Good evening. The time is now 6:30 and I call this regular meeting of the city council of the Victoria City Council to order. Um it is our tradition to begin with the pledge of allegiance. So if you're able, we invite you to stand and 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, indivisibley and justice for all. >> Thank you. Right. The first item on our agenda this evening is announcements.
All meetings of the city council are open to the public and held in city council chamber at city hall unless otherwise noted. We encourage anyone wanting to attend or interested in speaking at a council meeting to attend or uh register with our city clerk in
advance for uh additional information. On Tuesday, April 7th at 5:30 p.m., staff will be hosting an open meeting law and data practices training in council chambers for all newly appointed commissioners and committee members. Our
next city council all day workshop is set for Monday, April 13th, commencing at 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. in council chambers, followed by the city council workshop at 6 p.m., our engineering department will provide transportation updates for Highway 5, Highway 7, County
Road 10, and county road 11. And then furthermore, followed by our regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m. uh we will have our uh conversations about what is on our agenda at that point. In other announcements, we are currently accepting nominations for our community
builder award. Each year in June, the city recognizes an individual, group, business, organization that has through their outstanding volunteerism or exemplary action demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to making Victoria a better place today and for
our future. Nominations are due by March 31st. Please contact our communications and engagement director, Kendra Gaul, with any questions or you need additional information about our program. We're also pleased to announce the return of Victoria Citizens Academy.
Through this free citizens program, participants get a firsthand look at how the city operates. To learn more and to register, visit the city's website. And please feel free to reach out to our communications and engagement director, Kendra Grow. If you have any questions,
there are no other announcements to this meeting. So, I I will now move on to proclamations with this evening, which I'll now read. proclamation recognizing April as National Volunteer Month. Whereas April is nationally recognized as volunteer
appreciation month, honoring the dedication and service of volunteers across the nation. And whereas the city of Victoria is grateful for the volunteers who generously contribute their time and talents to support our community. And whereas the city acknowledges the positive impact of
volunteerism making Victoria a strong and vibrant community. And whereas the city recognizes that government alone cannot meet all community needs and values, the essential contributions of businesses, faith organizations, nonprofits, foundations, and individual
volunteers. And whereas the city of Victoria is committed to encouraging and supporting volunteerism. And whereas the city extends sincere appreciation to all volunteers for their service and commitment to improving the quality of life in Victoria. Now, it is
therefore resolved that the mayor and the city council hereby proclaim April 2026 as volunteer appreciate appreciation month and encourage all residents to recognize and celebrate the meaningful contributions of volunteers in our community.
Our next order of business this evening is to adopt the final agenda. Council, is there a motion to adopt the final agenda? >> Move to adopt the final agenda. Motion made by council member Peterson. May I have a second? >> Second.
>> Motion made by council member Peterson and seconded by council member Refe. All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Does the clerk had a vision notice? >> Yes. >> All right. Moving on. Our next item is open forum. Open forum is the
opportunity for anyone to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and is not an application form that will be coming before the council at a future date. We have one individual registered to speak in advance. Um so if that person is in the audience, I invite
them to come up. Right. It appears that the individual who did register has not made themselves known yet. So, uh, I want to provide some housekeeping guidance around the open form. Again, open form is an opportunity for anyone to address the council on an item that is not on
tonight's agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the city city council at a future date. Uh, kindly do not expect action from the city council this evening regarding your comments. Council members may wish to ask clarifying questions, but open forum
is not intended as a back and forth discussion. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the council on an item that is not on tonight's agenda or is not an application form that will be coming for the council at a future date?
Okay, hearing none, we will move on. Our next item on our agenda is our consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are routine, administrative, and do not require deliberation or h and our or housekeeping items as required by law. Consentage item agenda items are
approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy, does stash staff with wish to pull any consent items for a separate discussion? >> None from staff tonight. >> Council, are there any items that you would like to be pulled for separate
discussion and vote? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to have an item pulled for separate discussion and vote? Uh, council members, I respectfully request you remove item 5.14, Victoria HTV Development Agreement from the consent agenda.
>> Would you kindly state your name and address for the record, please? >> Sure. My name is Brian Syler uh with Headarters Development, 10650 Red Circle Drive, Minnitankka, Minnesota. >> Thank you. Uh, clerk, let the record reflect that item 5.14 has been pulled
for further discussion. Uh, council, may I have a motion then for the balance of the consent agenda, please? >> I'll make a motion for the balance of the consent agenda. >> Motion made by council member Roberts. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. All right. A motion
made by Council Member Roberts and seconded by Council Member Patterson. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. Uh, council, the developer requesting 5.14 to be pulled. Please approach the podium and state your name just for the
record, which you have done. Thank you. Um, so council, let's uh have a discussion concerning the developers concerns. >> Good evening. Um, thank you for uh
allowing me to be here and and pull this off the agenda. I appreciate uh first of all all the hard work that's gone into the project approvals and the development agreement. Um, just getting to a final development agreement's a a big feat and I appreciate it. There's uh
specifically one item within the development agreement that I would uh just um simply like to discuss which I believe the intent of the de development agreement is currently written uh requires that all the parking um all 135 required
stalls for both lots one which is the bank building and lot two which is the medical office building be uh constructed as part of the lot one development and I am um simply requesting because we don't know the exact timing of lot two that as part of
lot one construction we're only required to construct the amount of parking required by code for lot one. Um and additionally through a phasing plan we've submitted to the city we will build the required parking for lot one
and an additional 14 stalls um to the requirement during lot one construction. So lotto lot one lot two there. Hopefully everyone followed that. But >> what was the additional 14? >> So through uh code we're required to I
think build um 57 stalls as part of the bank parking. >> Yeah. >> So through the uh approved plan 39 of those stalls were on lot one. >> Okay. >> And then uh absolutely we'll agree to build what's required. So, we'll build
those 39 and then we'll build the uh 18 additional stalls required by code on lot two and then we'll build additional parking on top of that on lot two because we've got some room for it. >> So, 57 plus
>> the original plan is I think 39 on lot one and then it's got an additional 21 on lot two that we were going to build anyway and then we're going to build an additional 14 on lot two. That makes sense. >> Maybe my math isn't working out.
>> Yeah, I I I wrote it down. So So see if I can go see get a little closer here. Um, so we're we're going to build uh so the 39 on lot one and then there's uh
21 additional um that we'll build on lot two is uh required as part of code and then we'll build an additional 14 above and beyond what code requires on. >> Okay. So 60 plus the 14 is that makes
>> sense. Okay. I >> mean, what's the reason for this change today, if you don't mind me asking? >> Yeah, the the the biggest change is that um as as much as we want Ridge View to commit to the building, they can't. And
so, we're forced to probably go look for additional or different medical tenants for the Mo building. And until we can find those tenants, uh, we can't build the building on spec. So, we're just unsure if the timing is going to time
out exactly so we can build them both. The bank is wanting to start as soon as we can pending what we can do with the Highway 5 construction right now. Um, so they're wanting to get going immediately and I don't know if the MLB construction
can coincide with that. I mean, part of this is the entry to the new Victoria with the new Highway 5, the new Gateway East. Um, I'm concerned about what the landscaping and parking is going to look like leading up to the
bank and the coffee shop. Is this just going to be grass? Are we still going to do the uh landscaping around it or what's that going to look like? So all the um all the improvements that are required as part of the bank will
get done in terms of the landscaping. All the storm water ponding that'll be required um to service the bank will be built out. Um all those improvements as far as what'll be on lot two. Uh it'll be pretty much in its natural state as close as it can.
So it's I mean we don't want to create an eye store either and it's a big deal to the bank that when they open when highway five construction is complete that they also stand out and it's a it's a beautiful area. Okay. The other piece
is just an additional parking location. There's a lot of construction going on in downtown Victoria and just brainstorming. We may be able to reap some benefits from the other construction groups as a staging area using 3/4 inch or whatever the base
pavers are to kind of lay that down for others to park there and then charge them for it while they're staging. >> I don't know. I'm just coming up with different ideas for you. >> No, it it it's come up. I mean, McCra's already approached us. All right. >> About potentially staging or using some
of that area for parking um too. And I know that um you know I know the banks you know essentially 8 to 5 so if there is some overflow or whatever parking required um you know that there will be after hours parking available on there. >> Yeah. I just want you guys to be
successful and for it to look nice and be effective. >> I appreciate that. >> So is it fair to say that the and what is lot one which we'll just collectively refer to as the bank? >> Yeah. Um, will they be underparked by 18
spaces to begin with? >> No, we will meet their all their requirements because they they fit 39 on their lot and then we will build the required 18 on lot two. We will fulfill our obligation to fulfill the bank's
parking on lot one. So we will fulfill all their parking required by code plus build an additional 22 stalls on lot two >> above and beyond what is required by code. >> Okay. So the 22 now is that is going to
be on lot two at some point in the future. >> When we're going to build those at the same time we build lot one. >> So you'll be building the spaces on lot two. You just won't be building the building and then the additional
>> 14 extra. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And then how about retaining walls that are needed for the lot one? Will that'll be constructed? >> We will build all the retaining walls that are required as part of lot one construction.
>> All right. And then there are retaining walls required for lot two. Correct. >> Correct. So, do you have an estimate of the impact that that would be on the residents that are going to be behind the property on disruption of having the
retaining walls sort of staged? I wouldn't expect uh it'll be it's it's a pretty big drop um you know behind the building. So, I don't uh I don't think just the actual construction of the
retaining walls will be too disruptive building it in phases. Um I mean I I can't speak exactly to that, but um it's hard to say, but the walls themselves shouldn't be too disruptive to construct. >> Yeah. Because the walls are primarily
the you what will the residents will h have like the for lack of a better expression the you know most intrusive part of the project. Correct. >> Yeah. And I think actually if I remember correctly the the highest walls the steepest walls are actually on lot one.
So >> okay. >> I I guess I'll just I don't have any issue with this. you know, you're parking for you're you're meeting the parking requirements for the bank and and the coffee shop. Um, you know, in in
reality, you know, most people probably go through the drive-thru for both the bank and the, you know, so um I I don't have any concerns about the parking issue, any parking issues there. Um, and I I I'm fine moving ahead with this.
acting mayor if I could. Um just a kind of a question about the mechanics of how this will work. Um as I understood the action item for tonight before we heard about this change as I understood the action item was to approve the development agreement which is essentially your standard development
agreement with some very few minor tweaks. And so the the action item was prove that subject to my input, which of course would be the staff's input along with me on any minor changes. This feels like a little bit more than a tweak to the agreement. I I think a couple of
provisions will have to be adjusted to do this. Uh and I guess I'm looking at city engineer Garren as well. Um it's not evident to me as I sit here now exactly what words will need to change to accommodate this. Uh assuming you want to move forward with it. Um, if you
do, I guess I just wonder about whether tableabling the item to make sure that we can get the agreement to be on the same page for two weeks and then bring it back to you when it's in more final format if that makes sense. Uh, or if I mean you in theory you could give
approval, but I just am not as I sit here now I'm just not sure exactly what things in the document need to change. And I guess I can't promise that it's all going to be perfectly easy to do between the city and the developer. Uh, I assume that's the case, but I I just
don't know. as I sit here now, >> uh, council, listening to attorney votes, uh, it would seem, at least from where I'm sitting, that the prudent course of action would be to table this until we
can get an agreement in front of us that we can actually understand and inspect rather than um, you know, just try to make adjustments on the fly. I think that it is incumbent upon us to make
decisions based on factual data, an agreement, an agreement that's been reviewed by the city's attorney, and that staff can also have the appropriate time. I imagine that they'll probably move with some expediency on this because there is a sense of urgency, but
um I I think that from where I would view this that we would be advised to take the prudent course of action and have the appropriate staff time and attorneys review to make sure that we have everything clear and there's we
don't leave room for ambiguity. I I would agree with that and I think also from the developer standpoint that would make things >> clear on that side as well. >> As as long as we're in agreement tonight, I want to get it right. So we're we're fine tableabling it. >> Okay. >> And acting more I when when you've
completed the sale, you should stop talking and now I'm going to talk some more. But uh I guess when I think about it, I think primarily uh again, engineer Grant, I think it's probably changing the exhibit that reflects what's going to get built uh as part of the initial phase. I think that's the primary change. But I guess correspondingly then
to the extent there's going to be less parking lot built, there's a little bit less public improvement cost and then thus there's a little less security and there might need to be a little bit of mathing done to get that ma revised math done right. And so I think there's enough there to to want to to want to nail those pieces down. So agree with
the action that you're proposing to take. I'll make a motion to table 5.14 for further negotiation with the developer. Oh, sorry. >> To April, >> sorry, what?
>> April 13th date. >> April until April 13th. Okay. So, make a motion to table until April 13th uh to give time for the uh city attorney and developer to come with up with an agreement. >> Second.
>> Second. All right. So I have a motion made by council member Rockard Roberts and seconded by council member Peterson. Did I hear or council member R. Thank you. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. We'll be favoring our second.
>> Thank you. >> Just a point of clarification on that. Are we like time legal timelines and all that stuff is good? Like we aren't on any 60 90 30-day thing. >> Your final pile is already >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, acting mayor council. Yeah. No, uh this step is just uh was a
condition as I recall it condition of the final plat approval and maybe a condition of some other approvals already given, but the development entitlements the the approvals required have already been given subject to entering this agreement. So, the plat has not literally been recorded yet, but
it's been approved. Uh and so if this uh well, I'm not even going to say the if because it's not going to happen, but this is fine as far as timelines. So, we're okay. Thank you. >> Correct. >> I assume so, but we know it happens. >> Good, good question. Okay. Thanks,
Council Member Personos. All right. On our regular, now we move on to our regular agenda. First time, first item on our regular agendum is item 6.1, which is our public improvement area and consideration of ordering the improvements and authorizing the preparation of plans and
specifications for the 80th Street improvements. Presenting this evening is assistant city engineer Amanda Meyer. Miss Meyer, welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Prom and the city council members. Um, as mentioned, the next item on your agenda is um the public improvement hearing and
considering ordering the improvements for the 80th Street improvement project. As you may recall, in August of last year, we had a workshop talked about the proposed improvements, uh, proposed scope, and ultimately the assessment amounts as they were coming in a bit higher than what you've typically seen.
Um, we also had a neighborhood meeting in October, which I'll talk about a little bit further as we get into the PowerPoint. Um, and then we'll also just kind of remind you of the uh proposed improvements uh as we go through the slides. So, existing conditions. Um,
again, this is a rule section road, extreme cracking, no storm sewer, no curbon gutter, no water man. Um, this road was gravel up until about 1990. residents uh band together, got approval from the city to pave the roadway. Um I
believe in 2010 and 2017, the city did do some minor maintenance the road with crack seal and seal coat, excuse me. In 2002, sanitary sewer was installed along the rear uh lot line of some of the homes. So, they do have sanitary sewer.
It's just not in the roadway like you would typically see. Um and I think I mentioned, but no water man exists today. You can see in these photos, excessive cracking, the pavement really has reached the end of its useful life. Um, what's being proposed and what was
included in the feasibility report that was ultimately approved in February of this year, um, is a full reconstruction, curb and gutter, storm sewer, um, and then possible water main installation. I'll talk a little bit more in detail about what that means, um, but there's some images on the screen before you of
what that uh, reconstructed roadway could look like. as a reminder of where this is located. So, this is 80th Street just west of Bavaria to the Culdeac. I think it's just shy of about 700 feet long. So, a pretty short stretch of roadway. Um, what you're seeing on the screen before
you is some potential driveway impacts. The proposed water man if it were included with the project scope in the sort of cyan light blue color uh with services to each property and then storm sewer in the orange. Um just as a reminder as part of that storm sewer um
it would require easements from Holy Family High School um for the ultimate discharge to the west uh to that adjacent water body. Um so a little bit more detail on the proposed improvements. What was included in the feasibility report is the 24 foot
wide street with curb and gutter. I do want to note with that 24 foot wide street parking is restricted on one side. Um, and then you can see the typical section here. This is for a seven-tonon road, which has been typical for some of the reconstructions in town
to help uh reduce costs a little bit as opposed to the, you know, the typical 9-tonon roadway that you see in in the newer developments in town. Um, and then also the possible construction of the city water system. So, as you're reconstructing a road, it's more cost effective to add water main now um as
opposed to later. So, now is a great time to consider that improvement. As I mentioned, we did have, and I apologize, there's a lot of words on this um slide here. Um we did have a resident uh neighborhood meeting in
October. Um and some of the feedback we received were regarding the roadway width. There's concern, you know, right now it's a rural section roadway that even though it's 22 feet wide existing today, there's ability to still park on the roadway. Um, I imagine some cars are
maybe parking in some grass. Um, but there was concern about the restriction of parking on one side and so there was an ask of a 28 foot wide roadway. Um, 28t wide would allow for parking to be permitted on both sides of the roadway.
You can see what that does approximately to the construction cost increasing from about 775,000 to 804,000. What I do want to mention though is, you know, as as we would get into design, we'd understand more about
impacts to properties. So, grading, tying into existing grades for each property, what the driveway impacts look like as we're widening an additional four feet, if there's landscape impacts, additional tree impacts. Unfortunately, some of those things just aren't known until we get into design. Um, but this
8004 is our our best estimate at this time. I do want to mention with the additional four feet for the street width that likely doesn't provide any additional special benefit to the residents. So that additional cost would be on the city to pay for. Um so you can
see the the change in city cost share it goes from about 658,000 to 687,000. So just want to make note of that. And then as it relates to the water man, um the initial feedback we received was that the residents were not generally
supportive of the water man. I know there are some folks here who live on the road. So I'm hoping that they'll speak um and provide some some feedback to you all on you know if any um opinions have changed at all on neither the the street width and or the water main construction. But before we move
on, can I uh can you talk a little bit more about the benefit? Uh and like obviously, you know, they want there sounds like they would like a 28t road, right? And it's a benefit to be able to park on. So, how do how does it work when they're figuring out what's an
actual benefit or not and how it how it equates because obviously those extra four feet are a benefit to them because it allows them to park on both sides of the road. Um, but so how does that but obviously it you're saying it's not
doesn't meet the benefit requirement or standard or whatever to allow us to include that in the assessment that the city has to eat that. Yeah, generally my understanding and you can add in if you want to, Cara, um but when you do the
special benefit test, the the add of the additional 4 feet isn't something that um a land appraiser is going to recognize as an actual benefit to the property. They're seeing the brand new road, the curb and gutter, the storm sewer. They're not necessarily seeing
the additional width. I don't know if you have anything additional you'd like to add. >> Yeah, I would agree with that. The only thing I'm not sure how they might measure parking on both sides, but when I think back to our previous um
projects that we've been through, I don't recall seeing anything related to parking or not parking, more drainage, curbon, gutter, new road. You know, it's it's not a perfect process and it's the statute we've been given.
>> No. Yeah. I just wanted to understand that a little bit. >> Yes. Based on property taxes, we had an assessment done and said if we improve this road, it's going to increase property value by X amount. Therefore, your assessment can only be this regardless of what we do in the street.
>> Sure. >> 117 stays the same. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um, so then looking at the proposed assessments, these were documented in the feasibility report, but just as a reminder, the estimated cost for the street and storm was at
$775,200. Again, that's at the 24 foot wide street. Um, within the feasibility report, there was a proposed cap at 13,000. So, we did have quite a bit of conversation at that workshop about, you
know, comparison with other recent uh street improvement projects and um comparing to this kind of unique situation with larger lots. There's only nine accessessible units. Um and there's additional detail and documentation in that feasibility report regarding this
proposed cap. um for the water mane estimated 212,000 for um that estimated project cost and with the city's special assessment policy that is still um 100% assessed to the residents. So that that
estimated um assessment amount has not changed since our earlier discussions. So that's the $23,556 per unit. Um, if the council chose to move forward this morning, this morning, I'm sorry, this evening with water mane
included in the project scope, uh, the assessment for each property was would be the combination of that. Um, the 13,000 and the 23,000. So, just wanted to clarify that. Um, as with assessment projects, those assessments could be le
levied over 15 years with an interest rate that's the bond rate plus 2%. As a reminder, there are nine accessible properties on this project highlighted in orange. There had been a question previously about if Holy Family could be an accessible property. Um, we did chat
with the community development team and ultimately that property was considered to be not developable and therefore would not receive a special benefit from this proposal project. Um, there is deferment of special
assessments. there are some um there are some uh pieces that would need to be uh met, some requirements that would need to be met in order to qualify for those deferments. Um we did talk through this with some of the residents
at the neighborhood meeting as well. >> Just go back to that for a second. So if we're unable to assess somebody who lives there for whatever reasons on here, >> then does the city have to pick up that tab or does somebody else
U mayor, members of the council. So that assessment is still on the property and interest still occurs on that property. Um and then at the last bullet here, it says payment becomes due upon any of the following events. So at any for any of those last four bullets, that property
owner would would need to pay that assessment. >> Does that answer your question? >> But to be clear, this is if if somebody chose to defer their special assessment. If there was no deferral, then everything that we're seeing before us becomes moot. Correct.
>> Yes, that's correct. >> Thank you. >> Good. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, just wanting to uh show you the project schedule. So, we're at the, you know, March 23rd this evening. Should council uh choose to order the
improvements, we would look to come back in June to approve plans and specifications. open bids in July and ultimately construct the project uh late summer into the fall. I do want to note there's three items on
the screen before you this evening. So the first is to ultimately hold the public hearing. The second item uh because the water man is an optional component, council must decide whether water man should be included before considering ordering the project. So that's what that motion number one is,
is determining whether or not water main should be included. And then the second motion uh for consideration this evening is to order the improvements and authorized preparation of plans and specifications. So with that, I'm happy to answer any uh
questions. Okay. Okay. So, hearing no questions of our engineering staff, then um I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to
this item or approach the podium then and uh state your name and address for the record and we'd love to hear your comments. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Jamie Steppen. Uh live at 755 80th Street. Um
we moved into the uh property about uh 2009 period. So um I would consider myself a more of a junior person living on the street. Uh but we have recently acquired a lot of newer people uh on our block. I think within the last couple of
years. Um two gentlemen be behind me uh have lived on the street longer than I have. uh they have much more um to say about a lot of these things but uh some of the things that I would like to address and what we have discussed uh with our our neighbors uh and some of
the ones who are not here of course um we were talking about the uh parking on both sides issue and I know that's that's uh something that um you know can and go either which way my personal opinion what a lot of us have discussed was that that affords uh now it's a
short road if we have parking being restricted to one side. What happens is um we do some of the houses according to uh Amanda's uh diagram up there uh lose some parking space in their driveways. Of course, that's just the way it goes.
Um, but because such a short street and there are nine homes on that, what that does afford affords us uh because there are some parties, there's a lot of young kids and stuff, so there's going to be parties or or uh uh everything from Super Bowl parties to um to get togethers and that affords us additional
parking to be able to park on both sides of the street. So, accommodates more cars uh for family members or friends and like. So, um I know that probably seems insignificant, but uh you know, the the benefit for us is is more
beneficial to to be able to park on both sides versus just one side and restricting and then cars are now overflowing, either going to have to park on another street, which there really is no near street. We we're kind of secluded there and there's really not a whole lot of options other than parking across the street at the the uh
the tree farm there. So, um, any any issues or any any comments so far as far as, uh, what I've stated on the, uh, parking there because I got a couple other other things I can I can mention as well. So, um, going go moving
on to, um, the water man. I know we have discussed a lot of us are on wellwater and um with the cost of of the street uh what we're trying to do is improve the appearance improve the roadway uh it has
been ever since I've moved in in 2009 and my wife Jennifer uh we have had uh and what was identified with Amanda's uh description on our street uh very minimal maintenance and so we're dealing with a lot of um terrible conditions on
the roadway um potholes, this and that. Um so taking care of that primarily and installing a water mane, I think what would what that would do was would create a little bit more of a hardship financially for a lot of the people that
live on the street. Um I am not retired yet. However, there are some people that are either there or getting close to it. Um some people are more financially strapped than others. Of course, the economy always dictates uh how much money we have left over in our pocket. And the more money in our pocket is
better. Um so if we can avoid some of these um some of these additional costs, uh things that aren't necessarily paramount to our primary, to our our objective here, um we would like to keep some of the the cost down in that respect. Now, um,
if there there's a lot of us that have I know Tim behind me has lived here, uh, since his his parents owned the place since 71. So, he's he's seen a lot of things come and go on the street. Um, living on this street. Um, we plan on
being here for quite some time. Uh, we've been here, like I said, I've been here, my wife has been here since 09. Uh, we don't plan on moving right away. So, uh, reducing the cost and making the improvements on the street. So, that's easier for cars, uh, you know, wear and tear on vehicles, wear and tear on, uh,
kids, uh, skateboards and rollerblades and everything else. Uh, now our kids are grown, but we there are a lot of small children on the street. So, uh, fixing the street would be would be, uh, the primary objective here. So, um, as far as the, uh, the remaining amount, I don't know, maybe, uh, some of the
gentlemen behind me might have some other things or my wife might have something that that I might have missed, but those would be the two two items that I would like to address or at least have have known or considered. So, thank you very much. Uh, this is the longest I've lived at any particular,
uh, location. I grew up as an Army Pratt. I'm an Army combat vet, so I've lived in a lot of places all over the world. and uh making this my home for as long as I did is quite a feat in itself. So looking to making it a little bit better. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thanks. >> All right. Well, thank you for addressing us. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to >> speak at the public hearing? >> Not prepared at all for this, but >> how was the first house built there in 1972?
>> Just state your name and address for the record, please. Tim Spencer. Thank you. >> And your address? >> 742 80th Street. >> Thank you. >> Moved out here when the race riots were going on in New York 72. Marv Hartman built my house. Only house there. Got
pictures of it. It's a dirt road. Lived there. Went off to college. Came back, bought it from my parents. We pitched in 10 grand. All nine, eight people then. Probably paved the road ourselves. It works. It's been good. I guess my
question is why change it? I'll pay to patch it up or why do we got to do all this wells work? Everybody's got septic tanks. It's a lot of money. That's my only question.
>> Well, I I'll speak to that. the city received a petition to evaluate the paving of the road and bring it up to city standards. And so we've conducted a feasibility study about doing that. Um we've also conducted
uh you know spent extra dollars of the city to determine what would be a fair and impartial improvements if we chose to go down the path of spending money to improve this road. It is a city road. It
is subject to the city's uh street and reconstruction >> sure >> program. Um so that that's why this decision is before council this evening. And so our decision is going to be on whether to make a motion to do the
improvements before us this evening. >> All I got. >> Thank you. >> How the whole thing got done and then came the curve of and everything else. >> Would would you mind if if you're going
to address please would you mind standing up and state your name? >> Okay. So, council, do you feel that we've adequately heard this gentleman's comments? >> Yeah, we do have a public hearing so you know to get you on record so that
there's fairness to you and your neighbors. >> Riso, 726 80th Street. Uh, like I said, the reason this whole thing got started is the road's in bad shape and we want a new road and then so
we came to another hearing or whatever and um then realize, oh, we got a new curb and gutter and I'd just like to contract somebody to come in and put a nice road in. Can't do that anymore. you
know, back when they did it before the last time it was done, uh, that was before I was there, uh, everybody got together, they paid, I think it was 12,000 bucks or 1,200 or something like
that >> and they put a whole new uh, road in, you know, now if we put one in, we got to do curb and gutter, right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, >> but it's only a You said it's 10 was
$10,000 for what you did for each >> for each run. And didn't we just say $11,000 to do >> uh the per >> Right. So, to get that curb and gutter, it's only $1,000 more.
>> No, he he's wrong on that. It was like 1,600 a person to have that road done. I mean, I remember Mark after >> Yeah. 10 years and I remember I heard
you went around everybody. So anyway, that was the whole deal. We just wanted a new road. >> We understand. You know, when my wife and I pulled up in front of that house and saw it when we were looking for a place to live, I said, "I hate curb and
gutter, you know, and I like the way this place was a country house." And uh I didn't have all that modern stuff. And I I do have one question. I don't know who I'd asked, but how many like storm
sewers would they put in in a road like that? Do you know there would there be like three at the end where it all flows or or don't we know that? >> I Well, can we ask our engineers this evening to see if they can provide you
an answer with that? Uh, Mayor Prom, members of the council, based on our concept design, based off the city's design standards, we're showing four catch basins. So, there's little orange squares, if you can see
those on your screen. >> So, guess again, this is very conceptual level, right? We haven't done full design. So there's two catch basins proposed partway down the street and then two at the end of the culde-sac based on the grade of the roadway. We're
anticipating the need for for the two catch basins at the end of the culdeac. >> So there' probably be one on each side going down the hill and then there'd be two at the end. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Well, thank you.
>> Thank you. So, is is there anyone else who wishes to speak about this item this evening? >> Sure. >> I'm Jennifer Steen. I also live at 755 80th Street. Um, in terms of the end of
our street at the end of the culdeac, there are are about four of us that live on the end and the road is not wide enough. Currently we have when we have garbage trucks come down, when we have
Amazon drivers, UPS drivers, no one can make a complete turn at the end of our culdeac or dead end, whatever you want to call it. It's a continuous backup, backup, back up into somebody's
driveway, keep backing up to get going. And it's and if we have to put our garbage cans out, then the garbage trucks are trying to maneuver around all four of our end units. So, the four of us at the end are all in agreement that
we would like that whole area widened and the curbs and the gutters and everything because it's truly if somebody's parked there and another vehicle comes down, there's no room to get people in and out. Thank you. Thank you.
>> All right. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this issue tonight? And I'll ask again, is there anyone else who wishes to speak this evening on this item? And for a third time, I'll ask is there anyone else to who wishes to speak
to this evening? Okay. Okay. So, hearing that there are no other people that want to speak during the public hearing, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor to council for discussion. >> All right, I'll start us off. Um, is
there I don't know what the reasons are that we can't keep it as a rural road and we have to do curb and gutter. Is there a reason for that or not? Mayor, acting mayor, members of the
council. Yes. So, um, typically one way or another, we need to convey storm water away from the road. So, the reason that you're seeing the failure that you're seeing within the roadway, if water can get in there, it becomes a problem. So, we would either need to
have curbon gutter or a rural section with ditches and culverts. And when we take a look at the street as engineers, we think the curbon gutter and storm sewer is a more effective way to convey the drainage. >> Okay. But is there like a legal per
reason that we have to go that route at this stage? >> No. >> Okay. >> It's a it's >> their engineering our recommendation. >> Okay. If you were to remove the curb and gutter, then we would need to go back
and revise the report to look at what sort of um costs we might need to incorporate in associated with grading a ditch in and putting culverts in under all the driveways. And sometimes that's possible, sometimes it's not possible. >> That would be my next question. is
putting a ditch in going to decrease property values or cost more than curb and gutter or not. >> Typically, in my experience, the impacts are the problem. So, you know, if people have landscaping, if there's trees adjacent to the roadway, um we need to
have the storm water leave the site one way or another, either through a storm sewer or through a ditch. And so if we have to grade a ditch on both sides of the road from the top all the way down to the bottom of the culde-sac, that would be impactful. >> Okay.
>> And and again, that's what we're looking to achieve here with the section that's proposed and what was proposed is to reconstruct the road to city standard consistent with what we've done to nearly every other street in the city
except for like three little areas that we have left. Suffice it to say, >> suffice it to say that >> we've closed the public hearing. >> We've closed the public hearing. So, we're now
>> It's hard to say without analyzing it. >> All those trucks down Well, before us this evening is the topic of we've been petitioned to redo the city streets and that would be >> and that the petition is that there's
that there was a concern among the residents that the road is quality has deteriorated. It's a city road and then it becomes in the city's right of way and it's the city's purview to design and engineer standards of roads according to what the city's ordinances
and policies are. So the the question before us is to twofold uh whether or not we're going to include the water manes or not or we're going to adopt plans and specifications.
So, you know, I think that council, do we want to work on the question of whether or not it makes sense to u include the water man because I think that >> seemly that's a straightforward Sure. Absolutely. >> I was just addressing some of the
questions that were brought up during the open. >> Can can you remind me? So, this came to us, right, because we were petitioned. There's nine houses in that neighborhood. Do we know how many of the houses were on that petition?
>> Uh, mayor prom, members of the council, I believe it was six. >> And then have there So, it sounds like we've heard from the res that they would prefer the 28 foot road.
Do we know has that just been from a couple people? Have we heard uh from numerous people in the neighborhood that they would like 28 ft? Um and I guess you know the wider the road obviously more of their property
gets taken away. Um so has there been any issues raised with that? >> Uh mayor prom members of the council I've heard from just a couple of the residents uh their preference for the 28 versus 24 for the parking on both sides.
Um the intent of the improvements would be that the permanent improvements do still stay within city rightway. It's just that the the impacts of the proper of the project based on grading may extend. >> Sure. >> And then do we know
how old or like what the average age of the wells are in that neighborhood? Like do we >> It's a great question. I do not know the answer to that >> there. We did a little bit of work on that last year though. You brought some things up about the the wells and
um some of the history there. I thought car I don't my my memories I'm trying to >> apparently mine's the same as yours. >> Yeah. >> Is that so? Yes. Thank you, Mayor Phil members.
Um, to the best of my recollection, the discussion that the council had was to go back and have a neighborhood meeting and during the neighborhood meeting kind of gather what the appetite of the neighborhood was um on the water man versus the well. And so I think that was
part of the discussion that they they had. So I don't know if you've had if we have clear consensus. I think we've heard from some um but it I believe and I'm going to look at both of our engineers that we're not hearing a
majority from the majority of people in the neighborhood that the water man is desirable. >> Okay, >> I would agree with that. >> So I guess I mean just thinking about I mean you know we've got two things right before us, right? It's the street and
it's the water man. And and it's pretty clear that the road needs work. Um and I mean I'm inclined to, you know, if we're going to do this, let's do it right and let's make it 28 ft and have parking on both sides. Um
and even though I I completely understand from an engineering standpoint that water it would be best if we were putting water in now than you know a fallen they want it in 10 years. Um, but I I I I've you know, we've heard from
them. We like it's it's it's a big price. And, you know, I I just don't feel right about putting that burden on them when it's not clearly a want right now. So, I
would be kind of toward the to the way of not putting water in right now. Even though I know it's the preferred route that we like to go, uh, I just I I just it's a it's a big price. >> It sounds like we haven't heard from
anybody that water the water may not be a >> or want, right? I should say. So, >> I seem to the takeaway is that there's opposition on some indifference on
others, support for others, but the uh I I I don't disagree with you guys that this is um it's a it's a heavy price to come up with. Now, now that said, a well being drilled, if one on
the property that goes bad, I wouldn't be surprised that it would be a $20,000 proposition right there, which is would roughly be um equate to what it would be on a lot per lot basis of having um city
water. So the if we choose not to do the water mane then um I think it becomes clear that that's becomes a long-term risk to the residents on the road that that they would absorb the problem with the well and they wouldn't have the
opportunity to stub into the water man. >> Yeah. >> Correct. So the council I think that we then are in uh I'm sensing consensus that um we
would not include or exclude the installation of water manes. Um we'll we'll work on a motion for that probably I think after we bear a discussion on the other topics of the question becomes do we um
seek to do a 24ft road or a 28ft road and then uh so if I don't have that understanding I seeking my council members just correct me on that matter or engineering
I think so. And I think it just comes down to based on the limits that we put together, are is the city willing to absorb the extra $30,000 for 28 ft and spread that out through how we collect um road improvement dollars or a lot
road improvement dollars versus not. And I guess I would be in the position that yes, I would That makes sense. >> Yeah. And I would agree with that. I think if we're going to do it, I think a
few of us have said, "Let's do it right." And I think that does bring benefit for the residents. >> Um, >> and it's probably benefit for our public works too, right? It's with the snowplow and I would assume so. >> Yeah. >> With that, does that make the culde-sac
bigger? Does that with a wider road or is that >> the Amazon truck and the track? What was shown in the feasibility report was a 35 foot wide radius. Um I feel like what you have right now is maybe 26
25. It's it's pretty narrow. Um so the the radius of the culde-sac would stay at that 35 ft unless you feel differently regardless of the 24 28 foot wide road. So, at least a 9 to 10 foot difference in the new
>> compared to existing >> compared to existing. >> And I'd just add that that 35 foot standard is what we've used throughout the city in these situations where we're reconstructing. The new neighborhood
standard is 45 feet. Um, that becomes very disruptive in an existing condition. And so when we actually implemented the 35- ft standard, we painted it out at the rec center and had the fire truck maneuver around it. And
so it seems like I think the first one went in in 2004 and it's not something we get complaints about. So >> Okay. >> All right. So, council, I'm I'm sensing that
uh we we have consensus on the city absorbing the additional cost to widen the road to 28 ft and the you know, I'm hearing that the potential offset is that there's a benefit to the residents
on the street being able to park cars on both sides. And would it be fair that that benefit offsets some of the concerns about the uh parking that is available now because it's basically rural and half the car sits on the road
and half the car sits on the grass. >> Agree. >> Would agree? >> All right. So, are we agree that we've had enough discussion item on this? >> So, seeing no further discussion, I'll now entertain a motion. Staff are
looking for two motions on this item. One specifically whether we want to include or exclude the installation of the water man and one related to the preparation of the plans and specifications. Are there any motions? >> Make a motion to exclude the installation of the water man in the
scope of the 80th Street improvements. >> Right. I have a a motion made by Council Member Roberts. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So, motion made by Council Member Roberts and seconded by Council Member Refe. All in favor? >> I
>> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Do you have our >> Yes, I do. >> This division is great. And then All right. Um, moving on >> for the second motion. I just want to
clarify. Do I need to state width within that motion? >> I think that it might be better because the resolution references the feasibility study which has 24 ft. I think it might be better to have a third motion um where you're specifically
increasing it from 24 feet to 28 feet. >> Okay. >> Providing that direction to staff that as part of the design to increase the width. >> Fair enough. I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution ordering the improvements and authorizing the preparation and plans and specifications for the 80th
Street improvements. >> All right. I have a motion made by Council Member Patterson. Is there a second? >> Second. >> A motion is made by Council Member Patterson and second by Council Member Roberts. All in favor? I >> opposed.
>> The motion carries. >> So yes, you I did we did not provide you a sample motion for that. I can try >> gonna know where that was going to go. Wanted to leave that up to the council. So, >> I'd make a motion to direct staff to
change the width of the street from 24 to 28 ft in preparing for the 80th Street improvements. >> I'll second that. >> Right. I have a motion by council member Patterson, seconded by council member
Refe to increase the road width from 24T to 28 ft. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. That motion carries. The next item is 6.2 which is to consider the conditional use permit for a commercial sign for
Blue Agave Tacos and Tequila Restaurant located at 7980 Rose Street. presenting this evening for associate planner Travis Beerley. Mr. Beerley, welcome. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. One second
to get this. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Tonight is a condition use permit that was submitted for an illuminated sign uh for a new restaurant in town known as Blue Agave. Um, this application is specifically for two internally lit or known as halo
lighting where the lighting is off the building and it's projected back at the building to show the letters from behind. Um, each side is approximately 94 square ft in size which meets our um, zoning code for the size requirements. There was a completeness date of
February 27th which puts the decision to the city council 60 days as April 28th. Uh this was noticed in the paper as well as a mailed notice to residents within 350 ft. Uh we only received one public comment which was in favor of a sign for
Blue Agave uh but was not in favor of the illumination due to concerns uh with aesthetics as well as potential safety um issues. So just to point out where uh 7980 Rose Street is part of the road building. That's going to be the endcap right on
Rose Street and Highway 5. And just taking a look at the example of the signs. Um the applicant provided us with renderings of day and night. So this image here is facing is from Highway 5. And then the images here from
Rose Street um showing what it would look like. A proposed conditions that we looked at is we want to make sure the lights not plainly visible upon the sidewalk. So it's not an illumination of the sidewalk. It's there just for the lettering. Um, we also want to make sure that it doesn't create any type of
hazards and if it does, the condition use permit would allow us to correct those actions. Um, it's also not permitted to use a different type of lighting method as when the signs illuminated, it requires conditional use permit with inside our zoning code. As
it states, uh, the signhouse properly maintained. Uh, non- workinging lights need to be fixed or replaced within a reasonable time frame. um oscillating, moving and changing um of the wall or of the color of the wall sign would not be permitted as it provides a higher level
of distraction. It's also not something we have in any other sign downtown. This the sign also has comply with all the city code regulations as a conditional use permit. This is a land right. This is not necessarily specific for the sign. So, they'd be able to change out a sign that would fit with
inside the conditional use permit if they saw fit in the future. Um, a request did come from the planning commission uh that the illumination be turned off no later than 1 hour if their business closes. This is something the city council would be able to do as it fits in the time, place, and manner of
the sign and not necessarily the sign characteristics itself as far as the messaging goes. Um, the other two conditions on here is requiring that the uh the resolutions recorded within 180 days. uh that's more or less an accounting uh item and then that the uh
we don't issue a signed permit till the proof of recording is done. That way we're making sure we're dotting all the tees and crossing all the or sorry dotting all the eyes and crossing all the tees before we go ahead with the approval of any signs. Um there is a sample motion uh provided
for the approval of the sign. I would like to point out this is the first condition use permit for an illuminated sign within our downtown area as this um requirement came forth in the fall of 2024 with a new sign ordinance that was passed by the city council and for that
I can stand for any questions. >> Question I have for you Travis what would be construed as a reasonable period of time and uh what would we do about that if things were not illuminated? We've
I think we've all seen throughout the community where there have been large illuminated signs on buildings and the letters seem to be out for days, weeks at a time, then the next one burns out and it's out for days, weeks at a time. Um,
I would be more comfortable with maybe making a condition that these signs are repaired within a certain amount of time. Um, at which case then you know, we would talk about what would be the consequences of not doing that.
Uh, but I just want to get our view of what we would view as reasonable so that we're not um having somebody upset by the not only did they not necessarily like having an illuminated sign, but then to look at an illuminated sign that
has burned out letters for three days might be tolerable, but 30 days would be inexcusable. So, >> Mayor, that's an excellent question. Using the term reasonable time is subjective. Um, and what it does is it allows staff to work with inside the city's policies to find a resolution and
a fix to the damage. If it's one light compared to the whole sign out or if it's something that's um an internal issue that's a significant repair expense and there needs to be consideration for fixing versus repair. Um it it wouldn't be my recommendation
to put a specific time limit on it as we'd want to work within the policy as we do with any type of code violations to find those resolutions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I thought an obvious answer to that is if you can't keep it lit properly, it doesn't get lit.
So if the A is out on blue agave, you aren't you can't light that sign. I don't know if you can put that in there. I don't know if it's legal, but it seems like it's a nice carrot to get it fixed versus just letting it sit out there and have it 7/10 or whatever illuminated.
>> Well, and the other thing, too, is this is our first one, it sounds like. So, uh this it probably is critical how we approach this one. Um because there could be others, too. >> Yeah, acting mayor, if I could. Um I I
hadn't thought of this question and I'm interested in it both for you but just generally. Uh staff, do we know uh I can't tell because I I looking at it on my cell phone. Uh are there multiple lights for each letter or is each letter
a single light? H how many lights are we talking about to light up this sign? >> The this would be um what you see standard lighting. So each letter is likely to have its own lighting system. Yeah. it' run on a string. So, if we think about it as a Christmas tree lighting, you might have a bulb out on
the Christmas tree light, but the rest of the lights would still be on the string. >> Um, so this is a typical design that you see for a lot of restaurants and retail locations. Going back to one of the letters might not be illuminated. This type of sign design could have that
happen. So, acting mayor, staff, Travis, uh, I I guess I thought you were saying if it's on a string, a single light in the B in blue, a single light of the six lights that are lighting up the B could
be out. I I apologize. The analogy was a little loose. When we look at this, each letter and each logo and everything that's part of it, those are each individual light bulbs that are there is one way to look at. You could have part of the agave plan out. You could have
the G out or an O or the the the Q or anything like that. >> That'd be the type of thing that we'd want to address. But it depends on when we're looking at the reason going back to the reasonable time depends on what severity that is depends on what type of resolution would most appropriate.
>> Yeah. And just to state the obvious, it seems to me that if you had if my hypothetical had been right and there were six lights lighting up the B and one of them was out, the B would be very very slightly less bright than the others. That is less obnoxious than the entire B being
out, right? I mean, that just is a bad look. Uh so it seems to me that that's that's what you're wrestling with a little bit here is if you've got two letters in a nine letter sign, isn't that that's a bad look? And so you want that to be fixed quickly. So
>> and you see it all the time. >> Yeah. >> Around, you know, when a letter or two are out and >> Yeah. >> But everything's legal with this according to our city code, right? I mean, I couldn't come up with a reason why you would say that this is not
something we can have, right, >> council member? That's correct. Everything with the sign falls within all our parameters as far as projection off the walls, as far as the square footage of the sign. Uh we worked with the sign manufacturer prior to the application being submitted and narrowed down their concept to fit with inside
the city code. >> So like illumination's all good, the size, color, everything's fine. My question would be going above that is I know in the past there have been signs along certain state roadways that aren't
allowed based on how close they are to the road. And this being Highway 5, Victoria uh Victoria Drive, is there are there any state reasons or
state statutes that would not allow a lit sign to be this close to Highway? That would be the only thing I could come up with that >> possibly could be an issue. and mayor counsel that was one of the questions that that was asked during this >> okay
>> process and what we were told um from the sign manufacturer not from the state is that as long as the the light doesn't project out on to the rightway that and it stays completely on private property then it shouldn't have any violations if it does create a violation or creates a
traffic hazard we would need to address that or the state would need to we'd work with the state to get that addressed in the future. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, acting mayor. Uh, again, this one catches my attention. Uh, someone has asked the question, what would be legal?
And I guess what jumps out at me, I mean, it's perfectly legal just to say it will be repaired within a reasonable period of time. If you feel like that's a bit too loose. It seems to me that there are two other options for you. One would be to say uh within a reasonable
period of time not to exceed fill in the blank. That would be one way to address your concern. The other way would be to say, uh, the business won't illuminate the sign for more than X days with a letter out, right? You've got a letter
out, you can work on it for a couple days, but we're not going to let you have it on for a week with a letter out or whatever. I mean, obviously, that would be up to you. So, those are two ideas if that's an important concern to you that you could you could go at this with >> that to me tightens it up a little bit.
>> Okay. >> Um, and the number that would come in mind is 30 days up until 30 days in general. I think that's very reasonable. If we went with the the latter uh that attorney Vos brought up, I would say
five business days without a letter. You could have up to five business days and then you're to at least make arrangements or however we approach that. But I think probably the cleanest is up to 30 days.
>> All right. So, council member Rafe, would you say that perhaps we modified condition five to non-working lights shall be fixed or replaced within a reasonable time frame not to exceed 30 days.
If within 30 days the lights are not repaired, then the sign can no longer the remaining sign can no longer be eliminated. >> That's what I'm Yes, that's what I was seeing. >> Council, do we feel like we have consensus with that?
>> Yeah, I would go less, but 30 is fine. And for, you know, last piece of guidance, Travis, would you feel that that's something that's reasonable for staff to administer and support? >> Yes, mayor, council, that that fits
within our current uh policy where we have a 10107 policy for enforcement. So, that's 27 days. So, 30 days is more than ample time to continue with our normal code enforcement process. And then council just the last that because it's highlighted. How do we feel
about >> um item eight? >> Does that seem >> Yeah. Can I ask a question about operation? Are these things just on timers or is it like a switch? >> Uh mayor council there there's two different types of operations generally for signs. One's a switch, one's a
timer. For this specific one, that's not a question that I asked. Unfortunately, the um applicant's not here tonight to respond to that. Um, but if we put that if we put that requirement in, um, they would need to comply with it, whether it's them turning the light off manually
when they're leaving for the night or having it on some type of timer to go with their business hours. >> Yeah. I just want to see them get beat up because somebody forgot to flip a switch, you know, and is it an hour or an hour and a half after the close of business? I don't know. I think it's
to me it's moderately irrelevant, but um >> well, close close of business, they're still going to be cleaning up, picking up. >> So, I think you'd need an hour. I mean, that's >> Yeah. So, if it's not on a timer, then the you know, there's just the
possibility that, you know, whoever is in charge of closing forgets to switch the sign off it >> and it happens, right? Like you I know when I worked at a convenience store in high school, right? Like you're trying to get out the door and you forget to flip the switch that's lighting up the big gas sign, right? Like it's, you
know, it happens from time to time. So >> people need to like I think we just need to be if it's happening all the time, it's one thing. If it's, you know, an accident here and there, we just need to be reasonable, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think that's the question because we need to be sensitive to we did have somebody who had a
concern about probably their feel that like the sign is going to be blurring in their living room or bedroom and >> you know that um >> I'm assuming the >> would we want would we maybe want to tighten this up so that one hour after business or 12 midnight 11 p.m. or so
that the >> That's a good question. I don't even know what their hours would be. Mayor, councel, um, I'd recommend not putting a specific time on. Uh, the restaurant is applying for a liquor license. Therefore, they might be open till 1 in the morning. You might have a change in
the business that's there and in the future because remember the condition use permits and land use rights. So, it'll change with the ownership that's on that endcap if there is ownership change. Um, and we should have a balance between what's good now and the
necessity of having a future business owner need to come change it. Um, in the event that the light would get left, if if this was a condition that gets approved tonight and the light got left on overnight, if it's a here and there thing and it's not creating too much of an issue, that's something that can
generally be just solved by a phone call or stopping and saying, "Hey, you know, it's being left on. Can we just make sure we're in compliance with it? If it becomes a consistent thing, then we have then we would use the condition use permits in its full force to uh make sure that that's enforced or remove the
the condition which would stop them from being able to illuminate the sign. um if it came to that that's something definitely come back to the city council that type of enforcement >> when we do these uh right so this is coming from the right the applicants
blue agave right so they're asking for this does uh row have any uh do they talk to the the the apartment building out because I'm I'm just curious if there's been any if the complaint came from a resident that lives right above where that's going to be or I'm just
curious what the light will be like going up like for the people that live right in that right in that apartment. >> Mayor Council, specifically for this type of lighting system, what it is is basically you'd have um you have the
wall and then you have your sign that projects out. The light sits towards the end of the sign and projects back at the wall. It's made to create a glowing effect rather than to do any type of light projection um outside of the sign. So, that's how that's specifically
designed. As far as how that would affect residents within the media area, that I'm unsure of. Um what I can say is that other signs that are similar in design or have lights do not have the restriction of um needing to turn the lights off as this is the first permit
with conditional use. So, if this was something the council um was in favor of passing, it would set um a precedence for staff in the future to make it a standard condition on on future signs of future changes, which we'd be looking at
probably 15 to 20 years till you had enough turnover where it affected most of the businesses within the downtown and future downtown west areas. >> Does Row have a illuminated light? >> Yes. Do they have to turn theirs off?
>> No. >> Well, and I guess what we're saying is it doesn't project on the sidewalk or the street. >> Correct. >> We know that. We think it probably wouldn't project up. >> Correct. >> Because it's more like a globe. >> It's more of a globe.
I could go either way on this one. Number eight, that is >> you. What? >> I said I could go either way. >> Turn it off one hour after business. I mean, if I'm a business owner, I'd shut it off right when business closes so people aren't coming up to the door. >> That's what I was thinking, too.
>> It's more electricity, right? >> Yeah. More electricity. >> If I want it on for advertising for an hour after when nobody can come in >> or do I just leave it on all the time? >> I mean, I'm I'm fine with eight the way it is. I mean, an hour I think is reasonable and >> Yeah. Yeah. I do too.
>> Commission wanted. Let's do it. >> All right. I'm I'm comfortable as well. So, council, do we have any more discussion on this item? >> All right. So, hearing no more, I will entertain a motion. Motion to adopt a
resolution issuing a conditional use permit permitting an illuminated wall sign at 7980 Rose Street for the Blue Agave Tacos and Tequila Restaurant. >> I have a motion for council member Re. Do we have a second? >> Do can I ask do we need to say with >> 30 days
>> with our our uh amendments or our our what's the word? Sorry. and your slide back before your uh conditions. >> Mayor, council, I'd ask that the motion is amended to state that number five um on the conditions list of non-working lights shall be fixed to replace with
reasonable time frame not to exceed 30 days. Um that gives staff the direction to go ahead and um modify the uh initial use permit. >> Council member, we want you to retract your motion and then >> Sure. I'll retract my motion. I think uh this already is
>> Madam City Manager. you may members of the council. Um what I had noted where I thought I heard consensus was what um Travis just said but also um the remainder of the sign cannot be illuminated after the 30 days. So what I had written down was um drug staff to
modify the reasonable time frame not to exceed 30 days and if not fixed within 30 days the remainder of the sign cannot be illuminated. >> That's my recollection as well. So, would you like to restate your motion, council member Ray?
>> Sure. Can you put it back on that for me, please? >> All right. Uh, motion to adopt. Okay. Right here. Yeah. Uh motion for uh blue agave right 7980 Rose Street uh with uh
updating proposed condition number five to non-working light shall be fixed or replaced within a reasonable time frame not to exceed 30 days. If that we direct staff to modify and address
that situation. >> May I make a suggestion? >> Um reasonable time frame not to exceed 30 days and if not fixed within 30 days the remainder of the sign cannot be illuminated. not to exceed 30 days and if that is not
achieved then the remainder of the sign cannot be illuminated at that time. >> Great. >> Second. >> Is there a second? All right. So motion made by council member Refe with amendments to item number five uh
pursuant discussions and seconded by council member Roberts. All in favor? I I >> opposed. Motion carries. The next item is 6.3 which is a public hearing for an on sale intoxicating
liquor license and a Sunday licenses for blue agave tacos and tequila. Presenting this evening is the city clerk Claudia Espho. Miss Espo, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, Mayor Promma and council
members. So, what we have before you is a public hearing for Victoria Prime, also DBA as Blue Aguave, Tacos and Tequila. Um, they are applying
for an intoxicating license and a Sunday license from April 1st to June 30th. Um, I ask that you um open the public hearing to satisfy our municipal code, our
municipal code and the state statute. I also want to note that this was published in the Patriot on March 12th and was posted on our city web page. And just to answer questions, I do have
their hours down from Sunday to Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to 1000 p.m. Friday and Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Uh, council, I'll now open the public hearing because I believe Miss Edbold is
done with her presentation. Would you clarify that? >> Is that fair? >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, I'll now open the public hearing. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on this item? I'll ask a second time. Is there anyone
who wishes to speak on this item? And then lastly, uh one more opportunity for anyone to speak on this item. Okay. So, hearing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor to council for discussion on this matter.
>> I just want to make sure I heard right. They're going to be open on Monday. Uh, that is correct. For what they put on their application, they are open Sunday through Thursday 11:00 a.m. to 1000 p.m. >> where I'm going.
>> And then, Miss Well, then on Fridays and Saturdays, they'll be open from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. >> That is correct. That is what they indicated on their application. And then just to dovetail that in with our previous discussion, we would expect their sign to no longer be illuminated
past midnight at any given point. >> That is my understanding. >> Great. Thank you. >> And I do have a possible motion for you on the screen. Do they do business like if they said, "You know what? We're really busy and we decide we want to be
open till 1:00 a.m. because we have liquor and do they have to amend their liquor like do anything?" Like it's they just tell us that that's what we're planning on doing. >> That is correct. Council, >> that's what I thought. Okay. >> They would just let us know that they're changing their hours. Our ordinance
allows them to be open till 1:00 a.m. >> Sure. Perfect. I just that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution approving the on sale intoxicating liquor and Sunday licenses for Victoria.
Is that right? >> It's Victoria Prime LL. >> Victoria Prime LLC and for April and for April 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2026. >> I'll second that. All right. So, I I have a motion made by
Council Member Roberts and seconded by Council Member Patterson. Um, but I I I want to ask the clerk before we proceed further. Um,
are we only having a license for two months? >> That is correct. >> Um, Mayor Prom, they know that they are required to submit a renewal from July 1st to June 30th of the following year.
And that is when our liquor licenses renewal. And since they are opening mid year, I can only grant them a liquor license from the time that they say they expect to open up until the end of our licensing period, which would be June
30th of 2026. >> Excellent. Thank you for making that clarification. >> You're welcome. >> Public record. So, we have a motion made by Council Member Roberts, and I'm sorry that I don't have recorded a second. >> I have a council member Patterson.
>> Patterson. Thank you. You're welcome. >> All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Moving on. Item 6.4 is also a public hearing for an on-sale intoxicating liquor, off-site intoxicating liquor,
and Sunday licenses for Harland. Presenting this item this evening once again is our city clerk, Miss Edo. >> Thank you, Mayor Prom and Council members. Again, what is before you this evening is another uh liquor license.
This is um Harlon is applying for an intoxicating on sale, offsale, Sunday license from April 1st to June 30th. Um this was also noticed in the paper and published on the web. I do want to point out that um it was noticed in the paper
as Finn and Feather because that is what I was informed of their name. uh at some point he changed uh the name but we are still proceeding with the public hearing um as it fulfills the it satisfies our
ordinance and the state statute and if you feel free to open the public hearing when you're ready Mayor Prom >> great so thank you for um making that clarification so for just of clarification. So we're regarding the
doing business as name as >> as Harland >> is interchangeable between Finn and Feather and Harland. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh council, I I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this item?
Right. Hearing none for the first time. I'm going to ask for a second. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item? And then lastly, a third time. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item? All right. Hearing none, I will now
close the public hearing and open the floor for council for discussion. >> Do you have any questions for me? >> I just have one question for you. So, with this particular liquor license versus the one we just saw, um there's a provision for offsale
intoxicating liquor. So off sale intoxicating liquor would allow him and I'm assuming maybe he's going to sell bottles of wine, but that would allow you, say me as a consumer, I go in and I purchase a bottle of wine, but I don't
completely drink the whole bottle. Maybe I only have a glass. I'm entitled by law. I can take that home, cork it, put it in a bag, and take it home. That would be the only purpose of that. So would would somebody be able to procure
unopened >> no >> liquor? So it so when we talk about off sale, it means that it was opened and they're taking the open liquor with them. >> It would mo mainly be like a bottle of wine. >> Very good. Thank you.
>> Uh those are the only questions I have. So uh council, any other discussion items on this? >> Do hours of operation matter or not? So, he has indicated that he will be open Monday through Friday 11:00 a.m. to
1:00 a.m. and Saturday and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. which he falls within our ordinance regulation. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other discussion? >> All right. Motion to adopt the resolution approving the transfer of on
sale intoxicating liquor, off-sale intoxicating liquor, and Sunday licenses for Harland from >> I transfer should not be there. >> Okay, I'll I'll start over here. Motion to adopt
the resolution approving of on sale intoxicating liquor, offsale intoxicating liquor, and Sunday licenses for Harlem from April 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2026. >> I have a motion made by council member Reefe. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Okay. A motion made by council member Refe and seconded by Council Member Patterson. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Our next agenda item is item 6.5, which is to consider a
proposed ordinance amendment for chapter 18, parks and recreation, sections 18 to 19 and 18 to-34. And I understand this item is specifically to address ebike use. Presenting this evening is associate
planner Travis Beerley. Mr. Beerley, welcome back. Thank you, Mayor and Council. So, tonight we're talking about a proposed amendment to our parks and recreation ordinance. Um, the proposed amendment directly directly relates to
ebikes and motorized foot scooters. Um, our goals with the proposed amendment was to establish definitions aligning with Minnesota statute. So, we pulled direct language for that. Clarifying the ebike operations within the city to include streets, sidewalks, and trails.
And then a local pro proposal is that a helmet would be required for ebike operators under the age of 18. Um and then the other part with the proposed amendment is it is limited in its enforcement uh where we it'd be limited enforcement on non- city
property which includes the Lake Mitanka regional trail. So we're looking at more at city-owned land, parks, streets, and our sidewalks and trails. An ebike uh is very specific within the statute, there's three classifications,
but to keep it uh generalized. Uh they all require pedals that work on the bike. Um they all have a data plater sticker identifying their classification underneath the state statute. So say class one, two or three. And then there's also multi mode ebikes which
operate in at least two of the three classified modes. In a general sense, a class one has an electric motor that's assisting the pedaling up to 20 mph for the operator. A class 2 has an electric motor which either can assist with pedaling or be operated uh by a throttle
only up to 20 m an hour. And a class 3 ebike has an electric motor where the p it can assist pedaling up to 28 m an hour. Um ebikes are permitted to operate anywhere that a traditional bicycle is permitted. So that includes all our
streets, all our trails and sidewalks. Our current ordinance requires that there's a speed limit with inside those operations of 15 m an hour. There's no proposed to that change today. So the bikes would have to go a bit slower. Operators of ebikes also have to be at least 15 years old. That's a Minnesota
state statute requirement. And additionally, solo operation only, so no passengers. And there's also minimum safety requirements that are on there uh to include if adopted a helmet for those under the age of 18. Uh ebikes should not be operating on sports field
unofficial trails or unauthorized park areas. They should stick to the sidewalks, trails, and streets as appropriate. Second item that we looked at is the motorized foot scooters. Uh these are your standup scooters. Sometimes they'll have a chair. Uh they're electrically assisted or
throttled scooters, so you can push them or use a throttle. Uh they have a max speed under state statute of 15 miles an hour. You must be at least 12 years old to operate them. And if you are under 18, you are required to wear a helmet. Um then they again are also only for
solo operations. So no passengers. And they're permitted everywhere that a traditional bicycle can go except on sidewalks. The only time that they would the only exception is if they're going through a driveway or accessing a property to be able to cross a sidewalk but not operate up and down a sidewalk.
they would be permitted to operate on our trails. So on the on the pavement they're they're allowed on the concrete sidewalks they wouldn't be. >> So can I ask it it seems backwards to me like just like why are the ones that can go faster allowed to go on sidewalks but
these ones aren't. >> Council member, that's an excellent question. Um I honestly don't have the answer. This is just pulled directly from staff. >> Sure. Okay. Thank you. Um, again, these uh uh motorized foot scooters shouldn't be operating on sports fields,
unofficial trails, or unauthorized park areas. The goal is uh making sure that uh we all residents can enjoy those areas and we're not damaging any of the public property. >> When you say unauthorized uh areas, like I'm assuming so like I believe uh at the
rec center right between the like I when you come in the parking lot there, I think there's a sign that says no motorized vehicles, right? Is that saying that they cannot use or is that different? >> A mayor and council member, a motorized vehicle is different than an ebike. >> Okay. >> Um, ebikes have very specific
classifications within their definitions. Uh, as long as it meets those definitions, it's an ebike. If it fails to meet any of the definitions, then state statute classifies them as a different type of mode of transportation. >> Okay? >> There are dozens of options out there.
So, we primarily want to focus at as say as specific as we can to just these modes. Um, and that big part of that is going to be um the enforcement piece. >> Just a quick clarification. I think I heard you say these are either the stand up scooters or you can have the sit down ones, right?
>> They could have a seat on them. Yes. >> See? Yeah. So, it's like they're almost Yeah. Okay. But they both have a max speed of 15. >> Um, yes. The well the max the maximized authorized speed for an ebike is 15 within the city. However, by statute
this motorized foot scooter is limited by statute to 15 miles an hour. There's also other requirements of battery size, tire size, brakes, all that type of stuff. Um just didn't want to get >> No, that's fine. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, as far as unauthorized
park areas, if we have areas that we don't want bicycles in because they could cause a disturbance or say teenagers and middle schoolers, I know when I was that age, we'd build jumps and things like that. If that's becoming a problem, this allows that that just knowledge of flexibility the city has in
the future because there are a lot of uncertainties as we move forward with ebike operations as they become more and more popular. >> Okay, just if we can go back to that. So, a single wheel scooter, there are some of those that
are battery powered. Those would not be under the definition of a scooter as we see it here. Correct. >> Correct. Those have a different definition to it. Um, like I said, it's very specific to what it is. These are standup devices with handlebars on them.
If you had a one wheel that you added a handlebar to for operation, maybe it would qualify. Um, however, I'd need to go back and reference the statute to see how the definition plays out. >> All right. And then the state statute, to be clear, specifically identifies
that operators under the age of 18 are required to wear a helmet. >> Correct. For the motorized foot scooters. However, not scooters. >> Not for ebikes. >> For ebikes. So, we are putting that into our ordinance for the purpose of keeping
the scooters aligned with the ebikes or are we putting that in there for a safety consideration? mayor and counsel. It's a safety consideration. But the other part that it does is it would align requiring basically anybody underneath 18 that's on a non or that's
on a self-propelled or assisted uh type of transportation that need to wear a helmet. Um ebikes is the only mode of transportation that that I'm aware of that doesn't require a helmet if you're under 18. So it aligns with it. Talking with other communities last summer as well as last fall and with Three Rivers,
it sounded like there was going to be the idea that around the Lake Minnetonka area that was going to be requirement that's gone forward. Unfortunately, um a lot of our market communities and and neighboring communities have not gone. Um there there's been limited methods
done to either amend their ordinances or just completely rely on statute. Um, one of the purposes tonight is to bring the statute just to help with clarity in what our ordinances be to align with the statute, not to make any significant changes. Um, except for the under 18
requiring element on either device. Um I I would like to point out uh we we are talking very specifically about just these two types of modes of transportation. So anything that's not classified under the statutes as an ebike or motorized split scooter. It's
not uh ebikes a very generalized term that gets used um it's been used especially on social media and in advertisements um to expand it. But if it doesn't meet the three classifications, it doesn't meet the the legal standard for an ebike. could fall
underneath if it doesn't have pedals. Um, it could be an electric motorcycle. If it goes faster than 28 miles an hour, it could be considered an electric motorcycle. The scooters to 15 miles an hour. Um, I've got two friends, they have standup scooters, they do 48 to 52
miles an hour. Those do not qualify as a motorized foot scooter. So, under the statute, those are qualified differently. Um, and we would want to allow law enforcement to handle that that exchange and what it is. and therefore are the proposed amendments to our ordinance don't address those type
of devices. Um also anything that's um powered by gas, it's not an ebike, it's not a motorized foot scooter. Um the other thing that we want to look at is um we did have a resident reach out that had a concern about mobility scooters. Those are regulated differently under
the statute. um this or this proposed ordinance has zero effect on those to be able to operate because there's specific rules within the statute for those operations. All right. So to but to be clear, the the part about requiring helmet use on
an ebike for someone under the age of 18 is something that the city of Victoria would be if we approve this ordinance change that would be essentially unique to the city of Victoria. >> Mayor, that is correct. We would be um
leading that and we'd be the only one in the area that has that requirement. Though there's been talk um park parks and recck directors to my understanding have also been having discussions within the area looking to see who is going to take the lead on setting up a foundation
of ordinances and policies and then kind of try to mirror those throughout the area. Have we given any consideration along the lines of saying we're taking a step above for safety? Um perhaps
uh restricting the use of cell phones while on an ebike or a scooter for those under the age of 18. >> Uh mayor council, we have not had that discussion as staff. Um uh that's a question that that hasn't been brought
up nor has it been addressed. if there are regulations to that, it it it's a little bit difficult to do the enforcement as it is. Um, even with the proposed ordinance and under the statute, there's still a lot of questions on that. That would be
something that would add to that level of difficulty for enforcement. Uh, because most of the operators of this are are persons under the age of 18. So, a big part that we as staff are trying to push is the education piece, making sure that we have a foundation of
something that is that is simple um and clear that we can amend in the future. And that would be an amendment that we could look into in the future. Um but the most part is is education to for behavioral purposes and being able to have something to point to. uh whether
it be our community safety officer or one of the one of the deputies interacting with say a 14-year-old kid that's just they didn't know or parents don't know and things like that. >> Yeah. I mean, I understand with any of this and ordinances and I think got shared universally by the council that
enforcement is always a difficult uh process and but that said, you know, if you don't have the restriction, you can't educate to the fact that the restriction exists. So, um, while I get
that what we have is what seemingly is a good start, uh, I mean, council, if you share the view that staff should look into perhaps the restriction of use of cell phones while on an ebike or a
scooter for those under the age of 18. Um along the lines of our concept that we want to promote safety and then be able to promote in that the not necessarily that the you know setting
aside the difficulty of enforcement but in your education process having it in the ordinance and pointing out that that's not a permittable activity. So you know for the sake of your own safety and for the sake of others we this
activity would be restricted. So, if mayor and council, that's something that we'd be more than happy to look into to find out the pros and cons and how and what that would look like. Um, unfortunately, um, I'm not prepared tonight to be able to respond to that type of question without doing further
research and bring it back to the city council. >> Understood. But C council, do we feel that that would be a you know a good use of uh staff's skills in this area and uh promoting and protecting the safety of
Victoria residents because a distracted person on an ebike or a scooter is a problem today. Um if somebody's using a cell phone while they're operating this, they're further distracted. Um, and that
just complicates the safety factor. So, if we're going to seek to enhance the safety factor of the use of these with helmets, I think it's within our purview to try to examine um ways to make these modes of transportation
safer both for the operator and those who uh who are around it. >> Yeah, I would I would agree with that. I mean, I would agree to it as using a cellular gadget as not a mode of communication like listening to music or
talking on the phone. I think there's plenty of people that bike or use some sort of transportation mode that have headphones in >> that are listening to music as they're cruising along. I would be opposed to that, but I would be supportive of
onehanded, selfie, Insta, whatever. So, I don't know how you differentiate the two, and I don't know how you dig into that. Same with helmets. You know, if I'm riding through Chanhass and Chaza and everywhere else, I'm totally legal,
but oops, I slipped into Victoria, now I'm out of compliance. Um, we can lead the charge, but I don't know if it's enforceable. >> Again, I mean, I think we all recognize that, you know, enforcement's the
difficult part. It's the education that is going to be where we're going to make strides and having the ordinance to back up the education efforts. Uh, >> well, I mean, we tried to educate with signs last year and they just got chopped down. So, I'm I'm kind of against education as well when it comes
to this topic at this stage. It's a waste of money, >> but that's my opinion. >> Well, un unfortunately with something like this, it just takes one bad accident or something and then people will probably think differently
about it. So, you don't want to get to that point. I I know that you have done some some could be I know that you've done some good education sessions and things and I just think yes it's a bike but up to 28 miles an hour there's some neighborhoods that
cars don't even go 28 miles an hour so we're talking you know and plus if it's 10 o'clock at night and they've got these little itty bitty lights and you can't see them as it is in a neighborhood then they're on their phone that's the part I worry about so >> well and and the outreach and education
that we did during uh night and night last year over the summer when we visited uh neighborhoods seemed to be positively received and some parents weren't aware of some of the dangers that we had made them aware of. So it's
uh education comes in a number of different forms. Some aren't as effective as others. So >> for me was a failure. It wasn't positively received at all by 90% of the people, but again, different topic, different experiences. >> Understood.
>> Thank you. >> Uh well, is there any more discussion on this topic, council members? >> All right, seeing no more discussion, staff is asking for two motions on this item. One to adopt the ordinance and a second separate motion to approve
summary publication. Council, do we have any motions? Motion to adopt ordinance 472MC. >> I have a motion made by council member Reefe. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion made by council member Refe,
seconded by council member Roberts. All in favor? >> I I >> I opposed. Motion carries. All right. of the uh second possible motion. >> Motion. I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution. Resolution authorizing
summary of publication. >> I have a motion made by council member Roberts. Is there a second? >> I can second it. >> All right. Motion made by council member Roberts, seconded by council member Peterson. All in favor? >> I
>> opposed. Motion carries. Our final item on our regular agenda this evening this evening is item 6.6 which is to reconsider park and recreation committee 2026 appointments. Presenting for this evening is city
manager Dana Hardy. Miss Hardy, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, Mayor Prom, members of the council. I will be brief this evening. During your last regular council meeting on March 9th, you made appointments for your citizen advisory committees. Those
were specifically for planning commission and parks and recreation committee. You did not have any appointments for the senior advisory committee because uh there were no vacancies this year. Um we are bringing back a portion of this
for you this evening. uh the park and recck committee appointments and my apologies I did not catch this at the time of the appointments that were made but we made too many appointments for the park and recreation committee. So uh
during your meeting on March 9th you made um you made three regular appointments for three-year terms. Amanda Cahill, Tammy Leonetti, and Blake Ferour. you also made a student
appointment for a one-year term. Um, and that is not been impacted by this. So, um, the area where we made too many appointments was for those regular threeyear terms.
And so, there are a couple of things um, a couple of ways that we could address this. And I wanted to provide some options. And of course there may be other options that you may want to consider as well. Um but to assist we thought um to go to the conversation if
you recall during March 9th was to go to a nine-member committee. Your ordinance allows for that. We've been currently operating as an eight member committee. And so um if you wanted to remain at the nine member at the nine
member committee that we are today um you would do two appointments and then you would want to add somebody on deck. Alternatively uh because we've been making some transition to do more from the formal
settings. They're certainly the park and rock committee is certainly meeting formally. Um but they becoming they've been becoming more active and engaged in the community uh doing a lot of um ambassador type work for our park system
and doing a lot of popup events in the park. So, uh, this could be a situation where more members of the committee might be more effective for us, especially as we go into the comprehensive planning, um, which is of course very heavy on community engagement and a parks master plan that
will come out of that. So, alternatively, uh, we have for council's consideration, um, increasing the number of park and recck committee membership to 10 plus the one student. Um, and if you did that, your appointments uh could remain
as you did them on March 9th, the three. Um, and so with that, if you wanted to do that route or go that route, we would also ask that you direct staff to bring back a revised ordinance amendment. uh that would have to be properly noticed
and we could make uh that revision to the ordinance to go from a nine-member committee plus a student to a 10 member committee plus a student. And with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions. I I mean I'm kind of the
the belief that we're asking, you know, 10 gets a little bit maybe a lot, but we are asking our parks and recck committee to do more to get out and be our ambassadors for our parks. we're going to be doing our parks planning uh
you know uh going forward and so it might be beneficial to have you know I mean even if they're on deck when they're on deck I forget how because the planning commission we have like when they're on deck they come to the meetings right but is that the same thing for the
>> so mayor prom council member Roberts members of the council so um planning commission has regular appointments plus two alternates. >> The alternates are um encouraged and are
expected to come to all of those meetings and participate in the discussion and the meeting. They just would not be able to vote unless there's a regular member absent. when you have historically when you've had more applicants than you've had
vacancies um and you think you've got really good qualified candidates uh through your interview process, you have been placing candidates either on on all three of your committees on deck. And on deck is
different than an alternate. on deck means we don't have a seat for you now, but if there is a midterm vacancy, if somebody steps off of the committee or is no longer able to participate that
instead of us going back out um and advertising for a vacancy and going through the um application and interview process, they've already done that. You've already interviewed them. So, um, for that year, so for the year, the rest
of this year through March 31st of next year, you would have, um, the ability to appoint somebody who's gone through the application and interview process and be ready and willing to step in that role if there's a midterm vacancy. >> Thank you.
Yeah, I think in this case we've got three qualified individuals plus a great student individual and council member Roberts mentioned it. The growth of our parks and wrecks wreck uh trails comp plan the growth of Victoria.
I think this makes a lot of sense and I think um Downtown West coming on Victoria all this stuff is I see it as a positive. >> Yeah, I call it the mistake in quotes. I think it's a good thing. I think the
more people we have out there interacting with people regarding parks and recreation, the better. Um if we want to call it a mistake because we have to adjust um a city ordinance, I'm all for adjusting So that's my thoughts on it.
>> So would we have to make a if we went to 10, would we still have to redo a motion to do all these three even though we did it the last time? >> Council member Roberts, members of the council, yes, that would be my preference to if you um are satisfied with the appointments that you made on March 9th, I would recommend that you
remake those appointments here this evening. And um it can be the same motion or you can have a separate motion to uh direct staff to bring back an ordinance amendment to revise the ordinance to become a 10 member
committee plus the one student member. >> All right. Well, I I'd say that barring any further discussion, council, I feel that uh I'll add that we we would be unanimous because I share your views
that um in in our pursuit of the park and wreck committee as being more of an embudsman type relationship where we want our members to be more community outreach and focus as as opposed to a
deliberating ating body. Um, yeah, it makes sense for us to expand to 10, but and likewise amend our ordinance to accommodate that. Um,
so with that, I'll entertain a motion. >> All right. I would make a motion to expand the park and recre committee to 10 people. I would like to appoint Tammy Leonetti for a three-year term beginning April
1st, 2026. I would like to appoint Amanda Cahill for a three-year term beginning April 1st, 2026. And I would like to appoint Blake Farber for a three-year term beginning April
1st, 2026. >> I have a motion made by council member. Do you need to do you need to add the the little N there that and direct staff to >> and direct staff to amend the ordinance increasing the park and recreation committee to 10 regular members plus one
student member and I would appoint that student member to be Owen Beckers. >> All right. Again, I have a a motion by council member Peterson. Do I second? >> Second. Have >> a motion by council member Peterson.
Seconded by council member Reefe. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Uh council, there are no more uh items on our regular agenda. So now we'll move on to reports and emerging issues. So I
will ask attorney votes. Do we have any reports? Mayor, councel, I do not. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Hardy. Does staff have any reports for this evening? >> None from staff. Mayor Proton. Uh, Council Member Roberts, do you have any reports for council this evening? >> Uh, I mean, not to put I guess uh our
city manager on the spot, but I guess I just uh what uh I'm just curious uh how the um you know, we're making great strides on the fire uh station. And I guess I'm curious if we're on if you know if we're on schedule, a little behind because of some of the weather
maybe we had or how that's looking. Um, Council Member Roberts, Mayor Prom, members of the the council, if I can give a brief update. Um, I'll get a more comprehensive update this week, which will um uh from our team that's out there regularly. That said, um, we were
a little bit behind uh given the weather. However, we um had allowed for some additional work to take place um beyond our traditional working hours, which allowed us to make up some of that time. And so the other thing that our um
different contractors are doing uh to help kind of close that gap and make sure that we're um staying on track or as close to the time schedule as possible is just having a little bit of overlap on the different trades that are um in the building itself. So our um
Carl Anderson, our construction manager, is um actually managing um that delicate dance for us and they're doing a beautiful job with that. Um and so the last uh update that I had was about seven or 10 days ago and they were
tracking um still in June um hopeful in June. So hopefully this week I'll have um a revised update and um hoping I'll be able to report to you that we continue to track for for that June uh date.
>> It's looking good. It's uh you're it's really starting to like you can see the what it's going to look like now. So, it's exciting. >> Thank you for the question. >> Absolutely. >> Uh Council Member Reich, is there any updates for you? >> I'm all set. Thank you. >> Thank you. And then
>> I got a couple. >> Yes, please. Council. >> Uh the 25th, I believe, is a landscape arburedum is the arburetum area transportation project meeting at six o'clock. Is that right? Um I'll be there. >> I have 5 to 7 p.m.
>> 5 to 7. I think I'm going to be there at 6. Um, you can find me if you want. And then just a a a note of education here. The March 17th planning commission, their 4.3 development updates, I thought
was awesome as far as giving an update of all the projects and all the things that we have done over the last three or four years. Um, so anybody out there watching who wants a a really good comprehensive uh outline of what we've done, March
17th, planning commission 4.3 development updates was great. That's all. >> Thank you, Council Member Patterson. I don't have any uh reports to bring. So uh given there are no more items to come
before our body this evening, may I ask for a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion and a second by council member Reie and Council Member Patterson. All in favor? >> I I opposed. Motion carries. We stand
adjourned.