Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dysart board declines to adopt resolution opposing proposed BNSF intermodal facility
Summary
The governing board considered a resolution opposing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's plan to rezone about 4,300 acres near US‑60 for an intermodal/logistics facility but did not adopt it after members raised concerns about scope, factual support and jurisdiction; the motion failed when put to a vote.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Dysart Unified School District governing board considered and declined to adopt a resolution opposing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's (BNSF) request that Maricopa County consider rezoning roughly 4,300 acres adjacent to U.S. 60 for an intermodal facility, logistics park and related uses.
A board member read a resolution that cited traffic and emergency‑response concerns, potential increases in diesel particulate and other pollutants (citing a National Center for Healthy Housing health impact assessment from a Baltimore intermodal study), proximity of existing and planned Dysart sites, and the risks associated with hazardous materials transferred through intermodal hubs. The resolution urged the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to oppose the project in its present form and stated the district would send a copy of the resolution to the county board.
During discussion several members objected to language they called speculative or outside the governing board's jurisdiction. One board member noted prior public materials showed BNSF had committed to road improvements and questioned whether the district should use its platform on what he described as a county planning matter. Clerk Skovar and others pushed back on what they described as fear‑based language. The motion to adopt the resolution was moved and seconded but "Motion fails" was announced when the board voted; no roll‑call tally appears in the public transcript.
Board members noted neighboring jurisdictions had passed similar resolutions and expressed concern about traffic, emergency response and air quality impacts if the project proceeds without mitigation, but members were divided about whether the school board should take a formal public position.

