesn't... And I couldn't even find a sign. If they have a monument sign, it's not showing up on Google Maps. When I did the street view, I was thinking they must have something like that, but couldn't find anything unless it's... It's hiding behind some bushes. But that's the circumstance that drew our attention to it, which is kind of the way, even when we go through the code and we do a thorough review, you can't predict everything. And that was the one that I remember thinking about. Like, maybe we should allow signs like these types of buildings have on in other cities. And we didn't address it at the time because there wasn't really a driving need. Now there's an inquiry. And I thought about it, and I thought, well, there's another building. Grand Market Square is a- But we do have a sign for Grand Market Square.

A three story, yeah, it has the- It's right at the top.

Right, it doesn't have a brand sign, it has the building name sign, right? Not the tenant's name. So as a city, we certainly want to attract corporate tenants because they usually bring good paying jobs. In past years, we did a process where Councilmember Schultz brought up eliminating building heights in certain zones. Heart of the City was one, the Mall Center Village was another, and then I think it was maybe a portion of Highway 13, and maybe that's just all part of HOTC, but I remember you specifically saying Highway 13 and I-35, but that might be encompassed in the HOTC. And so we did. We removed the building height, so we were hoping that would draw some, you know, when some of those areas get redeveloped, some of those office complexes that are one story. If somebody comes in and buys it and they want to do a multi-story building, that would be great. So I think this is not just about that one application. This made me think broadly about these two major zones with no building height and the future. What is it going to attract? And how could that be enhanced to attract more people who might build a multi-story building, especially if they, it usually starts, I mean, office construction isn't pure speculative. They usually have two or three major tenants lined up in advance of acquiring the property and building the multi-story building. And those major tenants will look for, can I have my brand on the outside of the building? In our city, right now, they cannot. So my suggestion is for us to consider changing our ordinance for buildings that are three stories or higher that are office or office mixed use. This is not meant for residential or apartment buildings. This is strictly business buildings. And we have two, Grand Market Square and Gateway Office Plaza that would fall under this. So here's some examples of what you see when you drive around. Health Partners corporate office in Bloomington, formerly Ceridian, the Dayforce headquarters. multi-story buildings in suburbs. Richfield has Best Buy, of course. That's ginormous multiple buildings. St. Louis Park has Bridgewater Bank, corporate headquarters, and they're a first-tier suburb. Eden Prairie and Minnetonka have Optum. UnitedHealth has some monster buildings, and, of course, they want their brand on the outside of the building.

So does M Health here in Burnsville.

Yeah. So I think we just didn't have something compelling at the time to draw attention to it. Now we do and I think it's the right thing to do not only for today but for the future for both of these buildings and hopefully some future buildings that get built. I think that it's a common sense recommendation because it's really not uncommon in other suburbs and certainly cities. And I think I would suggest that we adjust the ordinance to allow these to have, and I'm talking very specific, these are right along the roof line. These are not down on any given floor. These are only what you would consider a roofline sign. And it would have to be individual backlit letters, the quality that we require in the rest of our city, fitting within a particular size. Those kind of details can be worked out by staff if they bring it back to us, if the council agrees with this concept.

I agree that we need to amend our sign ordinance, Dan. But it's, from my perspective, that's something that staff would have to do a lot of work to look at that and to do it throughout the city. And I believe there is... Amendments coming in, I think in the second phase for zoning. Jeff, am I correct in that? Zoning amendments. That would fit right in to that. But I want to address what this applicant wants. And we can make, I think staff had a pathway for this applicant to get that done for what they want to do. at the Gateway Building. And then, because the bulk of the work in looking at a comprehensive sign ordinance is going to take time, But I want to address the immediate need for this particular applicant. So if we can do that and then have staff look at the sign ordinance during the work that they're doing with the second phase of the zoning ordinance. And so they know that we want it throughout the whole city. But I want to get this one done. for this applicant for Gateway, if that's okay.

Yeah, I think I just, I wouldn't want.

Because we have a concept, I believe they have a concept they want to bring to us, and we can amend, because this is only about the DOT, the transit-oriented development, the TOD.

Well, that's the one that, yeah, and what they're proposing is, I have a picture of it, it's a sign that runs right along the roofline. That's exactly what I'm talking about, which is what other, you know, that's whatever.

And that's why I'm saying let's just address that so they can move forward.

I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want them to go through any additional expense as a result of them coming in as a special because our ordinance doesn't support it. I think our ordinance is wrong, and I think we need to fix the ordinance. and that they or anybody behind them can do this like a normal sign-up application.

And I agree with that, but this is the concept. They're not going to be... It's like any concept development that a developer brings before us before they spend any more money. You know, is it a go or no go?

Yeah.

So that's all I'm saying. It's not something that we haven't done with concept development. And I think that's what... staff had asked them to do, it's not going to cost them any money to do the concept. Is that correct?

City Manager Lindberg. Madam Mayor, members of the council, it is correct that our team, planning team, has been talking with the property owners, individuals involved. There is not a current application. Our team, and you might recall that I shared with you in early June that our team had offered the councils at the time brand new, newly adopted council plan review process in order to expedite an opportunity ahead of an application, ahead of the applicable fees for the applicant or escrow that would be required in the city's adopted plan. fee schedule, the opportunity to come talk to the council about the concept, which is the spirit of that planning tool as it's now adopted into ordinance. So at the end of the day, hopefully that helps clarify process and where we're at. But there's no application right now and there wouldn't be fees until the point of application.

But they bring a concept just like the...

I just want to I THINK THEY WOULD BE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO THAT. I THINK THEY WERE THROWING A CURVE ON THE SUCCESS RATE THAT MADE THEM A LITTLE APPREHENSIVE. SO I JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN COME BACK AND DEAL WITH STAFF. I WANT TO DEAL WITH THE ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE IS CHANGING BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT THEM. IT'S ABOUT GRAND MARKET AND ANY OTHER BUILDING THAT MIGHT BE LOOKED UPON AS BUILT IN BURNSVILLE. and having the ability to put those brands along the top.

I agree with that, but that takes such a long time. But they need to get this done now. And we've done concept before. Look at old Highway 34. They came with a concept because it was a residential area. And so when we said, sure, go ahead, they were able to move forward then and then file an application. Carol.

So what is the cost?

I met a member of the council. I would have to look that up. I look like Jeff might have the information available.

Mayor and council come in with a concept.

Yeah. It's just looking at our 2026 adopted fee schedule. And there's a, for us a concept plan review, uh, which is the coming directly to the council for policy direction ahead of a formal application. There's, there's two charges that the city has. There's the application fee, which is $422. And that's to cover, um, hard costs to the city, right, mailings and stuff, and then there is also, as we do with every development application, a $2,000 escrow deposit, and that's to pay for any external costs that the city may incur.

But they don't have to pay that for a concept to come before us?

Mayor, in the fee schedule, it still includes that escrow for a concept plan review, because there have been a couple times where we've done... some, it's usually engineering consultants, not applicable in this case, or legal fees, anything, any external costs that we incur would have been paid from that escrow. If there are none, we would return that money. Otherwise, we would pay those expenses and reimburse any sort of difference between the deposit.

COMMISSIONER MAYOVSKY- Is this an engineering thing or just an aesthetics thing that we're talking about? COMMISSIONER MAYOVSKY- Jeff? COMMISSIONER MAYOVSKY- I mean, when you talk about signs,

Mayor and Council, I would anticipate in a concept plan review such as this, I would anticipate the only expense we could incur is any legal fees that would be necessary just to draft the ordinance changes or whatnot. But that's the only concept fee I can anticipate for this project.

CHAIRPERSON WONG. Okay. City Manager, did you have a thought? Yeah.

MR. I was going to say, first of all, three stories I think is too high. I think it should be two stories. on signings if we're going to do signings, but we do have a process we're going through with our planning commission right now with the Title 10 and Title 11 and all that, which that can be addressed at that. Staff has shown us a way or shown this applicant a way to come in with a concept, and we can look at it and say, yeah, we like that, we don't like that, and he can move forward with it rather quickly. I'm reluctant to just make an ordinance change without looking at the whole city and all the different zones that we have in the city so that we get it right the first time and we don't keep piecemealing this all the time. You know, you referred to the track record of turning down signs. I don't recall ever turning down a sign in the 20-some years I've been here. Have you seen Bob's signs? I'm not sure where that track record's coming from that he's concerned about because...

I'm not talking about whatever you're referring to.

Well, you had referred that he was reluctant to do things because of the track record of getting things done with the signage.

It's nothing to do with anyone but him.

Okay. Well... What was the track record comment? No, it's nothing to do with anyone else but him.

I wasn't referring to any past history of any other, just his situation.

Okay, so he's had a track record with other cities, not this city.

No, that is not true. I think we'll just let staff handle it.

Okay, I'm just saying I don't recall ever turning down a sign. That's all I'm saying. No, I never said that. Okay. That's not a track record problem then is what I'm saying.

We're good. We're very pro-business, I believe.

Yeah, so we can give some direction. This is the policy question. Do we want to just focus on this one application to come in for a concept?

Well, that's a separate thing. What I'm presenting is a change to the ordinance. This is, I'm not, that's just the thing that brought my attention to the ordinance issue. No, and I agree with you with that. It's just that. I think staff can handle that situation.

We have no problem changing the ordinance as we go through the process with planning because that's what they're there to do.

Yeah, if that's already on the boards and it'll get caught up in that scoop, sure, absolutely.

Yeah, and that's where I'm saying we're in that process. Yeah, that's a good idea. Yeah, okay, so stay with the process. But do we, for the applicant, let them know that they can come in?

Staff will handle it.

Okay. All right. So. Next.

Just so we're clear, members of the council, your current ordinance and how we would approach administration of this would be either what the planning team has currently suggested to the applicant, which is come in for a concept review. that would then necessitate the fees and escrow that we discussed. An alternative that Councilmember Keeley did suggest tonight, and I just want to make sure that we're clear, would be a, really at the end of the day, and Dan explained this well, but as I understand it, the your current ordinance, current city regulations, the TOD is the only zoning district where this particular issue would prohibit top of building signage. So a potential shorter term, opportunity would be deal with that issue. If a majority of the council wishes to change policy direction, deal with that issue, which then would expedite the process and eliminate the need for a concept review. Now, that would be outside of what I could do administratively, right? That would require city council direction tonight. So I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page when it comes to the most efficient and effective way through what Council Member Keeley has raised tonight. I think I'm hearing general support of the City Council to...

I like the second thing you said.

Supportive of looking at the ordinance amendment for... It's a simple change.

Just the TOD, right? We would narrowly have the Council address the TOD, the narrow topic, and then I've also heard the direction from the Council that as part of The plan, Title 10 and Title 11 process, we want to look holistically at the issue of signage. I need to talk to our team more about what that looks like. To be very honest with you, there are many priorities that are going to come up through that review process following the comprehensive plan, and we'll have to talk capacity, timing, conversations with the council to make sure that we're looking at the nuance. Council Member Gustafson, you brought up a good point. There are a number of factors across zoning districts that that would potentially need to be dealt with, and we can mark that for, Mayor, to your suggestion and other suggestions, the longer-term future solution if that's the desire of the council. Again, I don't want to get ahead of the majority of the council here, but just looking for clarity and efficient and effective outcomes based on where I think I'm hearing the majority of you are talking from.

Yeah. First part and second part.

Yes. Do the comprehensive sign ordinance review with everything that's going on with Title X and XI.

Separately from just the TOD as a carve-out.

We can do that real quick and easy.

And that's what I'm saying. Address this item.

Okay. I don't want to get in the middle of the council's policy discussion here. You're just clarifying the process.

You offer the fast lane.

If you've been to Valley Fair, there's a fast lane. We can TOD the fast lane and let the whole rest of it take the slow way.

And that's what I said at the beginning. Let's deal with this so it expedites the desire of the applicant. Deal with the heart of the city. the city with the TOD and scoop up everything else.

Yeah, I think that's what he said. That sounds great.

Okay. And that's Let's back up a minute here.

So we've got TOD and we've got Heart of the City. We're just talking about TOD. So you remember that the Heart of the City is now the whole TOD.

Yeah, it's no longer HOC 1 and HOC 2. The whole thing has been identified as a transit-oriented development.

We're going to Todd it.

I'm fine with that. Again, I didn't speak to this because I don't have any background or understanding of that. I didn't even know we had that restriction in our TOD. And it kind of seems silly that we do now that I am aware of it.

Well, because we have, hey, there's a grand marketplace and there's a grand market.

I mean, I go down the road and you see the building where Heart of the City Dental is and Old National Bank and that. Looks great there. I don't know why we couldn't replicate that on gate gate building.

Yeah. You got First National Bank and you also have the Aims Center.

Madam Mayor, members of the council, in spite of my attempt to be efficient and effective, it looks like Jeff might have a question that I want to make sure gets asked here.

No. Just mayor and council. Can I open this up, Jeff? No.

I am not going to listen to Jeff. This is a me problem. Let's remember. Jeff.

Again, just for clarity, I understand that the discussion is happening, you know, doing a targeted amendment for the TOD district. Just to clarify, that is for rooftop wall signage for office and commercial buildings within the TOD district, not a comprehensive review of the TOD district.

Correct. The comprehensive is on your process. The comprehensive one is on the process that's going on right now. With phase two of the zoning ordinance. Phase two of the zoning ordinance.

And that's why we have expert professional staff that aren't me. So thank you.

Okay.

No, that's good. Okay, everybody now is... Because I think that's the only thing we missed when we did that TOD thing a few years ago. It's just this one.

Okay. Everybody understand? We're just dealing with the amendment for this applicant in the TOD. Yep. Everything else is... on your comprehensive view of our zoning ordinance second phase. Okay, everybody on board? Okay, we're moving on. And now, Michelle, you want to schedule a meeting to canvas the primary?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor, City Council. We do have a city primary on the primary election August 11th. And so we will need to schedule a special meeting to canvas those results. The statute is not very flexible. whereas it says we are required to do it three days after, which makes it August 14th.

So we have to do it 12th, 13th, or 14th?

The 14th.

Just the 14th?

The statute also says...

So you're just telling us we have to be here on the 14th is what you're telling us?

The statute says that we can do it on the 13th if the county allows us to, and we tried to do that one time, and it was two days is just too fast of a turnaround.

So you're saying the 14th.

Is everybody okay on the 14th? Monday the 14th?

No, it's Friday the 14th.

August 14th. August. Sorry.

August the 14th. At 5?

Yeah, go for it. I won't be here.

It can be at noon.

I'm good any time of day on that day. Okay, so Vince and Dante.

The 14th? Yeah. What time you want to do it?

Do you want to do noon or? It takes 10 minutes.

It takes 10 minutes.

Noon's fine. Noon?

Noon sounds good.

Okay.

Okay, very good. Okay, with that then, reports. Vince. No reports.

Oh, come watch. Never mind. We're good.

What was that?

I was going to put out a word for Burnsville. Burnsville is hosting the NBL State Baseball Tournament at Sue Fisher and Savage Community Fields this weekend. Ten double A.

It's very specific.

Yeah.

Experience Burns will cancel their meeting on Thursday. Our next meeting will be in August.

Okay. Dan?

I have a small one.

Sorry.

You're going to have to listen.

Metro City's Transportation General Government starts Monday the 27th. All of us that are on assigned committees will start probably that week, if not before. National League of Cities held their Summer Leadership Conference in Louisville, Kentucky. It's about a three and a half day event. It's held at the current president's hometown, which he's a council member in Louisville. Louisville, as I learned.

That's how they say it.

Just sitting on the executive committee, we talked about the 2027 budget and the challenges, membership growth, managing costs. There's a giant reduction in federal grants, which is going to have a corresponding reduction in staff, because a lot of staff is there to write and nurture grants. We talked about the Office of Management and Budget's proposed grant changes, which is a public comment period right now, which has some significant impacts. We also discussed the success of the Road to Housing Act and the large effort by NLC's lobbying and membership cities across the country. We also talked about the new, I think it's A250, it's probably not, it's signing the Declaration of Independence. It's a website where you can go on, and I can share the QR code, where you can actually sign on behalf of your city, all of us can, essentially, reaffirming the Declaration of Independence. So it's an effort that's going across the country through the National League of Cities.

So my signature wasn't good enough the first time?

No, it wasn't big enough. You need to do it larger. And then they released the 2026 State of the Cities Report, which was a recorded presentation. It included a panel which included Mayor Kim Norton from Rochester, who I sat with and presented to the League of Minnesota City's board earlier this year on the civility deal. Sorry. The civility index and et cetera. So she was there with a mayor from a really small, really small, like a couple thousand people suburb of Birmingham, Alabama. We had a fairly good-sized city and a really small city represented, talking about a lot of issues, which I'll run through them very quickly. Number one, across the country, economic growth is the first priority on cities' minds. Infrastructure and housing are the most critical. Concerns for an infrastructure cliff with ARPA and IIJA in the, sorry, Infrastructure Investments Act. are ending and cities expect negative impact on infrastructure investment. Then, of course, housing affordability is a widespread structural issue for every city across the country. And public safety strategies continue to evolve. It was a very interesting report. It's out and available on their website. And then lastly, the Suburban Municipal Council got together, aka First Tier Suburbs. which is one of the councils under the National League of Cities. I've been a part of it for many years. I didn't join right away because it said first-tier suburbs, and we're a second-tier. So I thought, we don't have a party we can join. And then somebody told me, I mentioned it randomly to a member of the lobbying staff, and she said, oh, no, that's open to all suburbs. I went, good, we need to rebrand that. That was four or five years ago, five years ago. We finally got it done this year, and it's going to be called the Suburban Municipal Council. And the reason it couldn't be Suburban Cities Council is that is the same acronym for Small Cities Council. So they wanted a separate acronym because they use that structurally. And so I'm going to refer to it. And I told them, I'm going to always say it's the Suburban Cities Council. But Suburban Municipal Council. That will become officially effective at November's City Summit, which is held in Nashville, Tennessee. And we took a tour. Our group, the council members, took a tour to a small suburban town that's going through some major redevelopment. It's called Jamestown, Kentucky. And it was very interesting. We had the mayor there who gave a nice speech and their economic development director and some other folks and talked about what they have going on. The one thing I will say in close, They have a massive industrial park. When you look at the map of their city limits, 40% of the square miles is an industrial park. It's enormous. And of course, it brings an enormous amount of prosperity to the city. It's a huge income source. What they use, they don't have property taxes like we do. They have an occupation tax. It's based on your salary. It's like an income tax that goes locally. And that is a very big part of Kentucky's economic model for cities, is occupational tax. And because they have that largest industrial park I've ever seen in any city, certainly a city of that size, that provides a lot of financial support for the city to operate. That's it. Thank you.

I won't give a USCM report. Go ahead. It's okay. And there's nothing else. The Burnsville Savage meeting is canceled. It was supposed to be this Thursday. But otherwise, I know you need to go. There is nothing else. Anything from staff? With that, we stand adjourned by affirmation.