MPCA Filed Lawsuit Against Dump Site Owner Hours Before Burnsville Approved $50M Development

October 27th, 2025, will go down as one of the most controversial days in Burnsville planning history.

That morning, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency filed legal action against the owners of the Freeway Dump property, alleging they had "refused to cooperate" with state cleanup requirements for years.

That evening, Burnsville's Planning Commission voted to recommend approval for Big Hits at the Gateway—a $50 million entertainment complex on that exact same property.

Same site. Same day. And the controversy is just beginning.

Big Hits at the Gateway is an ambitious mixed-use entertainment venue proposed for 11937 Interstate 35W in Burnsville. The project includes:

The developers describe it as a "regional destination" that will create hundreds of jobs, generate tax revenue for schools and civic improvements, and provide recreational amenities Burnsville currently lacks.

At a recent unveiling event co-sponsored by the Burnsville Chamber of Commerce, over 100 people attended—including business leaders, residents, and local officials. According to developer statements, enthusiasm was "palpable," with attendees asking when construction could start.

Burnsville Mayor Elizabeth Kautz praised the concept, saying: "What you bring to us is really a wonderful economic development concept. It'll be great for the city of Burnsville to have something like this."

Here's what wasn't mentioned in the glossy renderings and promotional materials: Big Hits at the Gateway is proposed for the former Freeway Dump, which operated from 1960 to 1969.

The site contains approximately 790,000 cubic yards of unlined waste covering about 34 acres—much of which extends beyond the actual property boundaries.

In the 1960s, environmental regulations for landfills were virtually nonexistent compared to modern standards. The Freeway Dump was never lined, and waste was deposited directly onto soil that sits in close proximity to Burnsville's municipal water supply.

Testing has identified contaminants including:

Perhaps most concerning: 15 of Burnsville's 17 municipal drinking water wells are located within the potential contamination zone.

Currently, the contaminated groundwater is being held artificially low by continuous pumping operations at the nearby Kramer Quarry. If that pumping were to stop, groundwater levels would rise, potentially coming into contact with the buried waste and carrying contamination toward the municipal wells and the Minnesota River.

The drinking water supply serves not only Burnsville but also portions of Savage.

So the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been dealing with this site for years under something called the "Closed Landfill Program." Basically, legacy dumps that need monitoring and eventual cleanup.

And according to MPCA, the property owners have been stonewalling them.

The statement they released on October 27th (yes, the same day as the vote) said:

That's government-speak for "we've been trying to work with these people for years and they won't play ball."

So they filed legal action. Not a criminal case, but a "declaratory judgment action"—which is basically the legal system's way of saying "we need a judge to tell these people they actually have to follow the law."

The timing? Not an accident. MPCA wanted everyone voting that night to know: these owners are not in compliance, and city approval doesn't fix that.

Here's where it gets messy.

The development team showed up to the Planning Commission meeting and basically said "MPCA is wrong, we've been trying to work with them."

John Hink, the environmental manager for the project, told commissioners they've had a cleanup plan ready for three years but MPCA refuses to review it because of bureaucratic red tape.

His version of events: they keep getting stuck in the "Closed Landfill Program" (which is basically a mothballing program where nothing happens) instead of moving to the "Cooperative Superfund Program" where active cleanup negotiations happen.

"We're in a really good shape with the MPCA," he said at the hearing—which, uh, seems questionable given the whole lawsuit thing, but okay.

The developer's environmental team argues their approach is actually better than what MPCA supposedly wants.

Their plan:

Cost: About $10,000 per year to maintain (mostly for keeping that quarry pumping).

MPCA's alleged alternative: Dig up all 790,000 cubic yards of contaminated waste, haul it somewhere else, and dispose of it properly.

Cost: Estimated at $100 million or more. Taxpayer funded.

Bryan Murdock, president of Condition Services LLC and part of the environmental team, explained it this way:

They also point out that tons of developments in the Twin Cities have been built on contaminated sites using cap-and-monitor strategies: CHS Field, Upper Landing, even a Total Wine location.

So why is this one different?

The public testimony at the Planning Commission meeting was... intense.

Robert Timberman, who served on the Planning Commission for seven years before his term ended earlier in 2025, came back to deliver what can only be described as a warning:

He wasn't subtle. He directly disagreed with the city attorney's claim that the MPCA lawsuit was "irrelevant" to the vote.

State Representative Jess Hansen, who represents both Burnsville and Savage, made it personal:

She asked them to table the decision until they understood why MPCA took the "unprecedented" step of filing legal action on the same day as the vote.

State Representative Kayla Berg put it even more bluntly:

She basically told commissioners: who are you going to trust—the people making money or the people trying to protect public health?

Other residents brought up the Native American principle of thinking seven generations ahead. What will our great-great-great-great-great-grandkids think about us if we contaminate their water?

Richard McGawan, the property owner (and third-generation family member involved with the site), pushed back on the idea that his family doesn't care:

He pointed out that there are other contaminated sites in the area—including one under a U-Haul storage facility—that aren't getting the same scrutiny.

Muhammad Lwal, the architect leading the design, emphasized his professional obligations:

Teresa McFarland, a project manager, argued that development actually improves things:

Her point: the site has been sitting as a driving range for 35 years with basically zero environmental progress. At least this project forces cleanup to happen.

They voted yes.

But—and this is a big but—they loaded the approval with 14 categories of conditions. The most important ones basically say:

You can't build anything until:

In other words: City approval doesn't mean you can start construction.

If the developer and MPCA can't work it out, the project is dead. If the cleanup plan requires major design changes, it has to come back to the Planning Commission for another vote.

It's approval with a massive asterisk.

That's the million-dollar question (or, uh, $50 million question).

MPCA says: "The owners have been uncooperative and failed to follow state law... despite our multiple meetings and attempts to work with them."

Developer says: "We have a remedial action plan that's been drafted for 3 years... We've had numerous meetings and they've never allowed us to present that plan."

Both of these can't be true.

Either:

Someone is leaving out important details. Or interpreting "cooperation" very differently.

I've requested meeting records and email correspondence through public data practices laws to try to figure out what actually happened, but as of right now, those documents aren't public.

Here's something the developer kept emphasizing: this site only contributes 1-2% of the potential contamination to Burnsville's drinking water.

Their argument: There are dozens of other contaminated sites in the area. Focusing only on this one while ignoring the other 98% doesn't actually solve the regional water problem.

Which... okay, fair point?

But also: "only 2%" is still contamination in your drinking water. And the fact that there are other problems doesn't mean you should ignore this one.

It's like saying "my house is only 2% on fire, why are you worried about that when there are other houses burning?"

Buckle up, because this is going to take a while.

December 2025 (probably): Burnsville City Council holds a public hearing and votes on final approval. They have the ultimate authority, though they're bound by the same legal standards as the Planning Commission.

Early 2026: If City Council approves, the developer has to formally submit their Remedial Action Plan to MPCA.

2026-2027 (maybe?): MPCA reviews the plan. There's no legal deadline for this, so it could take months... or years. Especially if they're currently in a lawsuit with each other.

2027-ish (optimistically?): If MPCA approves, the developer comes back to City Council to sign a Development Agreement that locks in all the cleanup requirements.

2027-2028 (if all goes well?): Construction permits get issued. Actual construction begins.

Realistic opening date: Late 2028 or 2029. If this happens at all.