--------- Good evening. It is now 7:51 and I'm calling to order the uh regular meeting of the Victoria City Council. If you are joining us online, thank you for your patience while we wrapped up our workshop. Um, let's begin with the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> The first item on our agenda this
evening is announcements. All meetings of the city council are open to the public and held in council chambers at city hall unless otherwise noted. We encourage anyone wishing to attend or interested in speaking at a council meeting or workshop to contact our city clerk in advance for additional
information. We're currently accepting nominations for our annual community builder award. Each year in June, the city recognizes an individual, group, business, or organization that has, through their outstanding volunteerism, or exemplary action, demonstrated an
extraordinary commitment to making Victoria a better place today and for the future. Nominations are due by March 31st. Please contact our communications and engagement director, Hendrick Gro, with any questions or if you need additional information about the program. We're also pleased to announce
the return of Victoria Academy. Through this free citizens academy program, participants get a firsthand look at how the city operates. To learn more and to register, please visit the city's website and feel free to call or reach out to our communications and engagement director, Kendra Gro, with any
questions. That concludes our announcements this evening. Our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda? Motion to adopt the final agenda. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in
favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll move on to the next item, which is our open forum. This is an opportunity for anyone in to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form. That will be coming to
the council at a future date. Uh, no one has registered to speak in advance, but if there's anyone in the audience who would wish to address the council, please step forward. Seeing no one, we'll move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the consent agenda. These items are routine
administrative and do not require deliberation or are housekeeping items required by law. They're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent u items for separate discussion and vote this evening?
>> Not from staff. Any members of the council wishing to pull any items off the consent agenda or any member of the audience? All right. Seeing none, um I will entertain a motion for the consent item.
>> Motion to adopt the consent agenda. >> Thank you. We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. First item on the regular agenda this evening is item 6.1 which is our citizens advisory
board appointments. Kicking us off on that topic is our city manager Dana Hardy. Miss Hardy, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. This is a fun time of year because you all get to appoint your citizen advisory boards for 2026. So, we
have three different advisory boards. Um, you have planning commission, park and recck committee, and senior advisory. Your senior advisory committee does not have any openings for 2026. So there will be no appointments for that committee this year. So your committee appointments this evening will focus
primarily on and specifically on planning commission and park and recreation committee. So for planning commission there are two full member seats with three-year terms. We received three applications. You did two interviews at your workshop earlier um
with Anthony Quad and Eric Ring. um and he is the in incumbent. William Kripe was also an applicant um but did not attend the interview. Um our parks and recreation committee will be the second
set of appointments that you'll be looking at uh looking at tonight. So this committee, so a couple things just around um these appointments before we get into your discussion is that this committee is authorized by your ordinance up to nine up to be a nine
member committee. Uh you are currently operating as an eight member committee and then you would have one student appointment as well. We received six applications. One applicant withdrew and then one was unable to attend the
interviews which took place um at your previous workshop in February. And so the remaining applicants are Amanda Cahill who is the incumbent, Blake Farber, Tammy Leonetti, Owen Beckers as the student position, and then Jay Zean
was not interviewed but had asked to be considered. So, as you move into making those appointments, um, mayor, members of the council, you may want to start with planning commission. That might be, uh, the most efficient use of our time, uh,
today. What's happening? I'm going to take that away. Um, and so if you want to identify those, uh, candidates, we can confirm those selections and then move on to park recreation committee. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you, Miss Hardy.
So, I'm going to tee this up and I'm going to make a motion that we appoint um Eric Ree to a three-year term on the planning commission and appoint Tony Claude to a three-year term on the planning commission. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion, council? >> I I don't I concur with your >> recommendation. Is availability. We have a motion >> bill as an on deck is >> okay. Yeah. So, good point. So, Mr. Kripe was not available to interview
with us this evening, but in the past, we have put um planning commission members on deck. Um so, if there is a um if we lose one during the year, we have one ready to go. So, um I would make a friendly amendment to my motion that we
put Mr. Kripe on deck as a um so we have somebody ready to go. >> Any resett. >> Okay, very good. Any other discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries.
>> Very good. Now we're moving on to our um congratulations to those folks in our audience. Welcome. We're glad to have you and have you back. Um and then our second um is to our park and recreation committee. I'll start that off by making
a motion to appoint reappoint Amanda. >> Can can I just say something before? So I in my opinion right we have the option here to stick with eight that we have or go to nine if we have people that want to do this. I'm always in favor of like taking advantage of uh the you know the
generosity and the the willingness to give their time. So um I I would be in favor of um you know appointing three and then having our student as well. Very good. >> And that would be a nine committee. Yes. Yes. I'm in I'm in favor of that as
well, just from what council member Robert said. And we're growing, right? So >> I see consensus from >> Yeah. And especially now that we're asking them to go out and about a lot more. Like the more you have the you get out more plus if some can't then you have more.
>> Yeah. >> All right. With that, does somebody want to make a motion? Do we want to make a motion to expand to nine first and then appoint or do we just want to >> We already can do nine so we can just make the >> Okay, >> very good. Thank you for pointing that out.
>> All right. So, I will make a motion that we appoint Amanda Cahill, reappoint Amanda Cahill, appoint Tammy Leonetti, and appoint Blake Barber and appoint a student of Owen Beckers.
And again, I would say let's put Jay Zean on deck to uh fill any open appointments throughout the year. So there is a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second that. >> Sorry. >> To give that to Council Member
Patterson. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations to our new park and rec committee members. Can >> I make a quick comment outside that?
Could we make sure that Mr. Kripe and some of the other folks are in line for PL um the uh comprehensive plan and all of that too as well as we're reviewing that? Is that something that has to be formally done? >> Miss Hardy, please. >> So, mayor, members of the council,
Council Member Patterson. Yeah, great question. Um we are going to be stepping into our comprehensive planning process for 2050. And with that we will be having a a a ad hoc committee um technical advisory committee that will
um be coming to you to ask for um your support in making sure we can have members of our community appointed to that committee. So if there's somebody um that has made application for this, you could do that direct staff to reach out to them um to gauge their interest,
but we would be bringing back some for formal appointments and doing some applications for that uh specifically. >> Yeah. >> So if you're listening at home and the process is something you'd like to be involved with, please uh contact our
staff and we'll get your name on a list. Also important to note is at the same time we're going to be doing a parks master plan um in conjunction with our comprehensive plan. So if you want to be involved with the parks master planning, this is an opportunity for you as well.
So thank you council member Patterson for that reminder. All right, moving on. Item 6.2 Two is a public hearing for the transfer of on sale intoxicating liquor, offsale intoxicating liquor, and Sunday licenses
for Vicks Bar and Grill. Presenting on that item this evening is our city clerk or city clerk, Claudia Edisfold. I stumble over that every time, Claudia. >> That's right, Mayor. Floor is yours. >> Uh, thank you, Madame Mayor and Council member. So, what's being presented to
you tonight is a trans we're doing a license transfer for Vixs Bar and Grill. Um, we are requesting that the the intoxicating liquor license, all their license just be transferred over.
And this is allowed to us um by state statute. Um, and that's really all I have for this one without breaking into the weeds. Very good. Thank you. This item was noticed for public hearing, which I will now open. So, if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this
item, please step forward to the podium. Anybody in the audience wishing to speak to this item? And last call. All right. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor for council discussion. Council, any
comments, questions on this item. >> So, so this is just a transfer uh to go to June 30th, which they've already VIX has already paid the license up until June 30th. Is that correct? >> That is correct. It is. We're just
transferring from from now to June 30th, >> the interim. >> And once the transfer is done and they get the necessary paperwork that they need to um then they will have to renew the license with the rest of the
renewals on July 1st. >> Thank you for clarifying. >> You're welcome. All right. Any other questions, comments? Seeing none, I will now entertain a motion. >> Adopt the resolution approving the transfer of onsale intoxicating liquor,
offsale intoxicating liquor, and Sunday license for Vicks Bar and Grill and wave the transfer fees for April 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2026. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We'll give that second to to uh Council Member Refe since he got beat out last
time. >> We have a motion and a second. And all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. There are no more items on our regular agenda this evening. So we'll move on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney Bose, you're up first. >> Mayor, council, nice to see you. I don't
have anything to say. >> Miss Hardy, anything from staff? >> Nothing from staff. Madame Mayor, >> anything from the council this evening? >> Seeing none, I would uh entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned. Part: 2
Good evening everyone. It's now 5:30 and I call this workshop of the Victoria City Council to order. Our workshops are informal, so we'll dive right into our agenda this evening. There are two items on our agenda and we're going to start with interviews for the planning commission. Um, so after that, stick
around. We're going to have a discussion on downtown parking. So, let's start with our planning commission interviews. So, on behalf of the council, thanks for joining us and making time to make an application and be here this evening to visit with us. We appreciate your
interest in serving our community. Your applications were routed to the council in advance of the workshop. So, we have two full openings on the committee with three applications for consideration. If you're in agreement, uh we're going to conduct interviews in the similar format as our last round. So, we're
going to start with introductions and then move into questions and I'll have my um council colleagues help me with those questions. So, first uh Eric, why don't you start us out uh with an introduction? >> Good evening, U. Mayor McMillan and council members. My name is Eric Ree.
I'm currently the vice chair of the planning commission. Um I'm going to be asking for you to renominate me for that position. over the past four years. Um, I was a newer member of the community. I
joined or was asked to join. Over that time, I've really gotten to know the community better than I did when I moved out here. Really have an appreciation for the the quality of life out here. And uh, seeing all of the changes that
are happening, it's been very uh, enjoyable to participate in that. and I want to have that opportunity to continue doing that as we look at our comp plan rewrite coming up. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Re. And we're gonna call you Tony, Mr. Claude. Go ahead and uh
provide an introduction for us, please. >> Hey, I'm Anthony or Tony. Thanks for having me here. I originally from Iowa. I grew up there and then I went to college. >> Tony, can you push your button so >> Yep. Sorry. >> Our friends at home can hear. >> Yeah. Sorry. Uh, I'm Tony Claude,
Anthony Claude. Uh, thanks for having me here. Uh, I'm from Iowa originally. Uh, we moved up here during CO about 2021, I think. Uh, before that, let's see, I went to, uh, college in Grenell, Iowa, and then I went to, uh, grad school in Villanova and got a degree in
sustainable engineering, which is kind of a hybrid degree, uh, between like policy and sustainability. Um so it kind of uh combines like you look at things at projects, processes and products uh through the lenses of uh society and
economic and um environmental effects. So, uh, yeah. So, after that though, I just got a job as a web developer and, uh, then after co, I just started working from home entirely and then we moved up here and I'm just kind of like around here enjoying the town doing, you
know, city things when you guys host events. So, that's the general overview. >> Very good. Nice to meet you. >> And Mr. K hasn't joined us as of yet, but if he does, we'll we'll loop him in. So with that, uh, Council Member Ivansky, can you get us kicked off with
the questioning, please? >> Um, thank you, Mayor. Yes, absolutely. So, the first question I have for you, gentlemen, and we'll, I think, start with you, Tony, and then move to Eric, and then William shows up, then we'll have him join in. But, uh, Victoria is
no secret. We've been experiencing rapid growth and trying to keep our small town character, which draws people to our community. Um and it really is responsible as you guys are well aware our unique identity. So um what does
Victoria's identity mean to you and how would you use that in land use decisions? >> To me Victoria means like a small town identity. Um but at the same time you have to allow for people to move here especially with the uh constraints
imposed by the Met Council. So you have to try to balance those. And so that's part of the puzzle we'd be negotiating as a planning committee. Um but yeah, I'd want to keep the best things about this town like the the lakes and the parks and um just the creeks behind
people's houses, you know, that's all great. And uh let's see here. Oh, and like the walkability and the fact that there aren't actually many traffic problems. I'd like to keep that low as well because there's basically the only traffic problems I've seen have been
around the downtown area like the central business district. So apart from that it's like really great and so I'd like to maintain just the you know the good traffic status as well. >> Thank you >> Mr. Ree.
>> Yes. Well, you know, we know it's the city of lakes and parks, and I think that those are two really important con um factors of the community over the past several years. It's been watching that that growth with, you know, the experience we've had over the past year
or so. you know, new developments, talking about changing some of the older historic communities within the the neighborhoods within the community, balancing that with some of the uh many new developments that have been happening um you know, in the south and
in looking at different ordinances and sizing and spacing of that. and it's been um something that's really important as part of the growth and how we're going to continue to grow and evolve. Um and I think the planning
commission has a a fundamental role in kind of shaping that uh process and ensuring that that process is allowing stakeholders from the community, the staff, the developers to come forward before we make recommendations
to you all. Um, as it relates to the downtown, there's been lots of new growth in development. I can think of three developments, four developments that are new multif family home properties that weren't here, you know,
when I started this. And so, I've had a chance to kind of with you all kind of see that growth. And it's it's it's been really um enjoyable and um it takes some consideration of what other people's
interests are and how we how we grow as a community and and how we're trying to serve everyone's interest as well as we can. >> Thank you, sir. >> Council member Roberts, you want to tee up a question for us?
>> Sure. Um we'll start with Eric this time. Uh, planning commissioners must balance community goals with private property rights. How would you approach a situation where a proposed development meets zoning requirements but raises community concerns? >> As a planning commissioner, I think
there the principles of, you know, the history of the community. I think they're the ordinances that we're bound by. And I I know I was talking to Christian about this earlier. You know, as a planning commissioner, I may have personal opinions. I may have
interests, but really the role of the planning commission is working within those guidelines and those rules and seeing it how those lay into that proposed development, whether they're seeking variances to things that, you
know, historically are in ordinance but maybe have been used before. Trying to balance those. But at the end of the day, my role is more of an umpire than putting a stamp on something or putting my thumb on a decision that's otherwise
being complied with by the developer. And I think there's sometimes, you know, we think through that when we're sitting up there, but I think that that's a really important unique attribute of a planning commissioner uh in what we recommend forward to you and your team.
Thank you, Tony. >> I I think the the role of the zoning commission I agree like we're just supposed to follow the city code. So, and I think we're required to actually recommend the development. I I could be wrong, but I think we're required to recommend the development if uh
everything is in line with the city code. Um but this would also be a decision that we would make as a planning commission and that would get passed on uh to the city council here. So, as a recommendation, >> thank you, >> Council Member Reich, you're up.
>> Okay. Um, thanks guys for being here. Um, we'll start with Tony. Um, planning commissioners sometimes make recommendations or decisions that affect your neighbors, friends, familiar places in the community. How do you approach
making difficult or unpopular decisions in a in a public role like this? How would you go about that? you want to start with >> uh Tony, I'm sorry. >> I think again I would just have to follow as close as I could uh with the code and if it was something that um
like affected uh like someone I knew or something like that. Um either I don't know I I assume we're allowed to abstain from a vote. Um if that isn't the case then I would just follow as closely to the code as I could.
>> Thank you. I feel like I've been in that position a few times with the community over the past couple years and I think it there's fundamentally there's a role we serve and there are people that have lived in the community for years that
have interests um in their community and in their home and in their properties. And I think when I've set up there, it's it's understanding reading the briefs beforehand and kind of knowing or having a sense of what's going to come up. But
I think it's really important to listen to the community and see if there's something in there that could be used as a means for a recommendation um to the council as we look at that or as if we choose to approve it. Um are
there things that we can do that give recognition to the change while understanding that you know in many cases change is important and we are we are moving through change. So how do we do it respectfully? How do we honor
people and and how do I give clarity in why I'm making a decision the way I'm you know voting. >> Thank you. Thank you both. Jim, >> would you please Member Patterson.
>> Thanks for being here, guys. Appreciate it. Um, my question for you is, can you please describe how you would navigate making decisions that are in the best interest of the public, but you don't personally agree with?
>> We'll start with you. We start with Eric this time. Correct. >> I think it's that's the rotation. Yeah. Um, again I go back to that principle. I'm serving the community first. I'm serving
under a set of assumptions for the rules that I'm to evaluate in consideration with the developer or whether it's an individual variance or something. And I think that um it's important in that context then
um if the vote is going to be contrary to the opinions or the interests to be able to again explain from my vantage point my thinking behind the decision um but then adhere to what I think is
right for the community within the context of the parameters. I I think we can do a lot of things respectfully even though it might be disagreeable in in terms of how we view something. >> Fair enough. Thank you.
>> Tony, would you like me to repeat the question? Are you good? >> Yes. >> Yes, please. >> All right. Describe how you would navigate making decisions that are in the best interest of the public, but you don't agree with them. Uh so I would want to know um I guess
from whose perspective are they the best interest of the public? So are they the decisions that the like the public has a different opinion than I do or that like fellow people have a different opinion than I do or I guess where's what is this relative to? Um because I guess in
general with decisions that I don't agree with, I would probably defer to the zoning code or um you know consult with people obviously like talk with the public and see what they think and you know I might be wrong. Uh, I've been
wrong about things before and um if I if I find that like I should actually vote for something but I still don't agree with it, I'll probably just vote for it um and then just tag my opinion like on in a conversation or something but still
my vote would follow how I'm supposed to vote. >> Fair enough. Thank you. All right, we'll wrap it up here with a question from me. Uh the planning commission is a collective body and works as such. So, how do you approach a discussion when fellow commissioners have different
perspectives? And Tony, let's start with you. >> I think uh ultimately, I mean, there are seven votes. It's an odd number of people. So, you don't actually have to agree on things. Uh even though it is ideal if you do. Um but ultimately, it's
going to be, you know, if it's a sort of a tie, it'll be at least 3v4. Um but ideally we could come to some sort of consensus. >> Thank you Mr. Ring please. >> Yeah I think over the years um
you know there's been a lot of opportunity to give everyone on the dis the time to speak to ask questions of whether it's staff or you know the developer or the homeowner um that's before us. Um, oftentimes I come in
again with ideas having read everything beforehand, but I'm swayed by, you know, the interactions and the discussions that happen. So, I think sometimes we do the, you know, the the pause of, you know, is
it quiet? Is everyone done? Maybe give it another three seconds. Someone's going to think of something. But I think that's the way that you get the best out of what's happening is is give people space, have conversations, share opinions,
um inquire for clarification, and then ultimately hopefully those votes are coming into alignment with the right choice. >> Thanks. So, planning commissioners uh follow statutory guidelines. Reliable attendance and preparation are critical
to commission's effectiveness. So, um asking if you are both able to commit to two meetings a month and completing the advanced review needed to participate fully. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Great. All right. That's all we've got
for you gentlemen this evening. Thank you so much for joining us. Um at our um council meeting later this evening, we'll be appointing for the commissions. So, we have two seats to fill. Um, we have three applicants and we will be doing that this evening and we'll let
you know. Thanks so much for your time this evening. We appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, council, as those gentlemen are wrapping up, is there anything else we need to do on this part
of the agenda this evening? Any clarifying information you're in need of? for me there. >> Nope. >> All right. >> All right. Moving on. Our next item is a discussion about downtown parking and
kicking off that discussion this evening is our city manager, Dana Hardy. Miss Hardy, welcome. >> Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Um, we've got a lot of information to go through in the next uh 45 minutes here or so. So, we're going
to fly through this and um this is meant to be conversational. So, if there's any questions or comments or clarification needed, just um let me know and we can do that as we go along. But tonight, we're going to be
talking about um we're going to just start by presenting some history. So, some historical context on uh our district-wide parking strategy. And then we're going to talk a little bit about the things that we have done over the last decade or so uh to address parking
in our downtown. And then we're going to review a request to um have the city uh have a city-led project for a municipal parking structure. And then our goal this evening is just to review um
strategy and actions and determine whether uh council would like to pivot in terms of where we have been. So on that note, before we talk about how we got to where we are today, I think it's important just to understand the lens from which decisions about
parking have historically been made. So our parking strategy has been rooted in preserving what we're going to call the Victoria experience, and that is having a walkable, charming uh downtown. And our strategy for downtown parking comes
from our master plan which was first established in 2008. And that plan prioritizes walkability, compact development, preservation of that small town character. So preservation of that Victoria experience. For nearly a decade, we've formally
studied, we've gathered data, we've actively monitored our downtown parking. We've even increased parking supply across multiple studies and councils since 2017. The consistent finding has been that downtown parking concerns are driven
more by proximity than actual capacity. And with that, we've been delicately balancing convenience with preservation of that Victoria experience. To better understand that balance, let's step back to 2018.
We had our first formal parking study and a community task force to look at downtown parking at a very high level. The study and the community task force affirmed that the historical approach in preserving that downtown character and small town charm by promoting
walkability and that pedestrian experience has been key to our vibrance. The study also recognized that at some point parking is going to reach capacity and decisions are going to be made. will need to be made about investment in
parking expansion specifically parking structures and that question is have we reached capacity. The 2018 study showed that about half of our downtown has already been uh has already been
devoted to parking and rightsway and peak utilization hovers about at about 75%. So our parking study experts have said that and industry guidance have said that that 75% level just doesn't warrant
new supply. It really rather focuses on improved use of existing resources. So that core issue identified was proximity expectations rather than overall capacity. In fact, the study and the community
task force recommend that construction of a parking structure be a last resort. And if and when a structured parking a parking structure would be considered, the decision should be tied to development or redevelopment, it would
include private participation where the city may elect to participate in the cost. uh that tax increment financing or TIFF be considered as a means to fund a parking structure and that the parking structure design would blend into the
downtown so we would not um detract from that small town charm that everybody loves about Victoria. One of the questions that you all raised uh during February 9th when we were talking about bringing this item to discussion was whether the 2018 parking
study accounted for both Winchester and Ry and the Victoria House being open at the same time. So we wanted to bring that information back to you this evening. The study was conducted in late 2018 just before Winchester and Ry opened and the analysis did account for
both restaurants being open concurrently. And what we found through the Winchester and Rye um approval process is that there was capacity left in the district. So when the former Vic
when the former Victoria House reopens with its new restaurant concept and under new ownership, we do expect there to be parking available in the district. We also would expect that our core area
um where uh all the restaurants are currently clustered uh may experience more challenges during those peak demand times. So in other words, it might be more difficult in the core area of our downtown to find parking um on a Thursday evening, a Friday evening, a
Saturday evening. And this is where our parking management strategies uh come into place. So, at the time of this 2018 study, there were 445 parking spaces within the district's 1/8 mile walking
distance. And of those, 48 spaces were private and unavailable for public use. And that left about 397 publicly available spaces throughout our entire downtown district. I want to talk a little bit about why that 1/8 mile
radius is important and why we're pointing that out and that's because it represents approximately one city block which reflects the distance that people are willing to walk before they feel inconvenience before they feel that they're parking too far from where they want to go. And that distance has been a
help with us in guiding our plan planning and balancing that convenience with the walkability and compact core that we have. Dana, can you tell us where that 1/8 measurement was made from? >> Yeah, so we looked actually looked at
different areas and so um and Brian, you can help me maybe respond to this, but we looked at different areas 1/8 mile from each of our core parking lots to make sure we we have coverage within all of that area. So, if you park in the
Rose Street parking lot and go to Winchester and Ry for dinner and then go down to Omni to have a beer, is that still 1/8 of a mile or is that a little >> That would be if you parked at the new row residence, >> the Rose Street parking >> or the Rose Street parking that would
still be within mostly within the 1/8 mile. Yes. If you parked across in the the back the row residence and then walked to Omni, that would be probably just outside of that 1/8 mile. Okay. >> In part. >> Good. That's good perspective. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, moving on to community task force recommendations. So, the 2018 parking study and the community task force developed 13 different strategies to uh address downtown parking in Victoria while still preserving that walkability, that Victoria experience.
and their recommendations have served as the basis for today's decision makingaking about downtown parking. So, of these 13 strategies, 10 have been implemented or are in progress and they are bolded on your screen. Number seven,
limiting liquor licenses was um a recommendation that was explored but ultimately not implemented. Number eight, valet service. That also was tried. So, it was piloted and was not wellreceived by the community. So, that
service was discontinued. And then a parking ramp um has been evaluated on several occasions in different locations throughout downtown and to various degrees, but deter determined to not be at the right time based on community sentiment and the lack of support for
funding through property tax dollars or other um sources such as local option sales tax or meter um pay for parking type of technology. >> What time frame was the valet service? That was done in 2019.
>> 2019. Okay. Thank you. >> What is urban form? >> The urban form. I will um dive into that, but that's really our master plan. That's that comp compact city core, the design standard that we have that you don't have um large uh parking lots like
you see in suburban areas. So, it really sets us up for the type of walkability and pedestrian experience we want downtown. >> Got it. Thank you. >> You're welcome. So these were the strategies in that we have explored in 2018. And now I think what I'll do um is
just go through the next several slides that show how how we've put these strategies or these recommendations into action. We can start with utilization counts. So the task force recommended that the city conduct regular utilization counts at
the same time for consistency. They recommended that we look at 10:00 a.m., noon, and 6 pm and that we do this during the summer months on a Tuesday, Thursday, and a Saturday. So, we have taken utilization counts since that time. And in 2022, we actually hired a
firm to do the utilization counts for us as well as um looking at capacity changes. And that was to determine if um if we are experiencing if we've lost capacity. So are we feeling that there's
more utilization changing that we weren't aware of. And so the study concluded that from 2018 study that in 2022 the capacity percents really did not change. the snapshot, it's kind of small, but what you're seeing here, um,
and the 2020 study is that even on a weekend evening at 6 PM, we were we were still seeing uh capacity of about 23 to 48 vehicles in our district. And since we took this um since we've done this utilization study and capacity check,
we've added parking uh since in fact we've added 81 parking spaces since 2018 and we have another 90 spaces that are projected to come online in the next 12 to 18 months with development. So based on this, if we were to go back and look
at capacity and utilization, we would uh we would predict that with the additions and with what's coming online and what's projected to come online that our capacity would be unchanged or will have improved. Wayfinding and sign signage. So this is
the community task force recommendation that we develop a wayfinding plan to help identify pathways between those key destinations and parking lots. The plan was developed and wayfinding signage has been installed in key locations downtown
and we also have plans to enhance um and add additional signage and wayfinding uh signs throughout downtown. So the example that you're seeing online right now is currently in our row row parking area, the new row building, and we have
plans to roll out those newly branded signs in other locations throughout downtown later this year. um parking restrictions. So to improve availability of convenient downtown parking for visitors, we implemented
targeted parking restrictions specifically in those high demand areas. We placed 15minute parking signs in several key locations that have t high turnover. Um and that allows convenient access to several restaurants and quick graband go type scenarios, including the
post office, just a quick drop off. We also established timelmited two-hour parking in our downtown core to encourage spaces to turn over. And as we and then the city continues to encourage our businesses to direct long-term and
employee parking to the outer edges of the district to ensure that our visitors and those patrons to the downtown businesses have access to parking that's closer to the restaurants and businesses and entertainment and retail. Enforcement and technology was another
area that we looked at and the community task force recommended that the city evaluate enforcement approaches to encourage that all day or long-term parking especially in those high demand areas. The community task force suggested that enforcement be done by leveraging community services
officers. We have uh hired a cso dedicated to the city full-time and that position does serve as our primary enforcement for parking. The task force also recommended that we explore different technology to help with that enforcement and to help people
understand where parking is available and a workshop was held in 2019. Council direction at the time was the cost to implement that technology was significant and um and we reviewed things like pay meters so pay stations
in ground sensors and real-time GPS tracking. So, as an order of magnitude, it was roughly $100,000 in any of that technology just to buy in for approximately 300 spaces. As you add more spaces, the cost goes up. And that
was in $29. The community task force also recommended that the city revise its parking ordinance to provide clarity on parking requirements for new development and that our ordinance revisions be written in a way that is easily
interpreted by the community. As you know, we are undergoing right now a comprehensive review and update of all of our city code uh and our zoning code and so parking will be reviewed as part of this project pro process.
Maintenance was also highlighted and with the task force recommending that maintenance be prioritized for both the public and the private parking areas downtown. The city implemented this recommendation. We have dedicated one full-time public works employee to downtown maintenance and we have an
additional FTE projected in 2027. Their responsibility is to ensure that routine maintenance and provision of a safe clean experience for everybody coming to our downtown area. I had mentioned that we had explored limit uh limiting liquor licenses but
that was not implemented and the reason this was looked at is because establishments that provide liquor are generally creating greater demand during those high peak times and so the task force recommended um limiting those liquor license. This was really based on
a short-term recommendation with Winchester and Rye coming on. study was done in 2018 and the the committee really wanted to take a wait andsee approach to see what the parking um situation would look like after all the restaurants were operating concurrently.
Um ultimately the council decided not to move forward with that implementation and then valet service. So the community task force recommended that we explore and implement valet service as a means to provide downtown visitors a convenient option for parking. The
businesses did try this in 2019 was not well utilized and in May of 2019 the businesses actually approached the city to request that the drop off location be changed. Um it was in the it had started in the Rose Street parking lot. Um and
the request was to move it to a more central location uh to encourage more people to use that. So, uh, the council authorized three public parking spaces for valet service after 400 p.m. on a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Those
three spaces were on the corner of Tower and Randy's Way immediately adjacent to Winchester and Rye. And the valet service continued to be underutilized even with that location change. So ultimately the businesses who are subsidizing it um and working with the
city on on that uh made the decision to discontinue the service as we were hearing from people that they um they prioritized um walking rather than paying for that service. >> Can you uh it started it said on here at
$10, but I think am I remembering right like we reduced the fee, right? like it I think it was >> so I'm going to look I know we have some of our >> our Mary do you know from if do you recall Tom do you recall >> it was 10ucks
>> it was not well received >> sure >> I just I for some reason I thought I heard that at one point there was like because it wasn't wellreceived that we then tried it to see if the people used if it was even free and then asking for like a a donation or whatever and it
still was not wellreceived feedback. >> The city was not It really was a coordinated effort on the businesses that were participating. So, the details of what was being charged I are a little iffy for me. They're foggy. So, I'd have to do some research on
>> Oh, that's right. Thank you. >> Okay. Employee parking then. So, community task force also recommended that dedicated employee parking for downtown businesses be created, thereby ensuring a healthy supply of parking for visitors. So, the task force rem recommended that underutilized parking
areas on the outer edges of the district be dedicated for employer long-term parking, but this would require active promotion by um an encouragement by the businesses. So, some of the businesses do practice this strategy and some do
not. And so if we had more businesses practicing this strategy, employee parking could certainly improve circulation within um downtown, making more of that on street or curb available parking um in our downtown um turnover.
So as we look at the landscape today, employee parking really represents the greatest opportunity we have within our current parking management strategies. In 2023, we conducted a a survey for the businesses and we heard from 15 downtown
businesses that um included restaurant, entertainment, retail, and service industries. And those 15 businesses represented 260 employees. And we learned through that survey through self-reporting that most employees in the downtown are parking in those um in
the core area. So employee parking demands hit their highest points between noon and 6 p.m. when people are arriving for their shifts and with 105 employees parking in those high demand areas during the weekdays and 72 employees
during the weekends. So we really feel like this means that there's some hidden capacity and uh management strategies could help us um unveil or release this hidden capacity. And that survey reveals that that significant portion of full
lots in these high demand areas are occupied not just by visitors but employees. And that employees are parking in that center of the district for four, six, and even up to eight hours at a time. So if employees were to shift to the outer edges of the district
for parking, the effect is comparable to act to adding approximately 100 spaces without constructing new infrastructure. So the data suggests that we may need stronger requirements for employee parking plans specifically for more higher intense uses. So think
restaurants and other entertainment um for those future developments. And that might be something that council might want us to explore as we go through our code review. Similar to valet service and another parking management strategy that's not
yet been explored but would fit into this uh conversation is microtransit service. So the idea would be to encourage parking on the outer edges of our district for visitors and employees. Um, and that we could in in the
scenario, if you look at the map here, you can see this expands uh beyond our downtown um and goes all the way down to uh that Lion's Park. We could even explore an option that would extend to the recreation center. And that would
encourage uh visitors, employees to park further away from the destination and be picked up by a dropper, dropped off at a convenient fixed stop near a downtown business for no cost. So this would be a free service. There would there could
also be a payup option. So riders would pay a f a small fee to be dropped directly at the door of the business. So establishing a route like that um includes would include locations like Lions Park or the rec center would also allow residents who live in those
neighborhoods nearby to leave their car at home, hop on this ride service, and be able to get to and from downtown at no cost in theory. This would reduce the number of vehicles circulating downtown and open up parking spaces specifically during
those peak periods. It could be a solution to uh the employee parking situation that we just discussed. It could even benefit our downtown residents, so those who are living downtown, giving them an easy way to access destinations without needing to drive, particularly during poor weather
or cold cold weather. It could also help during special events. So, um, with that congestion, concert nights, classic car nights, light up Victoria, easily getting people to and from downtown, um, while encouraging parking outside of
downtown, and it could be, um, an option for us to, um, utilize this service during Highway 5 construction, so people are continuing to find it convenient to get to our downtown core and, uh, frequent our businesses.
So while valet service was not widely utilized, the broader popularity of ride share style services um today could make this type this option more appealing than a valet service. Um it would be important to note though that this
surface does this option does come at a cost. Um preliminary estimates suggest that we would be looking at approximately 134 to $148,000 a year and that would be for just operating during our peak demand times
and potentially looking at some of those other key event um locations. So with those examples in mind, I'm going to just now come back to the recommendations from the community task force and step back into that. Um,
another recommendation was for the city to develop marketing materials that highlight key destinations and parking locations. So, that was referred to in the plan as customer service. The city has implemented this recommendation and continues to update those materials as needed. And you see this through our
Discover Victoria campaign, um, which we're really leaning into as we lead um, as we lead up to the Highway 5 construction. The community task force also recommended that the planning commission serve as the city's parking commission
and that they would be responsible for monitoring utilization accounts working with businesses to address parking concerns. This well the city has implemented this approach in part planning commission does evaluate parking as part of the development process. Uh staff however have also
played key role in in this and monitoring parking utilization both formally and informally through uh studies and um observation. In 2023, the city did expand the responsibilities of its community development director to
include economic development um strengthen our ability to connect directly with businesses and be able to uh support what their needs are. So, our current uh community and economic development director, Jen Brewington, regularly engages with our local
businesses both formally and informally to understand their needs and to identify different challenges. Through her annual business retention visits, we meet directly with the businesses to discuss the challenges. And through those conversations, employee parking has really been the
only issue um identified as a concern um consistently by all of our businesses. In addition, since 2019, we have met with downtown businesses and property owners 29 times specifically to discuss downtown parking, including park um
parking structure concepts. The community task force also recognized that downtown Victoria's urban form is key to our appeal, why so many people like visiting our downtown. Our master plan reinforces that vision and parking
strategies have been developed with that framework in mind. So, if you see on the bottom of your screen, I've got a big arrow pointing to number seven, which specifically calls out parking. and it calls for increasing parking capacity in ways that preserve the character and
development pattern of our downtown. The community task force also acknowledged that long-term redevelopment opportunities could create situations where a parking structure might be integrated to downtown. The task force emphasized that those opportunities really should be driven by
private development with tiff as a potential funding tool and that the cons again the we heard this earlier parking structure should be viewed as a last resort. The recommendation was when larger redevelopment or infill opportunity arises the city should work
with that property owner or the developer to evaluate opportunities to add parking. And this is exactly what occurred in 2023 with the Monarch development proposal for redevelopment of the Ganon property. And around the same time, a group of downtown property
owners approached the city with an alternative concept for a parking deck um and doing that evaluation on the same site. Both the monarch proposal and the alternate concept were reviewed by council and community feedback at the time raised concerns related to scale
funding maintaining our downtown character which you all considered in your d in your direction when the parking structure concepts were discussed publicly. Um more specifically the concerns raised by residents um at the time really focus on some key themes
around safety. too many structures or buildings being in a small area, displacement of our classic car events which draw a lot of people from out of town here and parking structure just really not aligning with the small town
character. Those concerns were important part of your discussion and helped shaped the direction that followed which was to continue to focus on parking management strategies and adding parking supply as development and redevelopment occur.
So now we know what we've done with the parking strategy the parking study and we've implemented different strategies to uh address or look at parking downtown and we've primarily focused on management but we've also as you heard
increased capacity by 80 spaces since 2018 and we've got another 90 um online projected to come online in the next 12 to 18 months. The slide before you now actually summarizes key parking related studies and analyses and discussions
that we've had that council has had since 2017. We're going to briefly walk through each. In November of 2017, council held a workshop to discuss downtown parking, not dissimilar to what we're doing here this evening. That workshop focused on
the history of downtown parking, how strategies have been prioritized, and at the time, council emphasized the importance of walkability, character, and charm of downtown. They recognize Victoria just doesn't keep that charm and character if you move to what you see on your screen, which is um a lot of
parking lots, a typical suburban layout. The council further discussed how to add parking capacity without raising property taxes. They discussed the benefits and challenges of a parking structure and whether the time was right to construct one. They ended up
prioritizing investment uh prioritizing investments into road projects and ultimately directed using tiff to create parking downtown right in front of you with the reconstruction of Stiger Lake Lane um on the east side here.
>> Excuse me just a second. Welcome. There's some chairs over here so please come in and have a seat. You can sit there. That's fine. It was just for another thing. Nobody wants to sit in the front pew ever.
>> I promise not to call on you. >> All right. Carry on, Dana. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, mayor, mayor, members of the council. Jumping back in here. Um, so downtown parking study, we've spent a lot of time up to this point reviewing that. So for the sake of time, we're not going to spend any more
time on this slide right here talking about that study. I think you have a pretty good sense, or at least hope you do, on what that all was. So let's go into 2019. So in 2019, the city hired an engineering firm, Kimley Horn, to evaluate two sites in downtown Victoria
for a parking ramp. We evaluated two potential ramp sites near Rose Street. One was on private property uh and that has now been redeveloped into row residents uh and the row buildings. The other site is the city's Rose Street surface parking and two adjacent private
park parcels that are uh being used for parking. What we learned is that site capacity and scale for these structures varied significantly. The land where RO sits today could have accommodated up to 294 parking spaces on a three-le structure. That parcel has been
redeveloped. So that site is no longer an option. The Rose Street parking lot, however, does remain an option. It is surface parking today and the concept evaluated was limited to two levels for approximately 167 total spaces. That
would be a net gain of 83 spaces. The analysis also looked at construction costs for each of those concepts. Estimated construction costs in $ 2019 range from approximately 5 to6 million for the Rose Street site and 7 to 8 million for the three-story ramp. Now, I
know I said that that ramp was not an option, but the difference between the 167 stalls and the 294 stalls. I wanted to give you order of magnitude. So, 5 to six for the smaller, 7 to 8 million construction only costs for the two
concepts. What these estimates did not include were costs for design, engineering, geotechnical studies, contingencies, permitting, any property acquisition, inflation, or other soft costs. Additionally, we we learned from
the study that through site constraints and AC access, those items drove the feasibility of the design. The study identified different constraints such as physical building height limits and impacts adjacent to key businesses as being key drivers to the layout and the
potential costs. The community feedback did not support funding for property taxes for either ramp project. So, council asked staff to bring back potential funding options for moving forward with this. That brings us to um
local option sales tax and some additional technology. In June of 2019, the city evaluated different uh parking management technologies to help direct visitors to available spaces and improve utilization of our existing parking. The
technologies included camerabased systems which actually are used to detect open spaces. They communicate the availability of spaces through signage, websites, and your mobile phone apps. And these are typically used in surface
slots. We also looked at inground sensors which track occupancy space by space and through these systems can be a little bit less reliable in in uh snowy colder climates like Minnesota. Um but
are still used pretty broadly here. And finally, pay station integration. So metered or paid parking, which uses those paid parking systems to track and display occupancy digitally. The key takeaway from that discussion was that
parking technology can certainly improve awareness and utilization of existing spaces without adding parking supply, but the systems and the infrastructure come with costs. At the time, it was roughly $400 per space for about 300
spaces. So you're looking at over $100,000 upfront plus $900 a month for any of the um maintenance. So software as a service. This cost estimate did not include any investment in infrastructure. So network, electric, um
power infrastructure. So that would be above and beyond this. So, at the time, council determined those costs were just too high relative to the benefit for the net gain and that coun that um and that people were indicating the community was
indicating that there they did not want property tax dollars to go towards those funding those solutions. So in the interest of wanting to ex continue to explore and evaluate other options in making this happen in 2019 council
explored alternative funding options and that included the potential use of a local option sales tax. So a little history about what that looks like. In Minnesota, cities must first obtain legislative authority and then receive
voter approval at a general election before you're able to implement sales tax. So, if that's something you were interested in, you couldn't just make that happen. You have to get you have to go to your legislature, get a bill passed, have it be go through that legislative process to be approved by
the legislature to be even able to take it to your voters. And then that has to be a valid ballot question. So to pursue this option we would have to have also have to have a very defined project and a very specific cost because the voters
are actually authorizing not just the project but the specific cost as well. So during the workshop the parking structure was discussed as a possible project for local options sales tax and the presentation noted that structured
parking could qualify as a project of regional significance. And this is noted here because an important factor of that the legislator legislature considers is regional significance when evaluating
requests for local sales tax. The potential revenue for Victoria, however, was relatively modest. Based on historic taxable sales, a half a% of local sales tax was going to estimate estimated to generate approximately $138,000
annually. This workshop emphasized that sales tax revenue would also be subject to economic fluctuations in the market. The discussion was presented um through a broad process where there was anformational session and then council
would take public input um before having a policy discussion. So following the workshop, both residents and members of the business community opposed um opposed implementing the local sales tax and then council directed staff to not
uh pursue this option any further due to the lack of community and business support. That brings us to 2022 where we updated our parking utilization counts. We use the same methodology as 2018 study to
evaluate those trends and determine if demand had materially changed downtown. That workshop, we then brought this information back to a workshop and reaffirmed that the district-wide shared parking approach remains our organizing
framework and rather than requiring each individual site to meet parking demand independently. The item was presented for discussion and council did not provide direction to pres to to pursue construction of a new parking infrastructure at that time. Council did
however emphasize the importance of continuing to monitor utilization trends to help inform future decisions. It's also important to note that since those changes have occurred or since that time, several changes have occurred. Additional parking has been added along
Rose Street as part of the row project along Stiger Lake Lane going to the west toward downtown west and east towards the new vet veterinary clinic with Victoria condo's final plat approved in February. Additional parking will also
be added in the core of downtown and um the city will be actually evaluating whether we can get additional spaces in our existing central parking lot um as that will be reconfigured during
construction. So if there's an opportunity to squeeze more parking in there, that's something we'll be exploring as that project moves forward. Then if the hotel project moves forward, um that would add approximately 59 additional spaces um on the old
schoolhouse site along with a pedestrian connection directly into downtown. And staff would continue to work with private property owners to identify additional opportunities to continue to add throughout the district. So even since 2022, parking supplies continued
to increase districtwide, particularly in those areas experiencing the higher demand utilization. In 2023, the city explored two separate proposals to construct a parking structure on the city-owned central parking lot. One concept would have been
a privately constructed and funded option, and then the alternative proposal would have been a city-led and city-f funded project. The public and the council feedback focused on scale, funding, and character. Community input raised concerns around downtown
intensity, the building massing, and the use of do tax dollars for a parking structure. To that end, you did not dev you did not advance either concept and reaffirmed reliance on parking added through development and then focusing on our management tools. Dana, do you have
the the the um number on that parking deck that we looked at at that point in time? Do you remember what the other >> Yeah, I think off the top of my head that was um So, there's 43 parking spaces today and it would have probably doubled that, close to double that. So,
another 40 to 43 spaces. So, the net gain would have been somewhere around 40. >> But do you remember what the cost of that of that? Um the cost estimate for construction only that was presented at the time was at $3.5 million. Got it.
>> And again that was um construction only. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um so as part of evaluating both the Mon monarch parking structure concept and that alternative plan uh for the parking deck, the city explored a
number of different tax increment uh tax increment financing or tiff districts um as a potential funding tool for the Monarch proposal which included a privately financed parking structure as part of redevelopment of the Ganon parcel. Staff evaluated the creation of
a tiff district that would include the Ganon property. So that's A on your screen as well as the adjacent city owned parking lots and that those are showing up as B and C on your screen. While the project met statutory requirements for TIFF, uh the downtown
property owners raised concerns about the scale of the development and requested evaluation of an alternative plan. That's when the parking deck uh plan on this site was presented by the by some of the downtown property owners to the council. Uh the request was to
have that be designed, funded, and led by the city. Ultimately, the Monarch proposal did not move forward as initially presented. The Ganon property has since received final plat approval for a small scale smaller scale mixeduse development on on where parcel A is here
without an attached parking structure. related to uh the al alternate parking deck concept for the city's parking lot shown here um on again lot C and D. Uh the group requested that the city use
shared parking fund dollars to evaluate a tiff scenario. So council authorized the use of those parking fund dollars to do a tiff analysis. The proposal included seven parcels which are shown on your screen and those parcels
represented properties where owners had indicated potential interest in future redevelopment or expansion and a willingness to use tiff from those projects to help support public parking. However, redevelopment timelines for the parcels did not align. Parcels B and F
indicated that they um do not have redevelopment plans at this time. Parcels A and E have moved forward independently with projects already and parcels D and E would not qualify for TIFF on their own. Parcel G indicated
redevelopment may occur later and um potentially after the the hotel project. As a result, these parcels did not move forward collectively as in is originally envisioned. That said, there still may be opportunities to explore standalone
or non-ontiguous TIF districts. uh which we'll cover a little bit later in this presentation. As staff met with property owners and um downtown businesses again um we to discuss parking. There were a few
consistent themes that emerged out of what a potential solution could accomplish. First, there is just general agreement that expanding public parking could be beneficial, but Nautica comes at the expense of the Victoria experience. that walkability and charm
of our small downtown character, which again draws people to our downtown in the first place. And second, property owners emphasize that long-term parking solutions should serve the broader district downtown rather than the interest of a single property owner or
individual development project. And then finally, many of the downtown property owners expressed that any approach should involve collaboration among the downtown stakeholders with the goal of creating a solution that provides equitable benefits across the district. These perspectives helped inform
conversation that conversations that we've had with property owners and developers as different parkings concepts have been explored in the district. With those perspectives in mind, that chronology brings us to where
we are today. A recent sketch plat for a proposed boutique hotel has renewed that request for the city to revisit the concept of a parking structure, including a skyway connection to the hotel and park style amenities on the roof of the structure itself. In other
words, a new development proposal has reopened our discussion on parking about whether parking structure should be considered at this time. Given that request, a key con consideration for council becomes whether the conditions that have informed prior decisions have
materially changed. And the next few slides will outline some of those policy considerations to help guide your discussion this evening. So, what policy decisions can council consider? Here are some suggestions. One
consideration could be what type of problem are we solving for. This slide steps back from solutions that focus on clarifying the nature of parking itself. As the 2018 parking study and subsequent discussions have noted, downtown Victoria's parking conversation has
often reflected different types of concerns that look similar but have different implications or solutions. One dimension is overall availability. whether there are enough parking spaces in the district as a whole. Another is proximity, whether visitors are able to
park immediately adjacent to their destination with direct site of a business entrance. A third factor is that peak demand timing. Much of downtown parking demand occurs during the evening um and during the evenings
which differ from daytime utilization patterns. And finally, there are event-based conditions where large community events temporarily increase uh demand beyond our typical daily levels. So, this policy consideration is intended to clarify which of these
conditions you all believe is the primary issue to be addressed because each one could point to a different strategy or solution from management to circulation tools to put potential investment into uh parking structure.
As you've seen in earlier slides, council has considered parking structures in several contexts over the past decade, most recently in 2023. And at those times, you determine that count that moving forward was just not warranted. So the question here is whether the underlying conditions that
inform those decisions have materially changed. We've grouped those conditions into three factors that have historically guided council's discussion. Those are utilization trends, development pressures, and community sentiment. Utilization trends speak to whether there is measured
parking demand ha whether the measured parking demand has approached levels that would justify expanding the supply. And development pressure reflects whether the scale or the pace of downtown development is creating structural parking needs
that cannot be met through the district-wide parking management strategies we've currently been focusing on. and community sentiment recognizes that prior discussions about a city-led and city-f funded structure included significant public feedback particularly
around scale character and the use of property tax dollars. So the policy consideration is intended to frame whether those factors have shifted enough to justify revisiting a major investment in parking at this time.
And then do we do current utilization levels and projective growth support pursuing a parking structure? This slide is intended to frame the policy question that council's been grappling with the last several years as structured parking has been discussed in different
contexts. Both of these concepts, our central parking lot and then that Rose Street lot come from coming from private studies. They evaluated structure parking in downtown Victoria. The first reflects a smaller two-level parking deck on the central lot and the second
reflects a larger Rose Street ramp that was evaluated in 2019. What's helpful about looking at these together is that it illustrates the relationship between cost and capacity. Even at a smaller scale, structured parking represents a multi-million dollar investment and
results in a relatively modest net increase in public spaces compared to the existing surface lot. And I want to point out that these estimates are construction only. So again they don't include design or engineering permitting
geotechnical work. Um those were those numbers were snapshot in time. So 2019 and 2023 respectively or vice versa. So the policy consideration for council is not simply whether a parking structure could be built. It's whether the level
of public investment required to construct the parking is warranted given the number of spaces gained and the current in the and the current projective demand. The slide is intended to anchor that cost to capacity
relationship. Um so um the yes the cost to capacity relationship. All right, moving in to give you a little bit of perspective into what that
means um for property tax and for the city levy. If you are considering pivoting from park and ma management strategies to construction of infrastructure, um I wanted to give you a little snapshot in time um that would provide you a little bit of uh order of
magnitude on levy and property tax projected impacts. The chart in front of you shows our current levy projections for 2027 and then compares two different bonding scenarios. One scenario A adding a $3.5 million
bond and scenario B um a $6 million bond specifically for a parking structure on top of our projected levy. Scenario A, that $3.5 million bond. This would require a $300,000 annual increase,
adding an additional 3.34% to our levy, bringing the projected total levy in 2017 2027 to 13.17%. That nearly doubles the tax impact on our median home compared to the status
quo. Then scenario B, a $6 million bond would require an additional $510,000, adding an additional 5.68% 68% to our levy, bringing the projected levy increase to 15.51%.
And increasing the tax impact on a million dollar property by roughly 2.7 times. So the um other thing that I would like to note about the um about the bonding is that these would be
15-year bonds. So the 300,000 and the 510,000 in you would have to um add that into your budget every year for the next 15 years to make sure that you're covering the debt for those payments. >> And Dana, just to just to be clear, this
is if we add the cost of a parking structure to our levy without using any kind of tiff tiff benefit. Mayor, members of the council, yes, that would be what if the city
if the city had to bond. So even if that this was covering a portion of that, this would just be if you had to borrow money at giving you snapshots, order of magnitude and time, but yes, that could be a scenario. >> Okay. Thank you.
staff are the other thing that we're not talking about um in terms of it's one thing to be able to say okay city's going to do this we're going to construct um construct it but the other thing that we haven't talked about yet is the maintenance side. So just real
briefly, we haven't done a lot of deep dives into this from the staff lens because council hasn't directed that, but again, order of magnitude. We want to give you a sense of it's not just constructing it, but then you have somebody's got to maintain that. What does that look like? So staff estimate approximately $10,000 a year in basic
maintenance for an 84 stall ramp. So similar to the alternate plan, the parking deck plan um that was presented by the downtown property owners. So using that as a guidance 10,000 a year in basic maintenance for that net gain
of the 40 spaces the estimate does not include costs for utilities does not include capital replacement costs. Um there there's a question on whether an elevator would be necessary. So it does not include any elevator costs or
maintenance costs. It also does not include the cost to ensure the structure. Features such as a rooftop park or a sky skyway connection would increase both construction and maintenance costs. Um, and those are not reflected in costs either.
>> Do do we think we would need a another FTE to help with this or I mean would we just be able to absorb that with our staff that we have? So, we currently have one FTE, one full-time FTE dedicated to downtown maintenance. We
are projecting a second one in 2027. I think um I I wouldn't necessarily say the the mere fact that we were constructing a parking structure would prompt additional staff, but we would look at it holistically. What's that level of maintenance? What are we
constructing? I think if you decide you want to put a park amenity like it's being recommended um that uh that might absolutely result in needing to dedicate more staff for that. I think for um us the high level
conversations we've had at the staff level is whether we have the right equipment to maintain um and that equipment might look differently if we're doing a park amenity on top or just strict parking. >> Okay, I I want to take a quick pause
here and for anybody who's joining us for the city council meeting, we are still in workshop mode here. We're going to continue on with our workshop here until we can wrap that up a little bit. So, um, I beg your patience and stick with us here while we get through our workshop. Thank you.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. >> Back to this slide. Can I just clarify? I understand what you're saying that, you know, the prior slide was more of the construction, right? These are all the maintenance fees. So, are you saying on average this will be $35? What's the
Where does the $35 go into these utilities long-term all these? Oh, that's just basic staff time >> is 35 >> 35 a stall. So what's not included are you're putting lights on there. >> Got it.
>> The electricity cost if we have to put water in there. >> Insurance sprinkler will have to extend water there. Those costs aren't in there. Insurance costs are not included in there. >> Got it. >> So what is this like? Sweeping and >> sweeping >> snow shut. Well, >> painting lines, clearing snow. Thank
you. >> regular routine maintenance. >> And do we have any idea with those costs? I think I heard a number of >> what was it? $10,000 a year for the was that just >> that's just the maintenance
>> maintenance side of it, not insurance or anything else. So that gives us an idea on the maintenance side, but not anything else. >> And staff hasn't done a real big deep dive in there. We're just the purpose for this tonight. If you were to say go and we want to understand what these costs are, we would certainly bring back
more detailed information around this so you have an idea of what that all-in cost would be. But without council direction, we did not want to spend a lot of time, but wanted to give you enough information just to flag that there are additional costs that would
need to be considered uh decide to move forward with that investment. >> Got it. Thanks for clarifying. >> Okay. parks or skyway components. So, the renewed request also to evaluate this parking structure included a request to evaluate whether we should
include a rooftop park or a skyway connection. Um, so a couple things as you weigh that request, I I wanted just to note for you all this evening that parks are not eligible tiff costs under
state law. park component would really require separate funding source other than tiff increment. So you would be maybe looking at property taxes, park dedication, a local option sales tax again, maybe even an increase to utility franchise fees to
dedicate for that purpose. Um or a combination of those items. It would likely need multiple funding sources. A skyway connection directly to a private building would also not qualify as a tiff eligible improvement. So again,
separate funding sources would need to be discussed and identified. The other piece that I would want to note on that that we got clarification from both our legal and financial consultants is that any enforcement or materials or labor
that would be above and beyond what you would just put in for a parking structure. If you did extra materials, let's say you had to have your footings larger um to be able to support a skyway, that
incremental change from just the skyway use to what you need to support a sky or the parking structure use to what you would need to support a skyway connection. That could not be a TIFF eligible cost either. So, there's a lot of
administrative work to make sure that we're separating out the cost. And this is something that the auditor um the state auditor would be looking at too for appropriate use. There would need to be additional work, additional money spent on the front end to make sure we
can document that no tiff increment was used to support the infrastructure needed to connect a skyway. >> I mean, if we wanted to do this and we had a skyway, I the skyway is bene benefiting a public sorry a private
building. So could that cost be negot like if you want a skyway it's your cost type thing. Could that be done? That certainly could be something that the council would request, but again, we would have to document that if TIFF is being used to fund that, that no TIF
costs are being used on like if you needed heavier concrete, like th those incremental differences could not we'd have to demonstrate and document that no TIFF funds were used to support any part of that.
All right, this brings us to a few items to note about TIFF. So, the next few slides, we're going to pivot a little bit and just talk briefly about TIFF authority, timelines, financial implications, um, and our prior discussions with downtown property owners and developers
about use of TIFF, um, and risks specifically related to our parking structure. So, it's important to note that TIFF can legally be used to support construction of a parking structure. However, council has previously expressed relax reluctance to issu issue
bonds or assume financial risk for a parking structure, particularly given other levy pressures. Sorry, I have the hiccups all of a sudden, so I apologize in advance. If the city were to move forward with the parking ramp, our
financial consultant believes that our the city would likely need to issue general obligation bonds and property tax support would likely be required in the early years of the TIF district before sufficient increment is generated. Some of the downtown property
owners have suggested that TIFF alone could fully fund the structure with no taxpayer impact. Based on current projections, staff um and our financial c councils are not seeing that that scenario is likely and that's given the information we have today. Because of
council's past direction, staff communicated to downtown property owners that the city remains open to using tiff to support a privately financed structure structure, including one located on city-owned land. However, some of the downtown property owners
have also indicated that they would not be interested in private financing or things like special assessments for those costs or participating in long-term maintenance costs. They were really seeing those as being a city-led project and city costs. So, if council wishes to explore parking structure
further, uh we would likely need to have additional policy uh conversations around whether the city would finance and own that uh that structure. And if the city issues bonds, it assumes
risk that property values and increment remain sufficient. legislative changes do not affect the tiff revenue and increment materializes as projected. So, I want to pause here and just say that there are two examples today that we
have in Victoria that demonstrate the risk and that is with two districts, the Flats and Rose Street. Both in part were created to address parking in downtown and um they have not generated
sufficient increment to cover the debt and we have actually um used property tax dollars to cover those costs until we can pay ourselves back when the district starts uh when that increment starts um hitting those projections. So
on both of those we're looking at roughly 2034. So well after the bonds have been um after the bonds have been paid off. So property taxes are supporting currently um those parking spaces until we can pay
ourselves back over time when the increment is sufficient enough. >> You Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Can you go back to that slide? I have two questions for you. Um legislative changes that do not affect tiff revenue. So we understand that we are at the mercy of the legislature and they can
make these changes. If we do a TIFF project, is it not grandfathered in under the current rules? >> I I'm actually going to put our our attorney on spot. Do you know off the top of your head? I is it really comes
down to the legis like how the legislation is written. So, um I I know that we have had in the in the past, I can't speak specifically, but in talking with our um financial experts on this, that changes, legislative changes have
impacted existing taxes, particularly as as to how we can use pooling dollars. So, it can be impactful. Um, but I think it really ultimately comes down to um legislative changes or how how the
legislation is written. And if that's something that you want to learn more about, we could certainly um bring that information back to you. >> And then the second question I have for you on the the the tiff districts that are in play now that are not meeting our bond payments and we are using tax levy
to do that. Are those 15year or are those 26year? Oh, I don't know off the top of my head. And the reason why I ask that question is be is because do we just need to go further
into the 26 year eligibility or are we already 26 years trying to so if you could find that out >> I can I can certainly find that out but for order of magnitude um which I would anticipate might be a follow-up question
is um for each of we're looking at roughly $800,000 that the that we're borrowing from our tax dollar our taxpayers to um make cover those bond payments. So 500,000 on one roughly project and 300,000 on the other. So the
risk is real. It does exist. >> Um >> it's going to be my question. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Uh the one other question I I know you don't have a crystal ball, but how how you know we rely on our AAA bond rating, right? and it has helped us with
better interest rates numerous times. So, how would bonding for something like this uh affect that? >> Yeah, it we've had some conversations with our financial consultant uh just looking at that generally speaking and
um I I'm trying to figure out how to frame this in a non-complex way um technical way. Um, part of what the rating agencies look at is long-term planning. And part of why we have uh AAA bond rating is because
we're really good at predicting when we're going to carry debt. It's planned um what's rolling off. We time things. We time capital investments. We time our plan round those es and flows. So when debt's going to fall off, then we'll take on more debt. So we're not having a
lot of debt at at one time. And so we're able to demonstrate the need and there's a a whole formula that they look at at doing that. And so something like this um even though if if you're looking I just say the two bond scenarios I gave
you three and a half million and 6 million. I don't know if that's what the number is going to be but use those as an example. They're multi-million dollar investments that are currently not in our bonding plan. They're not in our long-term financial plan. And um we've
got a lot of debt right now that if we're that if we were to take this on unplanned um and we didn't delay other projects or pay cash for other projects um it likely
could have an impact on our our rating because it hasn't been planned and there isn't enough debt in that short-term period falling off. Um, and so those are things that were we would maybe um if timing is something and you want to
explore where and when it might make sense in terms of just a financial plan lens, we could do more more work around that, but it it certainly could um have an impact on us. And especially the other thing is they look at businesses
that are coming into town and making investments um growth. So if the market just the general economy slows down and then you take that that um you're having that investment and you don't have the
tax or the growth um to pay for that or offset that cost that can also have an an impact. So >> thank you. >> Okay, moving on. In staff's discussion with um downtown property owners, two
types of redevelopment districts, scenarios were discussed. Um we discussed look expanding a tiff district, the existing roars tiff district. Uh we also have just talked about generally standalone tiff districts. Essentially the timelines for
either establishing a new tiff district or modifying an existing tiff district are essentially the same. Um, so just real briefly, uh, either modifying or creating the district would require approximately a 90-day process driven by statutory requirements. It would require
a public hearing and consultant and legal work. That cost would be approximately 30 to $40,000 depending on the scenario. Parcels in a tip district do not need to be contiguous. However, each parcel must
independently qualify and substandard conditions must be evenly distributed. So, this is important and I'm talking about this now because some of the districts and some of the parcels that we've explored, some of them are contiguous, some of them have not been contiguous. So, one of the questions has
been, can you have a non-ontig contiguous TIF district? And the answer is yes, but there's some qualifications to that. So multiple conceptual expansion scenarios have been discussed. Each would require additional tiff and legal analysis and financial analysis.
So each scenario would cost about 30 to $40,000. Council has historically directed that these costs be paid by an by paid for by private applications or private development rather than the city. However, the city can also be the one
that is initiating a tiff district. Um but then the city would be responsible for covering those costs. One of the ideas that has been discussed is modifying the existing Roars tiff district to create a non-ontiguous district that would include the Victoria
Condos project. Under this scenario, the city would capture tax increment for two projects. the Victoria Condos project in the early years and the Roars project in the later years once that district begins generating increment again in years 15 to 26. In order to pursue this
approach, the city would first need to complete the formal TIF modification process. That includes hiring a consultant to conduct to conduct TIFF eligibility analysis. And yes, we know that they each stand independently on their own, but we would specifically be
looking for the coverage test. And then working with our financial advisor, we would want to estimate those increment projections. We would need to hold a public hearing, notify the county and the school district, and then obtain city council approval to modify and reertify the district. You would also
need to record that reertification. Completing that process would require an estimated 30 to $40,000 in consultant and legal work just to evaluate and establish a modified district. Based on what we know today, the increment would
be available for roughly the first 15 years. That only increment would be coming from Victoria condos. The increment alone would not be sufficient to cover the annual debt payments associated with construction the construction of the parking structure.
So there is also an important timing uh constraint to look at. Victoria Condos project has received final plat approval. They are expecting to pull building permits this spring. Once a building permit is issued, the project
cannot be added to the TIF district. If the city has not already committed the increment from that development. So, state law requires that increment be committed or committed or spent within the five years within five years of the
original TIFF district certification date for the RORS district. That deadline is April 16th, 2029. We would not need to issue bonds by that date. we would just need to formally commit that if we wanted to use
increment from the Victoria Condos project that that modification of that district and that commitment by council for the use of increment to fund a parking structure would need to be done before April 16th, 2029
or before the building permits are issued. So what does this mean for this project based on what I told you there? just that they are targeting a spring um springtime for for pulling
pulling building permits. So, the timeline is very tight. So there is a risk that you could spend the $30 to $40,000 to complete the analysis and go through the project, but if the pro if the condos project pulls permits before that process is
complete, you would not be able to include it in the district. So um in addition because the early year increment would be limited there is a scenario where the parking structure debt would event would essentially be
covered by property tax support until you can pay yourselves back in those later years 15 to 26 with the roars project. Ultimately, this brings us back to that broader policy question, whether the conditions that informed previous
decisions have materially changed and whether there is community support for property tax dollars for an investment of this scale. And while that timing is tight for the con councils, again, you have until April 16th of 2029 to make modifications
to that Roars TIFF district. This means there could be additional opportunities to evaluate tiff for parking as other projects, development, redevelopment projects occur within this time frame. Staff are aware of at least two projects um that uh whose property owners have
indicated redevelopment plans are within this time horizon. With those policy considerations in mind, you may wish to have um a a potential several paths forward. So, we're going to briefly walk through um a
number of different things that you can think about as you um are thinking about the policy considerations and potential next steps. It could be all of these, any um one of them. It could be a combination. It could be none of these. Um this is just meant to frame some
potential options for you. So option one could be to direct staff to conduct an updated parking utilization count using that same methodology methodology that we did in 2018. So days of the week, times of the year and
analyze whether upcoming additions and um that are have been online and that are coming online would materially change peak demand conditions. The purpose of this option would be to evaluate whether a capacity issue exists before you would explore a major
investment. The cost to do this work is about $10 to $20,000. And we would recommend if you're being true to the 2018 study that you um do this in the summer. Um although you could accelerate that and do that
quicker. Option two could be to direct staff to prioritize the and accelerate the review of downtown parking re revisions as part of our comprehensive code update and then come back to council with specific recommendations.
While we would conduct a comprehensive review, we would do a deep dive into some levers such as shared parking policy, parking reduction allowances, if and when that's appropriate, and then requirements for highintensity uses like restaurants and downtown like whether
certain developments should be required to have a employee parking plan. There are two uh share two scenarios proposed for this timeline. um staff time or consultant time. Staff
time would be about six to nine months if we do the work to make this happen faster. Um we could hire a consultant. We estimate that that cost be about $12,500. So this becomes prioritized and focused on in a shorter time frame. We could cut
that in half. So three months. Option three, you may wish to get a better sense of whether the community sentiment has changed. And there are several ways to gauge this. Um, for example, you might following this
workshop, uh, you might wish to invite public comment on the topic by hosting a listening session. So you could get feedback on whether sentiment has changed. Alternatively, or in addition to, you could conduct outreach through pulse surveys. Um we would we um have a
lot of events that our mobile city hall will be at this year. So we could um incorporate some feedback uh informal and formal through those popup events through our mobile city hall. If you wanted more statistically valid feedback feedback, you could direct staff to
include a question about taxpayer support for funding a parking infrastructure as part of your community survey that will be launched in uh summer this year with results coming back to you this fall. And then you could also solicit formal feedback from
downtown businesses regarding cost participation and long-term for both the construction and long-term maintenance costs. All of these options um come with staff time but one um if you wanted to incorporate a question into your
statistically sound community survey. Each question costs about $3,000 to add and they recommend limiting it to no more than three questions um because you start losing people after that. The estimated timeline um for this varies
based on the option. So if you um wanted to do a listening session, we could turn that around relatively quickly. Um but other things might have a longer lead time or runway. Option four, council may wish to
consider one or two-year pilot program for that fixed route micro transit service that we talked about earlier this evening. Um we could look at just focusing in our downtown area, so our really tight circular route. or you could really um see if there's an
opportunity to um really encourage parking outside of the district and utilize some of our other lots like our Lions Park or our rec center uh to encourage parking outside of the district and capture people in different neighborhood hhoodoods as well. Um so
there are some different ways we could set this up. Um, but the cost estimate just for order of magnitude here is one vehicle with a driver on those peak demand times. So, a Thursday through Sunday. And we went all the way from
noon to 1000 p.m. And 1000 p.m. Um, and that that later shift is to encourage employee parking and employee use of the service as well. Um, we would recommend
that the fixed service be free to the rider. You could explore a pay up option as we talked about earlier. Um, and then there's an ability to really brand this to the city's branding style as well as sell advertising to reduce our overall annual cost. But that annual cost, this
is not an inexpensive solution. It's 134 to 148,000 a year. and we could set this up relatively quickly, about 60 days from the time we sign a contract and get everything branded and ready to go. Um, this is certainly an investment, but
it's not quite as big of an investment as bonding at a at, as you recall, $3.5 million bond dollar bond at $300,000 a year or $6 million bond at about $500,000 a year. Option five and six represent a choice
between further analysis and so we could do a full feasibility study. Um and I do think the costs that I have here um 50 to 70,000 is probably on the lighter side. It's probably leaning more towards that 70,000 but that would build on all
the previous work that we've done. We could evaluate multiple different options in multiple different locations and really drill down different funding solutions and costs and bring that back uh comprehensive um conversation back to
council on very specific details around specific solutions. And then option six is just to focus on that central parking lot uh essentially looking at the the alternate plan that was presented in 23 by the downtown property owners. So we could build on that. So the existing
work that they did for the city um and we would be looking specifically at doing survey work, engineering review. So more of those technical things that need to happen uh around construction feasibility. The cost for that would be
about $25,000 and then there would be additional costs to finalize the design and then construction management. we could probably turn that initial part around in 60 days. If you get into fin uh final design, you're looking at 90
plus days. And then option seven would be to take no action. So continue the status quo reaffirming that we're continue to monitor monitor utilizations and implement mana um the continue with
incremental um additions to parking supply and focusing on management strategies and we've done it. So we are through and I'm happy to stand for any questions um or go back to any slides to help um facilitate your your discussion.
>> Very good. Thank you. That was a very thorough and complete >> Thank you. >> full parking history. And I think we've all we're all still awake. All is good. You Thank you for covering that. You gave us a lot of options to consider. And I and I think
there's not one solution within the options that you gave us to consider, at least in my in my view, and I'm curious to hear from my council colleagues on this as well. But I think there's a there's a couple of things that um I would like to
initially start out with. And the first thing I I I want to stress that gives because we've been feeling like there's some urgency to really act and act right now and knowing that we have until April
2029 to go back to reertify and do something with that RORS money is a good thing. understanding that if we miss the opportunity to get the condos involved in the TIFF project, we still
have other opportunities in the future all the way up until April 2029 to include any any redevelopment projects that would come up. Am I right in that understanding? >> Yes, mayor, you are correct. >> Okay. So even though we we may or may
not miss this opportunity with the condos, it doesn't give us doesn't mean that we can't go back and do it in that time period. So that m that makes me happy. Um I do want to take a look at parking utilization. I think it's important to understand what
the data is. How much is out there? How much do we need? What's what's not being used? When is it a problem? I I just um I'm downtown a lot. I I think it's a proximity problem and I think it's a time problem. I mean,
there's it's tough on a Saturday night from 5 to 8, but and I think it's a proximity problem, but I'd love some data that says that's that that my that our instincts are right. Um,
I also would really like to implement a parking education parking um, enforcement plan. We have two-hour parking here. Typically, if you are having dinner downtown, you can you can
park for two hours, you can have dinner, you might be able to have a night cap after that. Um, I think a two-hour parking plan and enforcement and education of a two-hour parking plan is something that I'd like to see as well. Um, and that would that would also
encourage our employees to to do something. Um, and then finally, I really want to hear from the public and the business community on this. So, I would uh favor scheduling some kind of a public hearing or public process that
and relatively quickly that we could get some feedback from them on some of these ideas. You know, we've got some pretty good cost estimates as to what these things would cost. Um, so I'm feeling like that's that's something else I'd really like to see happen. Council,
>> you want me to start? You >> want to start? >> Council member Patterson. I'm not sure who to address this with, but I want I thought it was just from the agenda report. Um, there was a couple references to the fact that the hotel is spurring this on, and I felt like the
hotel was one of the things spurring it on. I thought the condos was something that was spurring it on. I thought there's options for TIFF is spurring it on and a lot of other developments. So, I just wanted to put that out there as well. Um, I'm curious, how many tickets
has our cso given out for two-hour parking violations? >> I don't have that information tonight, but I can bring it out. I can bring it back. >> I'd be curious, that's all. Um, so I I mean, it comes for me, and we all know that I've been involved with the
stakeholders, the property owners, the residents on on all of these, and I'm a fan of putting of solving the parking issue if there is an issue there. And I think my question to you guys was, do we have a timeline that we need to hit or
is this something that we're going to miss out on? And I think that was the big key component for me. Um, part of it is no, we're not going to miss out on it because we do have the opportunity to 2029 to get the TIFF funding, but we have so many different construction
projects going on right now. There are a lot of folks that are building during the highway five project. I think doing assessments and valid and looking at what is out there right now isn't going to be relevant for 2029, which is what I'm trying to look at. What's going to
happen when we have 400 extra people living in the new apartments? Our feeder in highway 5 is double the width and we may have other options that are out there for that are being developed at that point in time, including everything in downtown west. So, that's where I'm
coming from. It's are we missing out on an opportunity and is this something that we need to do for the future? Um, with the information I saw, I think it's something that we need to take a look at. Um, is it the deck in that location? I don't
know. We got a nice model that um, thank you for from the developer on that that um, gave us an idea of what we're looking to build there. Um, I guess those are kind of my thoughts on it. >> Great. Thanks, kind of babble a little.
>> Yeah, mayor. I I just I'll reflect some of your comments that um I think one of the hallmarks that represents our decision making is data driven decisions. So, I stand with your view that having more current data that
assesses where we're at is a productive use of our time and our facilities. I'm also with you on the uh I don't think we need to rush into a decision. Council member Peterson, I think I understand you correctly. What I'm hearing is that
there's a lot on the plate of what's going on in the city of Victoria that there are downtown west I think is something that is highly critical for us to engage our resources and make sure that that is going to be a success and I would be reticent to engage in things
that would slow up our commitment to making sure that that does exactly what we We've spent a lot of time and we've contributed vastly to ensuring that that um
is exactly what we we've had the vision of the community weigh in on that. Um that process of how we arrived at what that vision looks like is something that again reflecting on what the mayor said, we can bring that kind of discussion to
this so that we can get community involvement like we did with that. And I think that that stands as a prime example of when we bring all that together, we get fantastic outcomes. And uh I agree with you that this needs this downtown parking thing is something that
we need to solve. self properly and not, you know, do a a slap, you know, shot approach to it. Uh, city the city of Victoria's residents deserve us to really drive this home with the right
decision- making. So, I I would say that no action is not really what it is, but I'd say that, you know, uh, jumping on this immediately is more of a not now rather than a no situation. Uh, I'll chime in on the microtransit service. I
don't think that that's the best use of our funds. That seems like a very expensive option. Uh, and I think that we're going to see other things come along in the future, maybe more rapidly than we think. Um, you know, Dana and everybody asked me, "How was your
weekend?" I spent my weekend in uh in Scottsdale and I saw a number of Whimo cars driving around. And that might be something that makes it to Minnesota sooner than we think. And that might be a way to uh have something that addresses some of the concerns that we
have about moving people through the downtown area. Uh I don't think that a microtransit service at this time is really uh something that we should invest in, but we we should engage in the right amount of feasibility to Dana.
If we do a big study, we would we would be able to incorporate the concept of a deck feasibility study as well. Correct. Council member Ivansky, mayor, members of the council. Yes, that's correct. What I will note to you though, um the funding and I think it's going to
probably fall closer to that 70,000 mark. That is not currently in your budget. And so we would pro and we probably don't have enough wiggle room. So we would have to be looking at if you want to move forward with that now, we would be looking at some budget
amendments and priority shifts to be able to fund that for this year. Otherwise, we could fund that as part of the the budget cycle um >> for 2027. >> Yeah. Okay. I I think that that's probably a prudent space to look at
funding that and use some of the uh more cost effective some of the other quick hit things that we could get involved in like community discussions etc. Similar similar to what we did when we had the you know questions and discussion at the ice
fishing contest about how we would develop downtown west that that approach seems to make sense for us to have this. >> Thank you. >> I think um overall I think this is this
is critical. It's critical to to look at all these options. Thank you for putting together all these options. Um I data data has been said a few times. I think that's critical here. I think listening to the residents, the business
owners, etc. I go back to I think our hub of downtown is shifting a little bit. So if we do this central parking area, maybe it's not where we all talked about. Maybe it shifts a little bit. That's okay if it's a block or two of a shift. So maybe it's more central in a
certain area. So there's a lot of discussion. I was just downtown Friday night. Spots open right out here that are not far from Vicks, not far from Winchester and Ry. 20 of them. Nobody parks there. I don't We parked there. I don't know.
It was a block walk. So, I'm just I I don't know why that is. Maybe we need to look at some awareness things and talk about some of those things. But, I'm just giving you an example. Yes, this part was full, but those were wide open and it wasn't 20
below. and all that stuff. So, I'm just giving an example there, but I I agree with a lot of what's been said. It's critical. We need to discuss it. We need to listen. And um I don't think number seven is an option by any stretch.
Microtransit intrigues me for one thing. I think it's creative. Um I'd be curious if any other cities are using it and it's been successful. uh it is expensive, but the way things evolve, I think we're going to be seeing a lot of these options. So, um maybe we
just find out if another city's using it and maybe there's ways to find out without going both arms in and two feet in to see what the potential is even if on something like that. Go ahead, >> Miss Art, please.
>> Thank you, uh council member Reef and Mayor, members of the council. Yes. Um there are cities using it and so for the particular uh company that we uh were talking about to get some cost estimates, order of
magnitude things for you. Um they are not currently operating in Minnesota and I don't think outside of like seasonal trolley services. I'm looking at our community and development community development and econom community and
economic development director. Um I don't believe that there's anything quite like this in Minnesota today. >> Okay. You see a lot of these microransit services like we talked about today in warmer weather climates, but there are
success stories in our northern climates, particularly in Massachusetts, Washington DC, um where they are successfully running these. And there is an option um and it's probably not going worth going back to the slide, but
there's kind of an open air option that they had um that is really great for warm weather. Um and then there's more of a traditional van like option. So you would probably want that in warm or in
the when it's cold out to stay warm. there is an opt option or an opportunity to partner with a warm weather climate to flip-flop what that looks like. So you share you have two vehicles you share you flip-flop because when we want
the warmth they want the the cool. So >> yeah and it it's Thank you. It's intriguing. I I will say it is expensive but I'd just be curious on >> although to that point I just want to so because I think it's intriguing as well
right so on one hand right we know the valet service failed right like but that was $10 to $20 a ride this would be other than how we pay for it right this would be free for you users to use um
also I would say people use Uber andyft and all those things a lot more so they're used to ride share right like those types of services so it might be used more in this day and age it's very I'm very unsure of like how it would be used but just from the standpoint of
cost I mean on the when you look at it initially you're like okay that's expensive but also if you look at it from the fact of 3.5 million which is we're saying on the low end right for a structure
it would take 23 years at $150,000 for this to reach 3.5 million, right? And so this as we've talked, right? Like we may eventually say we want that parking deck, right? But we might not be
able to connect it because of the timing with the Ganon project. this would that would be an option to give us time to say okay let's do this for three years until you know whether it's I'm just throwing
names like whether it's the V VIX and the old Victoria house right they want to redevelop right now we have a bigger tiff district that's ready to go and now we can build that parking structure to me it's an intriguing from an option of
it gives us a little bit of time Um, but it's hard because like and that's maybe where community engagement comes because I'm like will people use it, right? like and I'm like but again like if there are you know if staff can look at things like
you know are there grants or anything out there that would help offset the cost Greg brought up right like instead of doing one of those like is there a self-driving car option out there that says hey we want to come to Minnesota this is a super easy
you know it would be like you know from Lions Park to downtown right set stops I mean it's just going back and forth like would they be like we'll give a deal to test it out here, right? Like to me, those are the things as an interim type thing to do. Not
saying for 23 years to do it, but saying are this is this something to help in the interim, especially during the time when people might not want to drive through construction to get down here. If you can leave your car at Lions Park or the
rec center and not deal with having to get across it, right? Like and have someone else drive you over here. That's where it's intriguing to me as a stop gap for a couple years until more redevelopment happens so that we can there because, you know,
would it be great if we could get it connected with the Ganon project? Yes. But I also don't think it's fair to ask them to put off their permit when they've been working on this for three years um
to hold off to get this done right so that it can be done right now. Like I I don't think it's fair to the developer to do that when they have right like I mean they've worked with us from the beginning, right? Like we know that their original project was not popular. they came back and found something that
we have got very little, you know, negative reaction from. So I to me like I'm glad Miss Hardy mentioned right like we have till 2029 for to expand that tiff district because I think it gives us more options when
other things redevelop. >> Other comments from >> building off of microransit to me it feels like that's for a larger city. Um, if we did do it, I think it would be a nice pilot program for how do we commute from downtown east to downtown west to
southern growth area to try to get some level of participation with all those folks moving around. >> Well, that's that transit could go right like it could go it doesn't have to go right downtown. It could go it could >> right it could take you to Omni. It could take you to >> My fear is that it just won't be used.
And that's where like it's like it could be a pilot for one year and if it's not used then >> I think it's intriguing. I think with the first and foremost though is to like start let's make datadriven decisions >> use our resources to get the data ahead
of trying to be advant to say almost like hey we're trying it out. there's better uses of our taxpayers funds to go towards you giving us the things that we need to deal with the problem at hand so that we understand the problem. there's there
seems to be some you know um reticence about what is our actual problem that we're trying to solve and have we been given a solution in search of the problem which is something I don't think that we want to >> but I guess my comeback to that would be it's not cheap to do these studies and
we've done these studies before and they are the way we look at them says we don't have a parking problem it's a proximity but we keep being told we have a parking problem. So that's the hard part for me to do another study to tell us that we don't have a parking problem
and then we get right then we still hear from the the residents and the business owners telling us we have a parking problem. >> I mean I think if you accept that premise then the bottom bullet point no action is our best course of action here which I I don't know if that's necessarily the uh what we're what we've
been engaged to do here tonight. So, um, yeah, I mean it's intriguing. The these are certainly things that we can, you know, have reasoned discussions about and, you know, rank order where we think the highest and best use of the the time
talent and and what we want to accomplish. So, and then certainly in that I think we back to code review. I don't know if I've touched on that that there is there is a component of what's going on in our parking um pressure is that while the
regional trail is a lovely gift to us the community I mean that that is just gold to us that there are people who are coming and they're not residents of Victoria that are using prime spaces that are putting pressure on the very
spaces that the businesses need to run and serve their customers with are being consumed by, you know, what I'll call transient people that come to Victoria, they discover it, and that's great that they do bring us additional business. But if
we can seek uh an ordinance move or signage that directs that traffic and that parking elsewhere in some of the places currently as council member, you know, pointed out that just aren't being utilized so that we can take some of the
pressure off of spaces that are the proximity aspect of the problem that direct. All right. Go ahead. >> I would just say to follow like I don't know if anyone else said they agree, but
I I do agree with you that it would be nice to have a you know if it's a separate meeting, if it's a workshop one day, like to have, you know, public feedback to come in and talk and plastered all over social media so we can get it as many people out here
because I think that's the it's always the hard part, right? like you do hear from the public that says yes we have a parking issue we need new parking but then when you actually tell them some of the options and it's like well we can build a ramp but it's going to raise your taxes this then it's like well I
you know like so I mean that's why we're here right to make those tough decisions but you know it's not always as simple as just like we'll create more parking right and and we have a very unique downtown where it's it's long and it's narrow and we're blocked by Highway 5 and So that's where some of this where I
believe I agree with you again is that it's more of a proximity issue than it is a actual parking issue most of the time. So, and my big concern is is that, you know, a ramp or a deck or whatever sounds great, you know, but two points on that is one, I don't want it
something that's sitting empty four days out of the week and it's only being used, you know, a little bit on the prime nights, but also two, you know, I I still see businesses downtown that say, "Keep it Victoria." And we were
specifically told by people, we don't want to be like We don't want to be these other places with ramps, right? And so it's a it's a catch 22, right? Like there are good points on both like both sides. It's not black and white. It's not simple. Just
build a parking like like we have heard I have heard from a lot of people. I'm sure you guys have too like like there are a lot of people that don't want to r like it's going to ruin our charm, right? and and that's what we want to keep is our charm of our downtown and it
ultimately if we build it right could still make it charming here. Um but like there are a lot of concerns for me about it and again that's not saying we shouldn't do it. It's just >> there is a lot to think about with it the cost and how it affects our
downtown. Well, and you know, we are a growing and developing community and every month, every day, I mean, Miss Marington can tell us people are knocking on the door. They want to be here. They and all of those things change what happens and who's here and
how many places, how many parking spa spaces you need and all of those things. So, um, we have now thoroughly run this thing an hour overtime. So, uh, just to be respectful of everyone's time here and the folks who are on the regular agenda this evening, I'm going to, um,
take a look at staff and say, do you have what you need from council? I think we heard very clearly. Do you want to repeat back to us kind of what you heard and we can >> chime in. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. This is what I think I heard where I think we have consensus. So, um,
couple highle things. Public feedback is important. You want to understand community sentiment. We can do that through some engagement surveys and um is there an appetite to bring back a listening session to a workshop? >> Yes. Yeah, for sure. I I think public
input is super important and I would >> I'm seeing consensus with head nods. So, we can do that >> and sooner rather than later on that one. >> We can definitely prioritize that. And then I was also hearing um some updated data to help make datadriven decisions.
So knowing what the data says. Um so would there although you didn't specifically say that would there be support for a revised utilization count that also looks at the capacity percentages with what's coming online and what's here since our last update in
22 >> and what was the cost of >> Yeah. I mean for me that's like five and six. And I'm not sure >> I'm not sure how those all break down but I think that's needed. And I mean, for me, you know, part of the listening
session, you're going to get you're not going to get anybody who doesn't care about parking. You're going to get everybody there that wants a parking deck. So, it's going to be 90% attended by people want it. Um, that's just what I think we'll get. But, I think that's good. Um, I think the community
engagement through the other services is huge as well. Um, I don't know. I just I just want to make sure we're not missing out on an opportunity at this point. And I think this is a time that we need to get as much information as we possibly can and do the right thing for those. Can
>> I ask you because you keep saying you don't want to miss an opportunity like are you saying that you want the Ganon project to delay if it it comes to that so that we can get them in the tip district? >> I don't think we can legally do that. Can we? >> No, I don't think so. But
>> that be that would be up to them to decide if they wanted to delay for it for some reason. I mean, we went through quite a >> Well, we tried to get an e we had got an easement so that we could build this thing and then we have opportunities now for other sources of funding. I'm not a
tiff expert, but I just feel like if everything's being constructed right now in that area, we got Highway 5 under construction, is this the right time to do it? >> That's the opportunity. >> And I think that what I'm hearing consensus wise is no, it's not the right time. We we should be more
and we uh it would be disingenuous to delay the project to give her time to look at alternative structures for the ramp. >> Fair enough. >> So, you're you're comfortable with that revised utilization count that cost us
approximately $12,500 and we do have funding in our budget for um roughly that for unplanned projects. So that would fit in that. Um the other option for you would be to use your shared parking funds um to fund that. So
we can talk through that or think through that later. But that's that those are options. I also heard that as um that you would like us to take a look at some of those levers that we discussed as part of the parking code review, but I did not hear you say to accelerate that. So that'll just be
we're not back burning it, but it will continue to be um evaluated and we'll bring that forward as we bring forward all of the revisions unless you otherwise specify acceleration. >> Yeah. Parking study that you or whatever you want to for 12,000 like so that was
the one though that we would wait want to wait till summer to get similar data. Is that >> if you if council wants to be able to compare more apples to apples it would be a a summer project. To me that makes sense anyways because that that by that time the old Victoria House hopefully
will be opening right and then >> uh the Mexican restaurant >> we'll have two new restaurants so that will give us better data on what it looks like >> and then um parking education enforcement to our parking >> that was my next one. Yep. I've I've got
that and then the number of p parking violations. So getting some data back on you so you can >> Thank you. >> Does she work though? So like what are her like is she out at t right because the my guess is the worst times are at night right so her hours are >> during the day right
>> council member Roberts mayor members of the council yes so she is mostly dayshift um however we do have the ability to flex her time based on um specific projects or you know if there's events going on we also have in our
police services contract the ability to use um county cso hours So different type of cso than what we have here. Um and so they could do parking enforcement on our behalf. Um that's written into our contract. So we could do that. We also can leverage our deputies. So just
because we're focusing on CSOS doesn't mean that deputies cannot do that work. And so um our deputies have we have 247 coverage here. So that is something that I can take back and talk to our new sergeant um about what that looks like. The other big thing is, and I I was a
bit shocked when I saw the numbers that you gave, is the employee parking down here. Uh I mean, is that just more education and discussing with the business owners like you really need to get I mean when I was
in high school and college and worked those types of jobs, right? Like you always parked as far away as possible because you let the people coming for business park close, right? So I um I just like Right. And you had the buddy system at night when you were >> I was gonna say there's a there's a
safety piece of it. So it would be a buddy system. >> I just I'm curious is that just like what we would be talking about is discussing with those business owners to hopefully get them to park a little bit more on the outskirts. >> Yes. Uh Council Member Roberts, Mayor,
members of the council, we can we can certainly we can certainly do that. >> Okay. Um I have a request for Mr. Sakor to address the council. >> Thank you. >> Please quickly members of the council real quick. Only thing I want to point out is the opportunity you said uh that
we're missing and if we uh as a city establish district with a project then we can harvest those funds to bond later five years. If we don't then it's gone. $1.2
million approximately that we can use taxpayers to fund that bond. If we don't do it, that 1.2 million's gone forever. Would it delay the project? No, it wouldn't. >> Doesn't need to. >> It's well, it's it's a 90-day process.
Minimum. >> 90day is probably maximum. You can accelerate timelines. You certainly can accelerate timelines. >> I'd like to hear from the >> Miss Hardy. Can we I I know there's some statutory requirements. So, thank you. >> Sure. >> Please, Miss Hardy. members of the
council. Um, and I have spoken both with our legal counsel and our financial consultants about this and so the timing, yes, there is opportunity to shave off some time. Um, the the state law allows for that. The reality of how
that plays out is that there's minimal to be gained. So there is a in the process part of the requirement is to go to the to inform both the county and the school district that this is happening.
Here's a project. Here's our request. They have 30 days to respond to the city. We can request that they wave their 30 days. If they're going to do that, it needs to
get on a formal agenda. There needs to be done and submitted in writing. And so when you look at the practicalities on when those meeting times are, when the notice requirements are, it might shave off a week or two if the stars aligned.
Um, but it's generally 90 days for either establishing a district or modifying a district. The other thing I just want to mention again to council is on the timeline. I had talked about you
could certainly do go through the steps that it would take to capture the Victoria condos. Um we could do that as the city without a private application. That cost would be ours. It's 30 to $40,000 to do that analysis, go through
that process for legal and consulting fees. And the risk to the city is that if the building permits are issued for the condos, you can't do anything with it. So the it's a tight timeline based on where Victoria Condos is in their
process looking at pulling permits in the spring. And so we're right up to that timeline. So, you could certainly say, "We're willing to take that risk and we could do that, but you you may be taking 30 or $40,000 and if those
building permits are issued, you're not able to do anything with it. So, that is a risk for the council to consider as you weigh that that request." >> Or if this is important enough for them that they want us to rush this, the business owners can pay that fee as we've asked them before. That is another
option that that co and that cost for that analysis is historically been paid for by private applicants and not the city. >> One quick other point is that this capturing this in a expanded tip
district for roars does not obligate the city to build in that specific spot. That's not the objective here. It's to capture >> taxpayer available funds >> to be used for parking. >> Yeah, >> it could be used over there over It doesn't really matter as long as it's
>> within the city. So, >> yeah, understand. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Ben. I guess I just would add that I I'm not comfortable taking the risk because of the timing of everything, but if the downtown business owners would like to, right, since this is involving
their projects, if they would like to do that 40,000 then or 30 to 40 then that's my >> I'm not up for risking 30 to $40,000 when it I don't think it's going to the timing is going to work.
>> Okay. I'm I'm not either. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I think I'm I'm in agreement with Mayor Council Ma Roberts. The there there are risks and you we've started this discussion that we're not exactly
sure that we have the data to support making that decision. Did you even do that in the first place? Risk to the development timeline. There will be other opportunities to uh you know advance use of tiff if it's appropriate for it and certainly
you know, not delving into too deep of a thing. The Roars project is a 15-year TIFF and uh to try to expand that out another term adds risk and it's just that much further off in the future that
we get tax revenue from that project that we desperately need that we'll need for future financing of projects that will need to. So, uh, we need to have a longer view on what the city of Victoria
needs here. You know, we we we talked about it ad nauseium. We have bonds that we have to fund for the fire station. We have highway five contributions that we have to make. There will be other things that will come along in the future that we'll need to deal with. Uh, we need to
keep our powder dry with respect to that. So, >> well, and if I felt like this was the only opportunity for the next five years, I would have a different view on it, but I I just don't feel like it is. I feel like we've got other opportunities. And, you know, I we've
got other opportunities. >> I'm in agreement with that as well. I think there's other opportunities. I I will say uh to Mr. Sakura, thanks for bringing up the locations of the parking because I think again I'll go back to >> our central downtown has shifted and it
will continue to shift and that's what we'll be finding out too in these so uh further studies. So I appreciate you bringing that up. >> Well, we know where I stand. Um I would go for it but um I try to do some sort of combined um funding of it but four to
one it's not going to work anyway. So anyway, there you go. >> All right. Um, anything else from council? >> Just one thing for Miss Hardy. Um, I thought that in your presentation materials there was uh the ability to insert survey questions maybe up to a
possible total of three is recommended. Uh, I didn't find that cost to be exorbitant. So I reflect back to you council. Would that be something that might, you know, is another data point for us to be able to get it and I feel like
>> I feel like we're going to learn some things from our public listening session and I want to use that information to kind of inform do we want to dig deeper in our community survey. >> Agreed. >> Any other thoughts? All right, let's
wrap this up. Um, so that's the entire agenda to come from before the body this evening. So I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We will
take five minute break and then we'll be back here with our regular council meeting.