Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is now 5:30 and I will call this regular meeting of the Burnsville City Council to order. It is our tradition to stand for a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance and we invite you to join us. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> [clears throat] >> Members of the public are welcome to attend in person and we welcome all of you here this evening. It's good to see all of you. The public may also choose to watch this meeting on Burnsville.gov/meings or Comcast channel 16 or 859. The public can also participate through Zoom by joining us at zoom. us/join. More information is available on our med meetings web page and in the council agenda packet. The first item on our agenda is our announcements. And we have one proclamations and we also have awards, value awards for our employees. And I'm excited about um this presentation this evening. Our meetings are scheduled, regular council meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, December 2nd at 5:30 p.m. and Tuesday, December 16th at 5:30 p.m. We have a work session that's scheduled for Tuesday, December 9th at 5:30 p.m. And unless noted, all meetings are in the council chambers. And then we I will do the uh proclamation from that side and also make some remarks and then invite our directors who are going to be making the presentations for our employees. members of uh the council staff and members of our community. Uh we have one proclamation and that is for small business Saturday. Whereas the city of Burnsville celebrates our local small business and the contributions they make to our local economy and community. And whereas in 2024 there were 547 [snorts] um,493 small businesses in Minnesota, which account for 99.5% of Minnesota businesses and employees, 1.2 million people making up to 45.4% of Minnesota [snorts] employees. And whereas in 2024 an estimated $22 billion dollar was spent at independent retailers and restaurants on Small Business Saturday in the United States. And whereas Burnsville supports our local business that creates jobs, boost our local economy, and preserve our econ our communities. Now [snorts] therefore, I, Elizabeth Couts, mayor of the city of Burnsville, on behalf of myself and the city council, do hereby proclaim Saturday, November 29th, 2025 to be Small Business Saturday in Burnsville, and urge the residents of our community to support small business and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year proclaimed this 25th day of November. Mr. Jeff Lefver um from the Chamber of Commerce board will receive the proclamation. Mr. Lefver, I know you're here >> and then >> take [clears throat] one, two, three. >> One, two, three. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And now, city council members and members of the public, this is an important and very um celebratory time for us in Burnsville as we recognize our employees. So, each year our staff takes time to recognize employees who demonstrate our organization's values in exceptional ways. Tonight, staff will recognize these employees for the council and community. Jeff Thompson, deputy city manager and community development [snorts] director, will introduce uh this item. Mr. Thompson, [snorts] thank you, mayor and council and community for being here tonight. Um this is special uh for our team and for our staff tonight. As the mayor said, uh each year um our staff recognize our employees who demonstrate our organizational values of uh excellence, collaboration, and innovation. And these values guide how we serve the community every day and how our staff work together um as a team uh to serve the community. I think what's probably most notable about the awards is that they are really employee driven. Um the nominations come from our staff and our team members and then there's a panel of employees that select uh the award winners each year to recognize how their work has aligned with each of our three organizational values. And this uh year we were able to celebrate these employees at our annual recognition lunchon just last month where they received uh their recognition. But as the mayor said tonight it's really to recognize uh these excellent and uh employees here before the council and our community. So, we will have each department director um do a brief presentation of uh the the award winner and their story and then um we'll recognize them before the council this evening. So, I actually get to start in dual role uh to recognize our community development award winner this year, Adam Bregman. Will you come up? Adam is ours. [applause] So, Adam uh won our award for collaboration. Um this year's uh he was nominated because he exemplifies this value um every day in his work through his leadership and commitment to aligning our people and our processes across um all of our departments. Um he is uh recent I mean within uh the last year uh promoted into the assistant building official role and has been a strong leader um in that short time period uh with this value in supporting not just our building safety team that works um with our building inspections and permitting but also strengthening communication and coordination of that team's work uh with the community the council um and our and our the rest of our teams. I think some specific examples is he's built um a program around uh developing a unified approach to manage our backflow prevention which is an important piece of our facilities and asset management and his proactive collaboration ensures consistency uh cost savings enhanced safety to the community's infrastructure and health and helping deliver great experiences for the Burnsville community through teamwork and shared purpose. So, please join me in again recognizing Adam Bregan for this year's collaboration. [applause] [applause] With that, it is Matt Smith to present the next one. All right. Uh, this year's innovation winner is Sergeant Max Yakaliv. Max, come on up. [applause] >> [applause] >> This year's innovation winner was nominated for his consideration of emerging needs in the community and creation of forwardinking solutions. Notably, [snorts] his development of the blue envelope as a tool designed to help individuals feel safe and understood during traffic stops demonstrates his leading edge thinking. It anticipates challenges that many agencies have not yet addressed and offers a simple, effective solution that enhances safety for everyone involved. This work builds trust with the community by addressing a real need with empathy and innovation. He helps to communicate the message that we are listening, adapted, and committing to serving everyone with dignity and care. Please help me congratulate Sergeant Max Yakiv on being the 2025 Innovation Award winner. [applause] >> [applause] >> MADAME MAYOR, council members, I'm happy to introduce Luke Tui, our IT support specialist, who's this year's excellence award winner. [applause] Uh this year's excellence award winner was nominated because of his dedication to making sure things are done right, his commitment to continuously learning and his respectful approach to everybody he works with. His strong work ethic and reliability are notable to those all around him, earning him the trust across the organization as a helpful resource. He ensures problems are resolved by personally following up on them and anticipating future needs and proactive solutions. He approaches all requests with a positive attitude, patience, and genuine commitment to the organization and helping people. He has an essential role in setting staff up to help provide them an exceptional first service, first day service and ongoing service and [snorts] to provide great service to the community. He is consistent highquality service provider and those around him are at their best because of him. Please help me congratulate Luke Tucci on being the 2025 Excellence Award winner. [applause] >> Uh, and Luke helped me through my user error today. So, hey, [laughter] >> taller than you. Okay, on the count of three. One, two, three. Do a couple more. One, two, three. And one more. One, two, three. >> Thank you. [applause] The next item on the agenda is citizens comments. This is the opportunity for anyone in the audience to address the council on an item that is not on the printed agenda and not an application form that will be coming before us at a future date. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form? Anyone? Mrs. Henderson? Anyone online? >> No, there is not. >> Okay, we will move on. The next item is additions to the final agenda and this is for emergency items only. City Manager Lindberg, are there any emergency items? >> Nothing from staff mayor. Members of the council, we will move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda is a group of items that's considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. [snorts] However, an item on the consent agenda can be removed for a separate discussion and vote. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes an item on the consent agenda to be removed for a separate discussion and vote? Anyone? Mrs. Henderson? No, there is not. Mayor, >> Mr. Lindberg, >> not from staff. Mayor, >> members of the council, >> I'd like to remove 4P just for comment. >> 4 P. >> May I have a motion for the uh balance, please? >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Uh oppose, say nay. And the motion carries. Uh item 4P, this is a variance to locate an accessory dwelling unit within an existing two-level garage in front of the principal structure at 980 Persing Circle. Council member Schultz. >> Uh so I just wanted to pull this out for comment um because Burnsville is one of the cities where um you can have an accessory dwelling unit. Um, and this is something that we came up with so that people could age in place or um they could have a family member living with them but have a little bit of separation like a granny unit, granny flat, that type of thing. Um, but this also was um at a conference that I was just at for national elected officials. Um, this is still one of the things that is considered um kind of on a leading edge for cities to do. So, I was very pleased about this. Pleased to see this on there. Um, and I'm excited to see all of the fantastic housing solutions that our residents come up with and that we get out of the way of. So, that is my comment on that. Would you like to make a motion? >> So moved. >> There was a motion and a second. All in favor, please say I. >> I. Oppose say nay. And the motion carries. Thank you very much. We will move on to the regular agenda. And the first item on the regular agenda is an application for preliminary plat final plat conditional use permit and plan unit development to be construct um to be constructed big hit at the gateway located at 11 1937 Interstate 35W. Um and we are asked to adopt the ordinance and findings of fact. Presenting this evening is our planning manager, Mr. Mike Morosa. Mr. Morosa, the floor is yours. >> Good evening, mayor and councel. All right. The subject property, as the mayor just said, is located at 11 1937 Interstate 35W [cough] [clears throat] West. Uh the property is zoned E4, Highway commercial/gateway district, and as guided as bus, business, office, retail, and the 2040 comprehensive plan. A little background. site. This site was the former freeway dump from 1960 to 1969. Then in 1994, intram use permit was issued for a driving range at the subject property. Again, that in use permit was extended in May of 2024 um to continue the use until December 31st, 2033. A sketch plan of a similar plan that's in before us tonight was presented to the council on March 26, 2024 at a work session where the council provide comment and direction at that time. [snorts] Uh the land use application as the mayor said is preliminary plat final plat a conditional use permit for outdoor recreation and building height and a plan unit development for some flexibility from the zoning code standards. So, it's worth noting for any project uh within the state, they have to apply to a strict review timeline um under state statute 1599. So, this application was submitted to the city on July 31st. Um actually, it was submitted before that, but was deemed complete on July 31st, 2025. And then, um that's when staff started reviewing this application and providing this plan to the necessary reviewing agencies. And then on September 29th, 2025, um the 60-day review deadline um which is the first step um expired, which then staff has by right can extend the application additional additional 60 days up to 120. So right now um that 120 days expires on November 28th, which is just a couple days from here. This application was before the planning commission on October 27th and uh we'll talk about that a little bit more in um a little bit here. Again, the 120day review deadline does expire on November 28th. We have discussed with the applicant and they are aware of that as well. Uh the proposed use is a three-level Hunter Bay interactive driving range with indoor and outdoor pickup and multi multi-port courts. There's a conference center and event center. There's a couple restaurants in there too as well. Um there's a children's playground, recreational trails around the site. A lot of amenities there. Here is a rendering of the site. Again, um the architectural proposed here does meet the architectural standards for that zoning district or exceeds them as well. Um we'll get into a little bit more detail here. Here's an overview of the site plan. Um the applicant is proposing significant amount of parking that meets ordinance. There is some proof of parking just [snorts] in case there is an event where the additional parking is needed. So, we ask the applicant to provide a proof of parking plan just in case additional parking is needed on site. Uh the outdoor recreation courts. Actually, I'm going to turn on my little laser beam here. Um sports courts are over here. Here's the primary building here at the driving with the driving bays. Uh then the conference center, event center, um indoor recreation, outdoor recreation, parking. Um there's a storm water pond line storm water pond on the adjacent to 35W. And then um it's worth noting that there will be a turnaround created here to allow for the traffic on the roadway here to turn around if they want to go to site. Also access to the trail that alongs that runs along 35W. Again, this application because does require a plan development. A plan development is a zoning tool that allows for flexibility in site design and land use standards. The intent of a PUD is to encourage innovative development and design and allow deviations from the zoning code and those deviations have to have a rational ba basis. So the flexibility that's requested as part of this application is not precedent setting. There has been other examples within the communities and within this community um on some of these standards. example one is not one of those. Uh the pole height is 150 ft which is a nuance. A lot of communities that do do top golfs or similar complexes like this do request flexibility because most municipalities do not allow heights of 150 ft. [snorts] So that's one of the very common requests you see with these kind of uses in other communities. Um the reduced parking lot setback along the western side of the property, the applicant is requesting uh setback flexibility there. Um it's due to the compactness of the site and the rightway in that general area. Um the reduction brings down the parking from required 15 ft to 14.3 ft or I mean excuse 4.3 ft. This is not uncommon. We see a lot of um parking lot setbacks request um via PUD within the community. So it's not precedent as well. The wall sign the applicant is requesting to a wall sign of 25.14%. Um 18% is allowed by ordinance. Um the PUD is supported or flexibility supported because there is not a lot of walls. If you look at the building and put signage on, there's only a primary wall facing 35W. The side has a driving range bays. So there's very limited opportunity for signage on the building. So we thought in response to that we can allow a little extra flexibility on that main wall that has the most visibility. And then landscaping deviation here um due to [clears throat] other standards deep rooted trees cannot be planted on the site. So in response the applicant's proposing to purpose over 36% of the site as a pulinary prairie. [snorts] Then um the applicant response to is planting almost over 4,000 shrubs on site. So for a lot of the flexibility requested, the applicant has gone above and beyond and other standards to kind of complement the flexibility or offset. The subject property is within um a couple overlay district and special districts um north gateway district, Minnesota River Quadrant, and the drinking water environmental overlay districts. I'm going to touch on those quickly. Uh the North Gateway District originally got uh original guidelines were created in 1996 and updated in 2006. Its guidelines were um cohesive character of the area. This proposal does meet the district standards. The miss the Minnesota River Quadrant established to guide long-term development or long range redevelopment of the site area and area to the west. Um, this subject site is in the mixeduse category, which will allows for a broad range of uses like the proposal before us tonight. Um, and the uses that are proposed here are consistent with that as well. It's worth noting though, as part of the MRQ, there is an interchange proposed um, for the future when this area does redevelop on 35W on the northwest section of the subject site. However, in conversation with staff, um we don't feel like that is need to be dedicated at this time as current improvements to 35W and Cliff Road may um [snorts] reduce the need for that intersection as well as the unknown future of the surrounding area. So, we did not require the applicant to dedicate that right away at this time. So, the drinking water overlay districts, there's two of them. I would put them all on the screen there, but they're long. Um so the first one is a drinking water protection overlay district and the second one is a drinking water supply management area. Both these guidelines were established in two 2015 to protect areas vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Minnesota Department of Health partners at the city to provide technical guidance and oversight on these or on these overlay districts and ordinances. Um they primarily focus on above ground factors. These application the application before tonight was provided to department of health for comment and review. They did provide a comment letter which is included within the planning commission packet within your packet. [snorts] So um they did provide review and that comment letter is in there. And the second here um the applicant is um Oops, I skipped a slide. I apologize. Yep, there we go. So as part of this as well um for approvals within these wersheds the or these overlay districts the city partners of Minnesota department of health to review also as part of their approval process the applicant is required to submit items to MPCA for review and approval. the following approval of the remediation plans. Developer provides those plants to city for incorporation ensure that the development proceeds with the um approvals required or necessary comments directed from the MPCA. So this kind of outlines the entire the process here. Um so after the applicant submits the plans to the MPCA, they review them and approve them. Then they must submit those documents to the city. And as part of that um submittal, they have to submit as a condition of approval to the city any supporting documentation or approvals that the proposal will not adversely impact the city's drinking water supply. That will include that will come with any of those supporting documents from the MPCA approvals in the Minnesota Department of Health. Then those all those documents then will come back to the city for review and incorporation into a development agreement. That's this bullet point right here. The applicants required into a development agreement with the city to memorialize the remediation plans and other approvals. This proposed project does require infrastructure to be extended to the subject property. So within that development agreement, that infrastructure will be memorialized in that agreement. That agreement also will memorialize any kind of um all the approvals and any kind of financial obligations the developer has to do and also holds the developer in compliance with all state and local um regulations. One other item to talk about quickly here is the site remediation. Again, the MPCA holds all regatory authority or the remediation of the site. The site is managed by the closed landfill program under the closed landfill program requirements and prior to any construction activities, the applicant must undertake additional steps to address contamination. This includes entering into a binding agreement with MPCA to carry out the required closure and remediation activities. Again, once the applicant works through this process, they have to come back to the city and enter into a development agreement to memorialize these. This will take place at a future city council meeting that will not happen today. That'll be after all their approvals from the necessary state agencies take place. At that time, we will receive those documents from the applicant or the state agencies and memorialize those into a development agreement which this body will approve at that time. Uh background information on the plan commission meeting on October 27th. Uh 12 people spoke at the public hearing. Uh four people, four of those participants were from on behalf of the applicant and eight members of the public. Um the plan commission did have a good discussion and the public hearing as well. Um the discussion covered process, compliance, remediation, and MPCA review. At the end of the meeting, um the planning commission recommended the council approval of the subject [clears throat] case by a 4 to1 vote. Some planning considerations as part of this case. Uh the PUD requests are minor or not precedent setting. The applicant exceeded ordinance requirements were possible. Again, like landscaping, architecture um were two areas where the applicant went above and beyond. The proposal reviewed for compliance [clears throat] with the zoning code. Environmental remediation [snorts] to be reviewed by improved by the appropriate state agencies. Remediation plans required to include measures to protect the city's drinking water. Drinking water protection shall be reviewed by the appropriate agencies and memorialized in the development agreement. And following third-party agency approval, developer must enter into a development agreement approved by the city council memorializing all approved remediation plans and development plans. The recommendation is on the screen. Staff recommends that the city council approve a preliminary and final plat conditional use permit and concept and development stage plan unit development to construct a mixeduse venue consisting of a banquet fac banquet space indoor outdoor recreation and related accessory uses at 937 Interstate 35W subject to the conditions of approval included within your packet. I will [clears throat] also state that the final plant and conditional use permit do expire after one year. Mhm. >> So unless the if this application needs additional time, the applicant will have to request an extension at that time of set applications. And with that, I stand for any questions. And I believe the applicant is here as well. >> Okay. Very good. U Mr. Marosa, the drinking water protective um district. How many wells are in the district? uh wells in the district. If I remember correct, I believe there are 17 in that district. I'm [snorts] getting a thumbs up from the public works director. [clears throat] >> And uh what are the closest ones to this development? >> Uh I believe there are two of them within a half mile radius. >> Half mile. >> Yep. >> Uh okay. Very good. Thank you, Miss Mosa. At the planning commission meeting, I watched watched it twice. Uh the applicant uh wanted to know how were the de uh development to the south of them. Um how did they get approved? Were they approved the same way that they are held to the same standards? >> Yes, mayor. So, some of the approvals to the south occurred prior to some of the MPCA standards we currently have in place. A lot of those were adopted in 1994. So, the there's two projects that did have to require um to go through a similar process as the one before us. That would be the Subaru dealership, the Waler Subaru located at 60021st Street West. And then the proposed amphitheater proposal at 11501 Embassy Road had to follow very similar almost identical findings as with the or conditions within the this approval. >> Yeah. And the um Dodge of Burnsville >> has another one as well that had to have similar environmental concerns as well. >> And they all had remediation action plans. >> They had some kind of some form of remediation plan >> that was approved by the MPCA. >> Two of them did have plans approved by the MPCA. other one had similar MPCA approvals. >> Okay. So, they were treated uh within the law at that time. >> Okay. Thank you. Um our process tonight is that we will hear from the applicant and I would like to remind everyone there's only one thing hanging in this chamber and that is our values. our values and I would ask all of us to practice respect mutual respect and civility as we give your testimony and how the those testimonies are given. So we will hear now then from the applicant and I believe that from the applicant we have Mr. Muhammad Lwal uh who is going to be speaking he is Mr. Lal. Yes, please. >> Is this where I stand? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Don't go too far, Mr. Rosa. [laughter] >> Thank you, madame mayor and members of the council. My name is Muhammad Lwal. I am the principal architect and CEO of Lal Scott Ericson Architects, also known as LSE Architects. Um, I'm very excited to be here this evening. One of the things about my firm that I will say is in 2023 by the we were named by the American Institute of Architects from Minnesota as a Minnesota firm award which is the highest honor that an architectural firm can receive from our chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Um and that was for our community work and our impact on design. We are very excited to be a part of this project. which has so much potential for the city of Burnsville. As a firm, we have designed many destination resorts locally and nationally and regional attractions, and this is on a site that begs for this sort of development. For the past six months, my team has been working very closely with the city and city staff of Burnsville on a 1600page application for big hits at the gateway. It's been a lot of work, but here we are today with the city staff's recommendation and the Burnsville Planning Commission's recommendation [clears throat] as well. We'd like to thank the city staff for their diligent work and their hard work with our team over the last six months to put this application together. It's been very challenging. It's taken a lot of time and they have I don't know where Mike is, but they've done a wonderful job working with our team. So, thank you. As as an architect, I would just like to say that I have the responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. I've been licensed for 32 years, and that is the highest cannon that I take on as an architect. My firm would not design a building that's harmful to the public or the environment, now or in the future. We have worked handinhand with the project's environmental engineers and consultants to ensure that the building function follows best practices and long-term sustainability. I just want to step back and say a few things that Mike didn't say about the project. In addition to golf, pickle ball, we're going to have footall, equa volleyball, and space for lots of cultural events which will bring the diverse Burnsville population to this site and destination. There'll be space for meetings, conferences, cultural events, and the like. Dedicated access and space for youth. One of the things in the golf driving bays, we're going to maintain significant amount of space for youth activities in an assimulation spaces. They can do all kinds of things. This is a responsible, wellressearched, well-designed development that better protects human health and the environment and creates a premier regional destination for a city of Burnsville. You all voted in favor of this in March of 2023 and we hope that today you'll vote once again to move this project forward from zoning and land use perspective. Thank you madame mayor and members of the council. I believe um Brian Murbach from conditional services will be speaking next. >> Before you leave the um podium, Mr. Lal, were you involved in any of the um conversations with the MPCA? I have not been involved in the conversation. >> So yours has only been about working on the land use and the architectural design and the ordinance and zoning of the property. >> That is correct, Madam Mayor. >> So thank you very much, Mr. Brian Murdoch. Conditional services. Good evening, mayor, council members, planning staff. [clears throat] Excuse me. I'm got a little bit of a horse throat tonight. Uh thank you for your time in this project. As a former uh planning commission member in my city, I understand the work that goes into all this and we're just very appreciative of your time. So, I'm the elite environmental consultant on the project, but more importantly, I'm somebody that believes in doing things right. Not the easy way, not the fastest way, but the way that makes the most sense. And and after decades in this business, I can tell you this this proposal makes a lot of sense. We've all seen this site and we've all wanted to move it along and we have a real opportunity at this time. You've probably heard a lot of uh noise around uh the site regarding contamination and risk to drinking water. That's very important to us as it should be for everyone. Uh risk is a big word, but here's the truth. The dump has not posed a threat to drinking water for 50 years. Excuse me. [clears throat] It didn't when we were hitting balls off of it in 1990 and it doesn't today. In in the 1990s, the MPCA designated the former freeway dump as a high-risisk site based on concerns about potential impacts to three municipal wells located southeast of the property. These wells are in the most shallow aquifer. So, there was some concern about impact. Since then, multiple independent investigations conducted by two consultants or conducted by consultants retained by both the MPCA and the McGawan family have confirmed that these groundwater sources are not threatened in excuse [snorts] me. The specific wells in question have since been idled by the city of Burnsville at the request of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. This was in order to an attempt to protect the black dog fin. This was not as a result of contamination issues with the dump. Decades of groundwater monitoring show no impact to the city's drinking water supply. If there was an ongoing risk um at any point, the MPCA has had many years to request remediation. And even their own consultants have said the risk to the groundwater supplies is very low. The continued push for full-scale excavation raises legitimate questions about whether the objective is environmental protection or something else entirely. The MPCA says the water table might rise and flush contaminants uh from the dump. But here's the ground truth. The waste has already been saturated for decades. The river's natural high water and seasonal flooding have done their work. And what could or may have been able to leech has already happened. The waste is now embedded in thick organic s uh organic rich sediment that acts like a filter or blanket. Some of the samples taken from the native soils below the landfill are non-detect for contaminants, which really supports that it's in a good environment. Let's not disturb it. We can control the high water flow in the future if it rises. Groundwater elevation control systems already exist just like the ones at Kramer Corey. They're they're dropping the water so they can get to the rock. If we ever need to drop the water because there's some concern about contaminants, that's an easy fix. Not just to protect the site, but nearby wells, the city's infrastructure structure that's been built since the quarry has dropped a water table. Um the adjacent other landfills, legacy release sites that are in the area. So controlling the water table is going to be a great tool if it ever needs to be controlled. [clears throat] What we're proposing isn't risky. It's reasonable. We're using the same tools the MPCA has approved again and again across the state from the CHS field to the Twin Stadium to their own headquarters. We're taking old waste, capping it, venting it, monitoring it. We're turning an outdated driving range into a modern community space with cleaner soil, water, air, and at no burden to taxpayers. We're not asking for blind trust. We're asking you to let us continue down the path your staff has already vetted. Your planning commission is already supported and your community is ready for. Let us show the MPCA that Burnsville can lead with courage and common sense. You've got a chance tonight to do what decades of reports, debates, delays haven't done. Not by growing the not by ignoring the past or fearing the future, but by finally doing something better. The plan protects drinking water, builds oversight, and avoids a $150 million hole in taxpayer pockets. But windows like this don't stay open forever. Wait too long and we're back to square one with higher costs, tougher rules, and another generation asking why nothing has changed. Let's not kick the can down another trail. Let's get something done. This really matters. We really have an opportunity here. I thank you and I'm available for questions. >> Um, sir, before you leave the podium, have you been involved in any of the meetings with the MPCA? >> Yes, ma'am. So if you have been involved with the meetings with the MPCA and one of the things that they ask you to have like they do with all the other development is a remediation action plan and if you believe in what you say you have just testified this evening why have you not put a remediation action plan together so that they can act on it. They are only following the law. >> Sure. Sure. Um uh the the appropriate terminology is response action plan and the response action plan's been prepared and draft for a couple of years. I have it ready and reviewed and what we need is momentum. When we meet with the MPCA, they don't give us any momentum. They just say, "Nope, we're not going to approve. We're not going to approve or talk about it. It's dig it up or nothing. We need some support. We need your backing to get them to come to the table." And with sites like this this they're complicated. So we're going to put we're going to submit a response action plan that's going to wind up being a collaborative effort between the MPCA and us. We just need your approval to take that next step so that they'll sit down with us and we can do the responsible things so that the community, the state, the MPCA and the project proposals want to do. >> Well, thank you for your testimony. There's always two sides to every story, isn't there? >> Sure. [snorts] Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Um I Okay. I Council Member Gustiffson, before you leave, m >> Mr. Murdoch. >> Sure. >> You mentioned that you use the same tools that the MPCA always approves. >> Yeah. The same protocols. >> And so why haven't you used that on them? Why didn't you >> Well, what's really interesting is not many sites. There's only 40ome sites in the closed landfill program in my career. 112, sorry. In my career, you know, I've never been even part of a site coming out of the closed landfill program going into a development. This is a very unique situation and it has many moving parts that involve other adjacent sites and it really is a a site that requires accumulative a broad look at all the surrounding properties. So we're not for saying that there's anything different about the process. The unique part is you got to get it out of the closed landfill program into the collaborative the cooperative super fund program where we can work through this process. And right now the MPCA won't even talk to us about moving us out of there. And there are lots of sites move through the the super fund program where the RP takes a role and the responsibility and the cost and they propose mitigation measures. sites get developed and it's a wonderful boost for the community and environmental gains and protections are there. So, we think that all can happen, but we just need some help getting to the table. >> Well, hasn't the MPCA approached you for years with a plan to do something on down there? >> The MPCA's plan involves digging haul. I'm not aware of any other plans. >> Actually, that was our plan. >> Yeah, the digging hall or the digging line. I mean, I'm not aware of any other plans. We think that when you do an alternative, you know, a review like an EIS or an EAW, you do a broad spectrum of alternative um plans or development options. They pretty much have looked at digging line and dig and haul, not manage in place. The EPA recommends manage in place. The MPCA, most of the closed landfill sites are managed in place. The drinking water is not being impacted when the when the quarry ceases to pump as much water as they're pumping now. The ground water flows to the north. There's going to be less risk in the future to the city drinking water supplies than there are now. >> I I think those are good arguments for you for the MPCA and the department. >> We want to the table. We want to go there and work with them. >> We're actually the experts on all this. It's u it's my understanding you don't need a an approved project to do a wrap plan. Right now, their interest is in cleaning that up and getting it right for our community. And it's not just our community, it's Savage, it's Ebel Valley, it's Lake Hill, a lot of people are on that aquifer. So, it's I I understand your concern. We think that there's this is a very viable, approvable plan. And in our conversations with the MPCA, there are still big questions they have to answer. And that was part of the I think some of the questions that occurred at the planning commission level when I wasn't here is you know we have POA or POS the forever chemical concentrations in the upgradient well off our property to the south 10 times higher than what's exiting the property. This is a regional issue that needs to be looked at very carefully and it takes some momentum to get them to the table. We're hoping you can support us in that. >> I understand it's a regional issue, but yours is the project that's before us tonight and that's what we're talking about. >> Okay. >> Fair enough. >> Thank you. Okay, Mr. Richard McGowan. Madame Mayor, members of the council, uh, thanks for having me. My name is Richard McGawan and I am the third generation of McGawan to work in Burnsville. As you know, we obviously own the driving range and on the west side of the highway, we have a solid waste transfer station where I spend my days unloading garbage, pushing garbage, shoveling garbage, sweeping garbage, etc. You get the idea. And then in the summer months, you know, I do have uh a couple hours of respit from that in the mornings where I will go to the driving range, uh pick golf balls, wash golf balls, and mow grass. Now, I've also been involved in this development project since its inception over 2 years ago, and I can say our team is well aware of the environmental concerns that have been voiced in that time, and we don't take them lightly. Our engineers have extensive experience remediating sites like this across the country and based on their knowledge as well as a uh study of this site specifically, we're confident our remedial plan is sound uh forwardinking and ready to go to the MPCA. So, what what what we ask uh we we hope that you give us a chance today, that you give Burnsville a chance today for something exciting, uh and that you you vote to approve uh what the planning commission has recommended and what your city staff has recommended so far. We have an exciting project development here where we can turn a very modest golf driving range that has been there for 35 years into something exciting and we hope you guys approve this tonight so we can continue this process. Thank you. >> Mr. McGawan, have you been part of the MPCA conversations? >> Yes. So, if you have a plan in place, why haven't you submit that so that you can work through all of those issues? You had over a year and a half to do that before this evening. >> Well, I I'll reiterate what uh Brian Murdoch said. You know, everything he said is resonant, but also I don't think it's out of the ordinary in this process for the city to approve this a project similar to this on a contingency basis as far as approval from the various agencies goes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, those are the people from the applicant and now I have a list of folks who would like to speak on this item as well. [clears throat] And um I will start now. But first of all, just so that we understand who all is here, who all is here in support of this project, could you please stand? Okay, thank you. Have a seat. And I and I'm also seeing the people in the back there. Who all is here in opposition of this project? Please stand. Okay. And I can see all of the people also in the back. Thank you so much for I just want you all to know that we see you and we welcome you. And so we have people here this evening who wish to speak and I'm going to ask so that we can be uh productive in our meeting as we go forward to limit your comments to two minutes and um we will start with Mr. David Young uh from one of and um Mr. Young could you please come forward and give us your name and address for the record. David Young, 1401 Mirror Lane in Burnsville. >> Welcome. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor and council members. Thank you for hearing me. Uh I spent 40 years as an a in the aviation world as a pilot and uh during pre-flight planning and uh the actual flight we were always on the lookout for having options and um that we could utilize to make the flight safer and uh to make it uneventful. We wanted to provide one more boring flight for our passengers. uh our if the destination weather was deteriorating, we could go to an alternate. If we were running short on fuel, we had a pre-esigned pre-desated uh refueling point. If we had a system on the aircraft fail, we had backup systems or we could possibly reconfigure the system that failed. Uh so we were looking for options. If an um if you don't have options, uh you become an observer to the situation. You've lost control of the situation and you're just along for the ride with no options. Tonight, uh the council is being asked to um my glasses don't reach as far as my paper here. Uh tonight you're you're being asked to consent to allow a contamination fraud project to go forward even though it has a tremendous hurdle to overcome which is the adamant opposition for good reason I feel of the MPCA an agency devoted to protecting the health and welfare of the citizens of Minnesota. getting past the MPCA uh will no doubt uh in my estimation take uh months if not years to do. So I have a question. I don't expect you to respond to my question, but does uh anyone on the Burnsville City Council feel that tending to the health and welfare of Burnsville residents is not their job? Does anyone on the city council feel that the economic development of our community supersedes is more important than the health and welfare of the community? If your answers uh were no to these questions, then I ask you not to hide behind the MPCA and shrink from a now self-p profofessed uh duty that you have to vote no on this proposal at this time. stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the MPCA, our allies, and say to the applicant, prove it, and then come back once you get the MPCA's U. Go ahead. Preserve your vote, your option. Ask the last door to open for this project to proceed. >> It's not my >> It's just my timer. [laughter] Okay, I just a few more seconds. U I ask you to preserve your vote, your option as the last door to open for this project to proceed forward because after all, we the residents of Burnsville have the most to lose or win, which makes us the ultimate stakeholders in this project. Here I quote a planning commissioner from the meeting four weeks ago who said we have to get this 100% right. We cannot fail. So I ask you to uh stand with the MPCA at this time and vote no on this item. >> Thank you Mr. Young. >> Thank you. >> The next um speaker is Mr. Bob Mokus. M O K O S. Oh, he's coming. Okay, Mr. Mous. >> Okay, we will we will go to the next one. Uh, Mr. Paul Bellow. Thank you for the opportunity to present. Uh my name is Paul Bo. I live at 2805 Woods Trail South here in Burnsville. I'm a 26-year resident. I am also a uh board member of the Black Dog Watershed Management Organization representing Burnsville. Thank you to the council for appointing me. And I am a volunteer in the Metro Council's citizen um assisted monitoring program. and I monitor water quality at Sunset Pond here in Burnsville. Um, I am not an official representative of those groups here tonight, but I mention those affiliations just to emphasize that I am a citizen uh volunteer that is deeply concerned about the quality of water in this city. And I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk. Um, I uh recently retired from a career in medical research. Um, I'm not a hydraologist. I'm a my doctoral training is in biology, but I know good science when I read it. And I find the analysis from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to be um that that uh determined that this development project would cause irreparable harm to our groundwater and our drinking water and our aquifer uh to be thorough, well researched and quite credible. I find the scientific opinions espoused by the developer, including some of those espoused here tonight, to be dubious, including the contention that the the site has already been saturated with rainwater, that many of the chemicals have already washed away. I find these uh claims to be quite dubious. It is my hope that um you will uh hold firm to um uh the Minnesota Pollution Control Board's assertions uh and demand a remediation plan on their part. I am dismayed as a citizen that we are here tonight talking about development of this over this landfill and instead not talking about remediation about dealing with a potential problem that has existed in this city for a long time. Um, and we can't just keep kicking the can down the road. We've got to deal with this landfill or one day it is going to contaminate our water and pumping out water from the quarry is not a long-term viable solution. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Bellow. The next one is um Andrew Bros. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, council. Uh Andrew Bros. I am 26 year resident of parentsville. Also at 1629 Knox circle I also happen to be the uh chairperson of the DFL SD55 Burnsville Savage. So I've sp spoken with a lot of people about this and there is a great deal of concern from both Burnsville and Savage residents. Going back to the Burnsville Planning Commission, there were eight people from the community that stood up and every one of them opposed this project. We are deeply concerned that the concerns of the Department of Health and the pollution control agency are not being taken seriously. those the remediation plan should be approved before this project moves forward. And having a contingency plan, contingent approval of this puts the project owner back in the driver's seat. And they have shown over the years decades of stonewalling and obstruction of getting this site remediated. >> [snorts] >> So, I urge you to please stand with the citizens and take care of this site. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Bose. Um, Miss Kathleen Farber. [snorts] Thank you, Madame Mayor, City Council, and neighbors. I trust the MPCA. >> Give us your uh address for the record. >> 0920 Territorial Drive, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337. >> Thank you, Mr. >> I trust the MPCA stands for protection agency. They exist to protect the citizens against people and companies who may have their own agendas that do not consider our health to be the biggest requirement. I know that we all want to have growth in the city. We all want to expand the tax base. I understand that. I understand that people need recreation areas. But what will be the cost if one of those children on that playground gets leukemia? What will be the cost to our tax base if our water supply is contaminated? Who is going to want to move here if we have flames coming out of our water faucet like they do in Flint, Michigan? These are extremely serious and dire consequences. One woman rendered infertile. one child with leukemia, one man who loses his job because he has cancer. We cannot take this kind of risk. If these other developers were able to come up with a plan first, then why can't this company come up with a plan first? This is serious and there are consequences for health and for economic development. We have to do this right. We're only going to get one chance to do this right and getting it wrong will be a catastrophe. Please go with the MPCA. Make these people come up with those plans and requirements and remediation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Miss Camille Williams. Miss Camille Williams. Sorry, I was out. [laughter] >> I'm hoping that you all out there can hear me. I thought you could all hear me. Yes, because you all stood up when I Yes. Thank you. Give us your name and address for the record. >> Hi, my name is Camille Williams. I live at 1709 Victoria Lane in Burnsville. I am a rather new resident compared to the others that have spoke tonight. I'm also a small business owner. I moved here less than three years ago, just under three years. And frankly, I was anxious to learn about the community. And I went to the first time I heard about this project specifically was I went to a umformational I guess just anformational meeting regarding this project that was held at the AIM Center a little after I had first moved here. And I was really really excited. I have lived in other areas that have flourished with a planning committee involved. Um, well planned communities attract many businesses and families and I can say my strong hope for that is with Burnsville. Um, I've so I received my information on this project at the firstformational meeting that I went to. I've read articles in the Star Tribune. I did watch the planning the last planning commission meeting um online and that is really why I'm here today. I was um disappointed. I was very disappointed um and I really wanted to share my concerns about where the direction of this conversation is going or where at least I observed it going at the planning commission meeting. um the arguments presented that oppose this project and still to this day seem very fear-based and not factualbased. Maybe we're not at that place where we've heard all the facts yet. Um what I was hearing again tonight from even the property owner is that they want that opportunity to work with the MPCA and I think they deserve it. I think every small business, including myself, deserves that opportunity. it can be very intimidating and very costly, frankly, to go up against if if they're disagreeing with you. So, I I have compassion for that. I have um strong respect for what they've endured so far. Um I've heard uh claims even again tonight that the site represents an imminent threat to our drinking water. But I've listened to the experts. I've, you know, reviewed the MPCA's own data to the best of my ability and I just don't find that the whole story is being told. Um, and I don't I don't know that we'll ever hear the whole story. I have no idea why this project specifically is be has been so delayed and drawn out when other projects around it to your point um have been approved and on a much more timely basis and I don't know where all the voices of concern were at that time. Maybe it was too long ago. I don't know when these things were approved, but it seems like this is a very small section of what you're all saying is a big problem. And yet everybody else is getting a green light here. And all I hear them asking for tonight is your support as [clears throat] Burnsville City Council to allow them to move forward with the MPCA because they're a very big organization. And the last Star Tribune article I read suggested that um they were requesting eminent domain. That really made me pause when I read that and I felt like it's um I would I would be mortified if I had three generations of property in my family and MPCA felt like they needed to >> Could you quickly get wrap up your remarks please? >> Um I guess I will end it there. I was very excited about the facility that I saw. I felt like it would bring many people and many businesses um to the community in Burnsville and I as a citizen would appreciate your support. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um [applause] um I'll tell you thank thank you so much. So, we we understand, but let's let's be productive. And I'm hearing, you know, the other folks who have there hasn't been a lot of applause, but let's be productive and and respectful. Um, the next one is Miss uh Jean Roman um Forma. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> It's okay. Jean Foreman. E. >> Yes. >> F O R M. I'm at 3,400 West Park Drive in Burnsville. That was two minutes. >> It's It's I I guess I'm not going to use this thing. >> Oh, good. >> All right. >> Someone else can time for me, please. Thanks. >> Okay. >> We don't have to look far to see how some businesses attempt to sherk responsibility to residents when a quest for profit overshadows being a good neighbor here in Minnesota. Just quickly, I'll list off some concerning businesses in our state. 3M in Maplewood, Peepas, Water Gremlin Company, White Bear Lake, lead Northern Iron Machine in St. Paul, poisonous emissions. Northern Metal in North Minneapolis. They actually got their pollution levels grandfathered into the Minneapolis zoning laws and now are accused of environmental racism. Gopher resource recycling in Egan. Lead in the air not reported to the authorities. Niagara water bottling in Elco New Market now having some issues with their pumps and private wells. I would just ask you all before you make a decision, city council, have you examined carefully your relationship with the applicant, campaign contributions, sports team sponsorships, fire muster sponsorships, the volunteer service award, all seem to color the favorability that this applicant has tried to curry with members of the city council. Are there NDAs that exist among you and the applicant? Have you consulted the city attorney as one of the planning commissioners did? And if so, if any of this bothers you, as it should, I ask you to recuse your vote. We don't want to put big hits golf on this list of companies that have taken their interests ahead of the residents. We don't want to have them trying to squirm away from any contamination. And if there already is contamination that has washed through, they've been the owners of the property. Why isn't it being treated and at their expense? then who is being poisoned down river do not become a bargaining chip of the applicant. The better for Burnsville website already states that the planning commission has approved these plans did not put an asterisk that there is a conditions to be met. They are already ignoring the conditions that have been attached to promote their agenda. As others have said, we only get one chance to get this right. Commerce is important, but not more important than clean water and good health. And I urge the council to again examine their relationships with the applicant and regardless vote no. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh the next uh speaker is uh Miss Andrea Gazini and um Miss Gazini. I understand you have something that you so you're going to go to this um portion of the uh Yeah. you're going to present from that day. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um >> I hope somebody puts my slide up because I don't know how to can I hope I can be heard and I hope that what I shared tonight dispels some question. >> Can you give your your name and address for the record, please? >> Sure. Uh Andrea Gini. I'm on Frontier Lane in Burnsville. I'm a 60ome year resident of Burnsville. I'm also a citizen volunteer and a citizen advocate uh around issues around the environment, health, and other issues here in Burnsville and elsewhere. Um most recently with residents, a number of whom are here from Alamagnet Echo Advis Advocates. Um, I [snorts] grew up in southeast Burnsville on a lake in the 60s,7s, and 80s around the same time that the McGawan family was running its dump and landfill businesses in northeast Burnsville. Before we moved to Burnsville, our lake was something of a free dump. Nobody made any money off of it. We're to this day dealing with that issue. My parents still live in the same home and for 60 years they and many other residents nearby that lake have worked on remediation have followed the regulations of our state have ch spent numerous thousands tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of dollars to remediate and improve and deal with the pollution that was caused at Lake Alamagnet which I live on and continues to be an issue. So, we didn't make money. Well, the McGowens were making money on waste. I just kind of want to make that distinction. >> Did you say you you've you and your parents have been here for 60 years? 6. >> 60 years. My parents have been here for 60 years. I moved back uh 25 years ago. So, I'm also paying, as any one of my neighbors knows, every year we're paying to mitigate the pollution at that lake, and we're happy to because that's what citizens do. They take care of their community. We wish it was free, but it's not. >> Okay. >> What's interesting is that it has been free for the McGawans to clean up their space. It's the largest landfill that's on both super funds, state and federal, in the state that has not been part of MPCA's program to clean up the landfills. I spent some time trying to understand this because of my own history and trying to understand kind of how they were similar or maybe different. I want to see what the actual facts are to what somebody else said. What are the facts? Does anybody know the facts? I think I've got a much better understanding of the facts now because I spent a good deal of time researching them. What you don't see here, and I will get to this graph, but what you don't see is a timeline that hopefully you can get your hands on. It's actually two of them that I think were printed and should be around here tonight, and if you'd like one, I'm happy to share one with you. That timeline went all the way back to 1960 when we moved into the area and the Mcgown began the dump. and it looked at I wanted to see just how terrible the MPC was treating them over all these years because the MPC or the McGown advocates continually have said that they're being treated unfairly. And what I saw sadly and sort of shockingly was just the opposite. multiple times through the years, sometimes for two, three years at a time, the McGawans would absolutely refuse to do anything that the MC MPCA had offered to help them with the MPC had offered to pay for numerous times because they could the MPCA has the money to do this as long as you're willing to to build to develop a plan with them. In fact, the McGawans would even go so far in the 19 in 2015, I believe it was 2014 2015 period of signing agreements after they'd been given all kinds of extensions by the MPCA and the EPA. So that they'd finally come around to signing an agreement with the MPCA only to back out and thumb their nose at the MPCA and tell them that they didn't have to do any of this. So what it looked to me was like McGawans are expecting special treatment. They're not being treated so poorly by the MPC. They're being treated much better than my family was. The MPCA didn't come to me and say, "Hey, we'll pay for this." Thei the citizens of the of Minnesota will pay for this to the tune of $65 million. As the MPC predicted around that time, the cost just keep kept going up. And that's where we are today. It's why it's so high. It's 156 million today. And again, all of this is on the timeline. I didn't mean to spend so much time, but I wanted to dispel a few of the uh misspoken comments that were made particularly by uh Mr. Murdoch. They have been the the MPCA has been at the table. They have begged the McGawans to be at the table. They have made concessions for the McGawans. They have bent over backwards for the McGawans. Anybody who's paid attention to this knows that. So I looked at the timeline. Then I kept on hearing like Mr. Murdoch mentioned about all these places that were similar to the McGawan site. They were just like it. CHS field is just like it. Bologoney. They're just like it. What are you talking about? CHS field is up on this graph. And I apologize. There's so much on here. Again, you can get a copy of this. I'm happy to provide all of my sources, most of whom are the MPCA and city and county records. But if you look on the very top, the very top line where you start seeing colors, that's the McGawans. That's the freeway dump and landfill. Next to that, you see a next to the three white columns, you see a column that has some blue uh data on it. That blue data is saying whether or not the site and by the way all of these sites are sites that the McGawan group has been using in their marketing to say that they're just like so these are just the exact same sites that Mr. Murdoch and other have mentioned many times. Nothing else. All of the ones that are blue have either proactively done remediation at their sites or have joined the MPCA in the programs the MPCA offers. It's called the voluntary in uh investigation and uh remediation or um cleanup program that also offers funding to the sites. Some of them didn't want to. 3M didn't want to, but eventually they did. It didn't take too long either. Certainly didn't take as long as they've taken. McGawan McGawan has by far and above taken the longest and they're still not there yet. There were some of these that were approaching 1984, which is when the MPCA started their closed landfill program. And within three years, three to four years, they were already remediated. They're already doing business. They were already taking care of the issues and often funded at least in part by the MPCA, which is the exact same program that was offered to the McGawans over and over and over again. And still, >> Miss Cuisini, can we get to the point? >> Yeah, I I can. I I I think the point is if you look at the top of the orange columns, those are pollution. I'm happy to share my resources with you, sir. Happy. It's all there. You can find yourself actually, but I'm happy to. It takes some time. What this is saying is that on every one of those pollutants, uh, Madawan is qualifying as exceeding the regulation, right? And if you look below all of these other sites, CHS field, uh the Flying Cloud Landfield, uh France Avenue dump, Cory shopping, uh State Fair dump, 3M 3M, all of them mentioned by McGawan are either partially or wholly remediated by working with the MPCA. >> Two minutes, >> that's all I have. >> Yeah, thank you. Um uh I'm going Thank you so much. We I'm going to hear the uh the uh residents. you've had your time and it's this is not a time to rebut but are you so what you want >> it can be done so yeah so >> what you wanted to say is that >> what I want to say is first of all I think this is putting the cart before the horse as others have said why in the world aren't they first remediating what we know from their history again it's all documented their history is rejecting the MPCA's attempts to work with them not once not twice dozen maybe not dozens but close to dozens of times blocking them from accessing the site to do testing and occasionally making an agreement after four or five extensions from the MPC and EPA and then reject rescending on it within months. >> Okay. >> So, we know that they're not reliable is what I'm So one one of the things is that u from the planning commission they had said that they wanted to be treated fair uh fairly like all the others and uh what you presented this evening says that they have been treated in the same way as the McGawans have been treated. So thank you >> and by the way many of them have used the dump uh >> and they all they all had a >> the same programs that that uh Mr. McMurdock said haven't been used have been >> okay thank you. Okay. It's okay. Uh okay. Yeah. Let's let's be productive here. Thank you. Um the next one is Bill Butler or Butland. Um from Bryant Avenue. There you are, sir. Yes. >> Evening, Madam Mayor. >> Yeah. Name and address for the record. And >> good evening, Madame Mayor, city council members. My name is Bill Butler. I live at 13401 Bryant Avenue South here in Burnsville. My comments tonight come after watching the OC October 27th planning commission meeting uh reviewing the recently filed MPCA lawsuit, your staff report, and the conditions that you must evaluate this evening. I'm speaking in strong opposition of the big hits development. I am a small business owner myself here in Dakota County and not opposing this because development is bad. I'm opposing this because approving this is premature. It is risky and directly contradicts your own requirements. On October 28th, 2025, unless I am mistaken, the MPCA and the Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Dakota County against the owners of the freeway dump site. The MPCA lawsuit states the contamination is migrating beyond waste boundaries. It is potentially releasing PAS, 14 dioxine, VOCC's, methane, and heavy metals, threatening Burnsville and Savage's drinking water. And this is persisting because the land owners have refused for cleanup actions since at least 2017. The state says this site may be taken by imminent domain to protect public health. And as a small business owners, there there is nothing greater at risk than your business than government oversight and overreach. But this is not speculation. This is the state of Minnesota saying this land is dangerous. Your own conditions make this problem even clearer. Item 3B requires the MPC and MDH approval for full remediation plan. There is no approved plan. With the landowner in an active lawsuit for refusing cleanup, the city has no basis to say this can or will be met. Item 3C requires proof the project will not harm drinking water. With a landowner in an active lawsuit refusing cleanup, the city has no basis to say this can or will be met. Item 3D requires development agreement confirming all regulatory approvals with a landowner in an active lawsuit with the state of Minnesota. The city has no basis to say this can or will be met. Three required conditions, three failures to meet your own conditions or no knowledge that they can be met. This application is not ready yet. the developers requesting momentum from this city council with no cleanup plan under state litigation and before any public health regulator has approved any remediation. In fact, the architect stated this evening that they have not worked with the state agency that is suing the land owner for not working with the MPCA and yet he is guaranteeing that this project is safe. It appears to me that they are trying to use Burnsville as leverage and cover to bypass the state's cleanup process. They also stated during the planning commission meeting that this landfill is only 2% of Burnsville's issues. When drinking water is at stake, it is not 2% of everything. It's 100% of everything. If you approve this now, future contaminated land owners are going to be able to say, "You let the freeway dump do it." What about us? City Council, this is your moment to stop that cycle, protect public health, and protect the drinking water for Burnsville residents. This application is premature. It does not meet your own conditions and is not ready for approval, and I respectfully urge that you deny the cup and PUD. I also have a letter signed by my wife and I that we'd like to enter into the record. >> Thank you. Um, okay. Thank you, uh, Mr. Butler. The next one is Shannon. Um, am I saying your last name correctly? Is it Butler? >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Thank you. My name is Shannon Butler. I live at uh 13401 Bryant Avenue South. I'm speaking tonight as someone who chose to live in Burnsville with intention. I was born and raised in St. Paul. That was my happy hometown my entire life until 2016 when I got a very serious uh cancer diagnosis. That's when everything changed. I needed to stop assuming that everything was going to be fine. I needed to pay attention to my environment, my surroundings. So, Bill and I decided to make a change. Um, and because of his growing uh, business, it pulled us south of the river. We chose Burnvilleville. We chose it because it looked stable. It felt safe. It felt trustworthy. So, I learned what sits um, buried nearby. I wasn't just disappointed, I was shocked. [snorts] lead, mercury, dioxane, PAS, methane, carcinogens. A list that nobody, no community wants to hear about uh impacting their drinking water, what they are breathing. Um, and nobody wants to have explained away. We moved here on trust. Trust that our elected officials would protect us. Trust that clean water wasn't optional. and trust that familyfriendly didn't mean, "Hey, bring your kids. Enjoy our trails. Don't mind the carcinogens." My trust has been shaken. And then I heard the developer describe the landfill as only 2% of Burnsville issues. Dismissed just like that. That told me everything I needed to hear about this developer and what they think about the residents. 2%. That's the kind of math you use when you don't want people to notice what's right in front of them. Because when it comes to water, we what we put in our bodies every day, there isn't 2%. There's safe, there's not safe, there's responsible, there's negligence. There's doing the right thing and there's doing the wrong thing, hoping nobody is going to see you. >> Mrs. Butler, can we begin to >> Yes. >> Yes. And now the state is of Minnesota is suing the land owner because they've refused for years to cooperate with cleanup. We're being asked to pretend that none of this matters. We're being asked to believe that somehow it's going to be safer tomorrow with no evidence. This is gentrified negligence wrapped in entertainment. I don't consent to this and you shouldn't either. Um, people move here because they believe that Burnsville protects their residents, that they choose health over convenience, public safety over dollars. We trust that of you, our elected officials. Please don't minimize this danger. Please respect, please don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Water's life protected. Please deny this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um, next is Mr. CJ. I I don't Oh, I'm sorry. It may be Mr. or Mrs. U. CJ Pataglia. CJ Pataglia. Okay, we're going to move on. Um, Mr. Chris John. Good evening, Madame Mayor, City Council. Really appreciate you taking the opportunity to listen to our comments tonight. My name is Chris John. and I live at 1291518th Avenue South. I'm happy to be able to present my um my thoughts on this issue mainly because this is something that I am very very very much very much in tune to something that I've been going around the whole city of Burnsville knocking on doors talking about because this project is something that I've seen coming for many years. The the space that we're talking about here is full of contaminants. That is not at issue. That has never been at issue. The only reason those contaminants are not in our drinking water is because the Kramer quarry is pumping the water out. How long is that going to last? Pumps are made by people. Pumps need they need maintenance. They need um replacement every now and again. I've been to the two forums that were presented by this applicant. And they talked about pumping forever. Why is that not ridiculous to us? Why don't we not see the ridiculousness of it? We have these chemicals that could cause cancer and you name the location that we had a water catastrophe, these chemicals were there. Yet, we're going to live on the fact that pumping water to keep it to unnaturally keep the water table down is going to do us better. That's going to help. I call that uh cross our fingers and hope to God plan. I don't think it's a very good one. I don't like our odds with humans versus mother nature. At some point, that water table will rise at some point. At some point, we're going to have our water poisoned. So, what I'm asking of you, oh, something that John said, John Hick that caught my ear at the planning commission meeting. He said he wants to pass his PUD so that they can negotiate with the MPCA. We do not need to pass this PUD for them to negotiate with the MPCA. They need to talk with the MPCA. But what I haven't heard from this council, and this has been going on for a very long time, over 20 years now. I've not heard this council stand up and say, "We believe in the city residents of Burnsville." I've not heard this council say, "You know what? Enough is enough. Quit daddling around. quit talking about how this company gets to build on this land and we don't get to. Okay, >> that doesn't matter. >> What is important is that we take the opportunity >> Yeah. >> to tell these guys either clean the land, >> okay, >> or the MPCA is going to take it from you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. John a scholar. Mr. John Oh, it's S c W Pelar. L A R. I think it is. Okay. I don't think he's might have left. Okay. Uh the next one is uh Troy Alexander. Thank you, Madame Mayor, and members of the council for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Troy Alexander. Uh we have a family home on Woodlon Court here in Burnsville. My family has a strong connection to Burnsville for over three generations. We've been here for or since 1969. And I graduated from high school with Mayor Couts's son, Kyle. So, it's good to see you again. As someone who loves Burnsville and has worked with the project team for big hits at the gateway gateway, I'm here to share my perspective. I know there's a lot of opposition to the project for environmental reasons, a lot of emotion and discourse here tonight, but I have to say that the development team is very transparent about how they will deal with the buried waste and keep the drinking water safe. plans for this are laid out in great detail on their website and they're not ignoring the issue or avoiding it. I'm confident that they have an excellent team and they have a protective remediation plan. They deserve an opportunity to continue to pursue the project and have their day at the negotiation table. I'm asking that you give the project the opportunity to continue to try to make their development a safe reality. This is an ambitious project and creates an exciting business and entertainment destination for Burnsville and I urge you to approve the project to the next phase of exploration and development. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, that is everyone who has signed up to speak this evening. Thank you very much everyone for sharing your thoughts uh with us this evening. Members of the council, do you have any questions for staff, the applicant, or do you have any comments to make? >> Council member Keley. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. [cough] [clears throat] >> It was the early 1960s that the 7ount metro area started bringing garbage into Burnsville, into various landfills. Um, when I ran for council in 2006, I didn't realize what how many landfills we had and what a um challenge it's been. I did uh I was at the groundbreaking for the Subaru dealership which was built on top of landfill uh many years ago. Uh the mayor was out of town so I was acting mayor. At that time I didn't have anywhere near the knowledge I have today um about what remediation or brownfield cleanup landfill remediation to create a scenario where development could happen. I've learned a lot um reading and researching as as our good friend has who presented these charts. >> [cough and clears throat] >> I can I think I can say with confidence none of us up here are intent on putting a business before clean water. That is not something you'll I don't think you'll see any of us uh vote in favor of. I think what we have to remind ourselves is the role that we have. Nine out of 10 99 out of 100 applications that come before us. We are the final say. And so it makes sense that people show up when something like this comes before us. In this one case, and I can't even remember in 19 years sitting at the dis that there's ever been a case where we are not the final say. We are a step along the process. Um and so it's only our role for land use. So yes, we like that project. If it were on land that wasn't a landfill, we'd still like that project and probably everybody else would too. We're not the deciders of the environment. We're not the environmental science. We're not the environmental experts. Uh we're land use. I I noticed doing some research in the state of Minnesota, we have a model where a pollution control agency at the state level governs all of these health issues. That's why you saw 30ome conditions associated with this application. uh none of those have any to do with us. It's almost all in the hands of the MPCA. Uh there are a few states like Washington who grants local health control. California, uh New York has that, New York City has that authority. So those types of things can run through the council, but not us. So just want to remind everybody, we don't have anything to do with the MPCA. Um there are a lot of locations that have gone through negotiations with the MPCA. CHS field was brought up. If you look at the chart that Miss Grezini passed out, CHS field has a color almost every single box like all of those columns of various contaminants CH field had present. But today CH field has CH field built on it. And there was remediation on many of those. And some of those you'll see on that chart say the MPCA is monitoring and managing. And I believe that's really what the applicant is saying is we may be able to come to some agreement where the MPCA says yes you can do that but you can't do that. You got to remediate that to this level. You can't build here but if you remediate over there you can put a building there. The rest can be parking lot. That's kind of like CHS field. There's a lot of parking lot. >> Uh but there's also a lot of huge building on it. So there had to be some significant remediation by the MPCA governed and dictated by the MPCA or that CHS field wouldn't exist on that site. So we don't know that. All we know is what we can read and see and hear, but we're not the experts, so it's not our decision. Um, some of some of you have pointed out, why are you here asking the city council right now? And it's the cart before the horse. I would I would have asked the same thing until I learned the the cost and the time that any applicant, the CH field people would go through to remediate and get this property in a position to be able to devel develop on and then go to the city council, the governing body on just the land use at the risk of getting turned down doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All right. So, common sense dictates they come here to say, is this city council even open-minded to this project in this area of the city? Yes, we are open-minded to it. So, now they have to then say, okay, now it's worth spending whatever time and money it's going to require to go to the MPCA and say, how can we get this done? And to those folks who've pointed out, and I I agree 100%, there's been issues between the landowner and the MPCA. look at this application as an opportunity for the MPCA to go, "Okay, you want to do this now. You're going to have to let us on the land. Now, we're going to do some boring samples. Now, we're going to go deep into all of this stuff that we wanted to do before, and we had problems with you letting us. Now, they're going to get let on." Um, should they be, you know, penalized for not letting them on. This goes back over 70 years. There's a lot of history between the MPCA and the land order. What we want, what I want from a council standpoint, I want them to get together and figure it out. I just came back from the National League of Cities annual city summit. And one of the biggest sessions that was on, it was a major 2-hour uh general session. They brought in speakers about how opposing parties, opposing opinions sit down and work things out in a constructive civil manner. And part of the part of the lesson is you can't be angry at people that you see every day. Uh Miss Grezini and I don't agree always on perspective, but I know Miss Gerzini. I respect Andrea Grazini and I will listen to her any day to better understand her side of the story and she does listen to me as well. You can't be angry at somebody that you know personally and so we have these debates. We have these open forums and the bottom line is we're going to share our opinion, our perspective and we hear everybody and we respect everybody that comes to that microphone that that is willing to come on camera and it affects us. We think about it might even cause us to have a little bit decision difference in some cases or we might even put some more strings attached to something. But what all this comes down to is just us being a step along the way to say we like that project. If it can be done on that land, great. But we're not the decider on whether that's going to happen or not. That is 100% in the hands of the MPCA and they have to work with the applicant to work that out. And if they can't, then nothing will get built there. Now, that does, as it was pointed out, puts us right back to square one. Where we're at today is garbage has been sitting there since 1960. 1960. It's been a long time. We all are antsy about what could that mean? We need the environmental specialists to tell us after 70 years, where's it at now? What's going to happen 20 years from now, 10 years from now, next year? We do not want a Flint, Michigan. And we don't think I don't think we have even close to that. But that stuff's been down there a long time. We need something done. [snorts] And The MPCA has worked with many remediated brownfield deals or landfills like CHS where there's contamination and figured out a way to build on it. They just have to do that with this property or they say no, it has too much of this or that and there's it can't be remediated. It's got to be dug up. >> But we're just asking for a fair Well, that's that's that's an assessment because I actually spoke to Kirk Cadelka about that. I said, "You've made a decision, but how much science has gone into that? How much of the boring has been going into that since you've also said that the land owner hasn't let you go on the property to do the required borings that would really answer all those questions? So, why don't we give that opportunity to happen by letting them work with this property owner and force that to come out? I mean, this is kind of opening the door to fix a problem that's been around for a long time. So, we'll see. But, uh, the planning commission, someone made a comment. The planning commission gave a a rubber stamp and thumbmed this up, uh, regardless of the conditions. No, the planning commission said condition commissioner, sorry, said the same thing that that I'm saying and we've said before in our work session. We would like to see this happen, but we don't have the final say. It's going through us to the body that's going to have the final say. This, like I said, this is the first time in 19 years I think we've ever had an application like this where we don't have the final say. So, um, we're kind of acting as the planning commission to the MPCA and saying, "Well, we like the idea, but you have the final say. You've got to work out the environmental issues." With that, I think um we can all go home and say we listened. We understand. We know our role and we know what we can and can't do where our authority starts and stops and the MPCA is going to take this up if this body supports moving it forward, but it's going to take a long time. So, nothing's going to happen quick. The garbage is still going to be there. And if it does get turned down, it's a probably pressing a $200 million cleanup based on the estimates as high as 700 million. I don't think the the state has anywhere near that kind of money right now uh or will, but it might have to. I don't know why they're waiting, but they'll they'll push forward. This is going to be the trigger to cause something to happen for good or for cleanup. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else who has comments? Uh, council member Gustiffson. >> I was listening to Council Member Keley, and all due respect, we do have the final say in this. It's uh we the ones that will approve the CU or the PUB after it's been mitigated, after this revenue remediation. Um, I have grave concerns about the the uh messages we got from the MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Health and and actually by state law, we're required to think about that and use that in our decision-m on all land use and any agency uh weighs in on it. Is that not correct, Jared? >> Yeah. Is it on any land use decision we have give the uh agencies the opportunity to comment? Yeah, we can take that into consideration >> consideration and all that. >> It's and I know I know what the applicant wants to do and it's to try to leverage power against the MPCA to maybe help negotiate different things. I'm sure they're hearing things they don't want to hear and that's why they're telling us they're not cooperating with them. But, you know, our our safe water, our drinking water is not a negotiable item. This is something that just has to get taken care of. I like the project and and I'm sure when they come back after getting their their work done with the NPC, I'd be more than happy to vote for this project, but until that time, I think it's premature and I will not be voting for this project. >> Okay. Council member Borman. >> Um I just needed a clarification. In the background, it said that MDH did not have any comments. And have we received any comment from MPCA on this application as it stands tonight? >> Mr. Marosa, >> there was a there was a letter from >> repeat that question. >> Well, in the background, MDH, it said MDH had no comments and I'm wondering if PCA had any comments on this application. >> The MPCA um MDH and MPCA provide letters um after reviewing the uh reviewing the application. Um they did have some comments in there but there was an overall letter stating their their stance on the project and the appropriate process. MDH provided a letter that said they were review the application they have they need additional information is more or less the >> they also said that they also said >> excuse me we're asking our staff. >> Yeah we're going to just I'm just um Miss Grazini Miss Grazini I this is not a time for us to debate. Uh, I'm Yeah, it's staff time to answer the questions. >> Yes. Did it provide comment letters? >> Okay. >> Okay. Anyone else? Uh, Council Member Schultz, uh, this needs this this has been going on for so long with the issues with with this property and it needs to get resolved. like this needs to stop being stalled. It needs to get resolved. Um I want the borings done and pretty much the only way those borings are going to get done is if they think that there's a project that is possible and MPCA can start to say this is what you need to do and they start to set the conditions. So, I I I want this taken care of. I do not want an issue with our drinking water. I do not want this to continue being stalled decade after decade after decade. And I don't care who's stalling it. Like, I don't care at this point. I Everyone needs to just get this done, right? Act like adults. Get this done. Um, as for an idea that anyone any one person or business could use leverage against the MPCA in negotiations has not ever attempted to do a project with the MPCA. Um, spineless they are not. So like there's no no concerns there. Um, so yes, I'm going to be a yes on this because I want this pushed forward. I want this situation resolved. I want our drinking water protected. I want to know what's there. I want all the reports done. I want the back and forth of how is this going to be remediated? Because we have been trying to work with the state legislature. We've been trying to work with MPCA to like are we [snorts] doing dig and haul? Are we doing dig and line? Like we have been begging. The city has been begging. This has been a legislative priority. This has been resolutions that we've done and it's just been crickets. So, my patience is over on this and hopefully this will move it forward. >> Uh, Council Member Burkeman. Um, I just I would echo what Council Member Schultz um just said. We've been working on this since I was elected in 2018 uh with no movement. Um, and the smoking gun seems to be the borings in the land to discover what is in the land. And we have yet to actually establish what that is on a definitive basis. And if this is what pushes us to that point where then we can make an informed decision, um, I'm happy to do that. Alternatively, the current MPCA plan is to dig up that garbage, move it to the side, put down a liner that when I asked about the lifespan of a liner, they were unable to to even say if it was 50 years or 100 years, and then stack that garbage back up into a 750 ft tower that will cast a shadow over 35W as you enter Burnsville. And I said that when that plan was published, I would do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. [snorts] That does not ensure clean water. It's a temporary fix. I am not opposed to clean water. I don't think any of us up here are opposed to clean water. But the proposal here tonight is not a final approval. It is a direction to the applicant to take this to the MPCA for a final assessment. The MPCA is very capable and qualified and I trust that once they have reviewed this, we can make that final decision [snorts] with the findings of fact and the analysis that comes from that next step in the process. That's not hiding behind the MPCA that is following the legal process and allowing this to come to some type of closure because like I think the rest of us, we're kind of sick of talking about it. So, I will also be voting in favor so that we can move this over the finish line and determine what this actually is. >> Council member Keely, >> thank you. Just one followup. Um, in the the data that Miss Cini shared, which was great. There's a lot of excellent information in there, there's a lot of references to freeway landfill and freeway dump. Freeway landfill is the western side of 35W. That is the one that was on the EPA super fund list and u still is, but it's in a different status today. But that's been on that list for as long as the super fund's been around. What we're talking about this particular project is on the east side of 35 and it's called the or referred to as the freeway dump. Uh so two very distinct properties uh with distinct characteristics of what's underground, but we'll all find that out when the borings happen. >> Okay. Has everyone made their comments? Yes. So, thank you and thank you to all of you who have showed up tonight because this is a very important um item for our community and the drinking water. What has been proposed to us tonight was also brought before us March 26 of 2024. And we said to the developer, "We like the concept, but now you go do the work with the MPCA." That's been over a year and a half. And it is about listening and collaborating. And if you really want to get to making a decision about moving forward, what are the obstacles and go beyond the obstacles to get to where you need to go? For me, I told the applicant and everybody from the very beginning, the water is important. We have done a lot of work to ensure that we provide water to our residents, safe drinking water to our residents and the residents of Savage and to our businesses because that's important. One of the things that continue to come up in any survey that we do is the water and the quality of the water. So for me I said to them the water is important and we it is also important because we have all these wells in that area and we have two wells that's less than a half a mile from this site. So the site needs to be cleaned up and I have asked the applicant work with the MPCA. you don't need they want you wanted us to do a resolution and I said you don't need a resolution the MPCA knows that we like the concept so go and work and work through it because in the research that I have done all of the sites that are in the north that were approved all had a remediation action plan whether that is a plan that is supposed to be um monitoring in sight but there is a plan so I implore the applicant work with the MPCA and get a remediation action plan you all said that there was something I was also surprised that Mr. Hanks at the planning commission said that one of the things that you wanted to do is because it is a state super fund site. Well, if you know that it's a state super fund site and that's a direction you would like to go, you had a year and a half to work through that process to understand what is the pathway forward. But it doesn't seem that you've gotten that. So, you're coming back to us and say, "Well, we'll go through and get the land use and the zoning and the ordinance and then we'll take that to the MPCA and say, see, the city likes the plan." Well, the city has always said that we like the plan, but you have to work with the MPCA. And so therefore, the steps that we have asked you to do since March of the of 26 of 2024 has not been done. And you're saying this is going to be a motivator. The MPCA is doing their job with regard to the law. I'm asking you to do your job if you want the development done. Because if you want the development done and it gets approved tonight, Mr. Marosa, the conditional use permit has a life of how long? >> Uh, one year. >> One year. One year. And then the conditional you permit is gone. Y >> from my perspective, I'm going to vote to deny this. Why? Because I have said from the beginning, the water is important because it's not just for Burnsville and Savage. We go down to the aquafer and Apple Valley is experiencing two of its wells that has PAS and they're closing it down and it's going to cost them $16 million to do a water treatment plan to fix that. I'm not going to put that on the backs of the residents and the businesses of Burnsville. Apple Valley had the state um funding committee at their site and they're asking for $40 million from the state to help them with that. I'm going to say work with the MPCA. I have said that over and over again. You don't need us. They know that we like your project. But this development and everybody has spoken we the MPCA even the conditions Mr. Morosa the conditions also say that we can't issue a permit for development. Can you please speak to the conditions because the conditions speak very clearly. >> That is correct mayor. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant has to receive MPCA approvals and then come back before this body to enter into the development agreement to memorialize those prior to issuance of any permit for this subject site. >> And so you see it doesn't matter what we do here. What we do here is about land use and what we do here is about zoning and what we do here. So that's all done. However, nothing happens. Nothing will happen and you only have a year with the conditional use permit. So, for me, this development, if we don't do it right, will endanger the public health and general welfare of the community through its threat to our water supply. and it will be hazardous to the community, not only Burnsville but Savage and then any other community that draws water from the aquifer from the Jordan Hinckley. That's where we go down. The city of Burnsville has worked hard in making sure that we can have good drinking water for both Burnsville and Savage because Savage purchases its water from Burnsville with having surface water and groundwater. And because of the work that we've done, we've helped to recharge the aquifer. The aquifer is very important not just to Burnsville, but I did a re research and looked to see how many communities draw water from the Jordan Hinckley. Well, it's not just Burnsville and Savage. It's Apple Valley. It's Lakeville. It's Egan and every other community down in the Dakota and Scott County and also Bloomington uh and Eden Prairie. Um, let's see. [snorts] So, Hastings, but it just there are communities that draw from that aquifer. So, the decision we make is not just for Burnsville, but for all of the people who draw water from that aquifer. So, with that, members of the council, we have all shared our thoughts. We have heard from our staff. Our staff did a wonderful job in putting together an application that um addresses our zoning, our land use, our ordinance, and I thank you for the great work that you and your team has done, Mr. Morosa. So, with that, I need a motion on the floor, please. >> Move to approve. >> Second. There's a motion and a second. I am going to ask for a roll call. Council >> member >> I. >> Council member Gustoson. >> Nay. >> Council member Schultz. >> Yes. >> Council member Workman. >> I. >> Madame Mayor. >> No. And the clerk has the division at the house. >> Yes. And now we also have in place the uh findings of fact. So those are all approved with the um application that is before us. So we have approved the preliminary plat, the final plat, the conditional use permit and the plan unit development with conditions of approval as recommended by the planning commission and our staff and the and adopted the resoning ordinance and the associated findings of fact. Thank you, Mr. Mrosa, for yours and your and staff's great work. Really appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. >> THANK YOU. [applause] AND now um the next item is uh 5B and this portion of the meeting uh will be closed because we're asked to consider the offer for a sale of real property at 14751 Portland Avenue South and so therefore it needs to be a closed session pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D.05 subdivision D 3C 3 for the purpose of considering offers or developing counter offers for the sale of real property located at 14751 Portland Avenue South. May I have a motion to close the meeting? >> Motion to close. >> Second. There is a motion and a second. All in favor, please say I. I. >> All oppose, say nay. And now we will move to um Dakota B for the close close session. Okay. I will now open the meeting and reconvene the Burnsville City Council meeting. Members of the council, there are no other items to come before us this evening and a motion to adjurnn is in order. >> So move second. >> There's a motion and a second. All in favor, please say I. I. Oppose say nay. And the motion carries. Great. We stand adjourned. Thank you very much and good night and thank you for being with us.