--------- Good evening. It's 5:00 and I call to order the workshop of the Victoria City Council. Our workshops are informal. So with that, we're going to get we're going to dive right into our agenda. There's two items on the workshop agenda this evening. And the first is to discuss proposed 2026 fees and charges
and our preliminary 2026 general fund budget and levy projections. So kicking us off on that topic this evening is our assistant city manager and finance director, Miss Trish Pollock. Miss Pollock, the floor is yours. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. This evening is our
third workshop and the final workshop before we um certify our max tax levy in September. The first topic is fees and charges for services. Sources of revenue are primarily
property taxes. As you can see 82% of our revenues. The charges and services include permit revenues, facility rentals, and intergovernmental revenues such as police aid and grants. And the other 2% is interest earnings and other
miscellaneous refunds and reimbursements. Criteria for adjusting fees includes market comparison which are set at the mid to upper cortile of the market cities. Um, some fees are also set by legislation such as the international
building code for our building permits. And many of our fees are cost recovery and self-supporting where possible. How do we project revenues for that 18% that's not the levy or the franchise fees?
We begin by looking at the three-year average. So in this case, our three-year average includes 2022 through 2024. Then we look at our year-to- date for 2025 to determine whether or not there are any trends that have been changing.
Our largest revenue for services is building permits, which can be pretty difficult to predict. However, we look at both the available lots in the city and weigh in projections from the build building department and planning staff to come up
with an estimated number of building permits to project. So, for 2026, we're budgeting 144 new homes, which is the same as 2025. The reason that that amount was
increased um for dollar-wise is because our average permit amount has been trending higher than previous years budgeted. Additional factors include department head recommendations for changing fees
or for added services such as the park facilities line and park donations. uh the park and recck directors plan to add some programming for 26 and also outreach for donations so that those
line items have been increased. Do you have any questions about any specific revenues for >> I just have a comment. I would uh handicap what we think our interest on investments is going to be in 2026.
I think the trend is clear that there's going to be a push for lower interest rates for short term and there's the market seems to be um reflecting pretty strongly that the Fed will cut rates this year and then continue to do so
throughout 2026 and if we're exposed to short-term interest rates we probably will see a revenue decline in that. So I think have an abundance of caution. uh I wouldn't be increasing it but uh at best to flatten maybe we take some off just
to uh forecast that that could be an impact to us. >> Okay, I'll take another look at that. I know um I normally budget the interest pretty conservatively just because of the >> okay >> the changing of the market. Um but I'll
take another look at that. >> Right. Nobody has a crystal ball, but I >> right >> there are there are bets for a decrease at least to 25 basis points in the next couple in in the next month in September. Maybe another 25 in December
and then conservatively figure on maybe three more of 25 basis points by all through 2026. So stepping down. So we could be 125 basis points lower. >> Yeah. >> If if the tugof-war forces, you know, went out in that direction. So,
>> yep. I'll take a look at that. Any other questions about revenues? >> I'm I go let's go back there for a second. I'm just looking at at these things where we have our three-year average and our preliminary budget. And there's a couple of places that kind of
stand out as maybe some places we could shave a little if we needed to. And one of those is building permit fees. The other one is mechanical water and sewer permits. I know we want to be conservative on those because we feel like it's slowing down and I'm wondering
if if that's what you're taking into account here. The other one is these plan check fees which um you know consistently we we generate more money than we budget. So I'm trying to
accommodate that a little bit. Um yeah, that's that's definitely always a consideration and it is difficult um to predict what those are. The plan check fees can vary quite a bit depending on the development that
they're working on. If there are homes that are like model homes that are like repeated, then they get a discount on the PL the plan check fees because they're they don't have to review the same plan over and over and over again.
So, it's really hard to know um in the year ahead how many of those there's going to be. And um sometimes we estimate a little bit too low and sometimes we've estimate a little bit
too high. So, um, yeah, it's it seems that if we if we go with the 144 homes, which is what our building department feels comfortable with and our planning department feels
comfortable with, that these are the numbers where um we should be landing because we did increase them per per building permit as well. Um, but are you thinking that they should be higher or lower?
>> I'm I'm thinking um they should be lower, which would lower our overall levy and you know, just kind of in the interest of trying to find some places to maybe give give ourselves a little bit of a haircut, this might be an option. So, if we lower them, then we'll actually have to increase the levy
because we'll have less out other revenues. So, in order to in order to get more money and less on the levy, we're gonna have to increase some. >> Understood. Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. We were looking at a different part of the pie.
>> Yep. So, if we're looking at expenditures, I would agree with that, but this is a little bit Yeah. Where we did actually increase, as you can see, over the 25 budget because we did end up with a surplus revenue on the billing permits last year. So, we did increase
it knowing that as well if we did come up short, we do have the revenue stabilization fund that we could supplement that >> that shortfall with. Um, so that was kind of the thinking on where why we
landed where we landed. Very good. Thank you, >> mayor. Members of the council, if I could just make an additional comment on the plan check fees. Thanks. Um, and and Trish said this, but I think it's important just to pause and say this out loud, too. Um, a couple of years ago, we
did actually make uh an intentional decision to actually reduce uh that fee. So, those fees used to be a lot higher and we did this because of the efficiencies that we gain operational. So, um, as Trish talked about initially
when we're setting fees, one of the things that we look at is cost recovery. And so, we want to make sure, um, as especially as it relates to housing affordability, um, and the new homes, we want to, of course, make sure growth pays for growth. And so, we're recovering our
fees, but we're not looking to make money on them. And so, um, when we have efficiencies operationally, we do look at how we can pass those savings on. And uh the plan check fees is one of those areas where as we were uh as we became
more efficient and Trish had shared with you that um with the plan check when you have um the same model we're not charging the same amount because we're looking at as long as everything on that
plan is the same um then that those savings are passed on. It's a basically a bulk discount that is passed on to the developer and we hope that they are passing that on um to whoever purchased the home in that savings. We don't know
um of course that's the private market. We don't know if that's the case, but we feel that we're doing our part um to ensure that we're um not adding to the housing affordability um challenge. >> Thank you. All right. Any other
questions on this? All right, carry on. >> Okay, so then sorry. So these next few slides are going to detail out the changes to the 2026 fee schedule. Um
this is not including water, sewer, and storm water. We're going to talk about those enterprise funds in November. Um, so this first slide is community development changes. So the business subsidy application fee is increasing
$1,000 um as is the escrow. that escrow um is going up um significantly and that is to cover the payment that we pay to Northland, our municipal advisor, for
conducting analysis for TIF and other business subsidies that um people are asking for. Um that way then we have the money up front and we don't have to collect it through an invoice later. Um
and then a new outdoor dining public parking rental. Um there was a rental fee per ordinance for use of public parking spaces for this season. Um zoning compliance, fences, sheds, and
retaining walls are all existing permits that are being increased due to staff time and cost recovery. The encroachment agreement was previously listed in the fee schedule but didn't have a charge. So, this is just to correct that and make that
update. And then the early grading agreement is a new fee this year as well. Any questions on community development fees? >> Well, and just just a comment, some of these fees haven't been increased for quite some time. Correct.
>> That's correct. Yes. like can you give us a >> um I would say many years probably >> since I can remember and I've been here 13 years so >> Okay. >> Um yeah it it's been quite some time. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> And this slide is the Victoria Recreation Center changes. Um there's an increase in fees to the gymnasium rental. Um, the advertising kiosk is being restructured to allow for more options.
Dropin pass for youth under 11, skate rentals, ice arena party rentals, and open skate are all new fees this year. Um, new offerings. And then the multi-purpose room is increasing its fees to align with our
market cities as well. Any specific questions on Victoria Recreation Center? >> Yeah, Miss Hardy, please. >> Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I just want to um I I know we had some discussion last year because we
did increase the um our fees for the recreation center last year. Um, and so we we had heard from you that there really wasn't an appetite um to consider increasing fees for recreation center memberships for this year. That being
said, you do see a new drop in pass for residents and non-residents for children under 11. Um, and the reason that that is um is because they will not have access to the gymnasium. So, we're slightly reducing that fee, creating a
new fee. Um, so they're not paying for something that they're not having access to. So, I just want to uh clarify that that piece of it. And the skate rentals are would be new.
We're not currently doing that. So, that would be a new re revenue stream uh for for the city. It's not a that we're currently offering. >> So, can I just had a So, we don't offer skate rentals currently.
>> That is correct. >> We're going to bring skate rentals in and then charge $5 for it. >> That would be the plan. So the fee it would be proposed but that there would be further discussion about that because that would be an increase to the service
level and the amenities that are offered. So you still have to make that decision but we wanted to pull that out here um as a potential fee. So you could see that there is a revenue stream that goes with that. >> Um >> is that something that we would do or would we bring someone in to manage that
function? So our from what I understand our park staff particularly our front desk staff would be managing that on our behalf. Um so we would not require additional staffing beyond what we have just for that service.
>> Okay. So but to be clear we don't have skates today. >> That is correct. >> And then >> so we got to purchase. >> So we need to acquire skates. >> We need to staff skates. We need to disinfect skates. Do we have a sense as to whether or not that's really a $5 per
pair revenue or are we going to break even at best? Um, do we have a a sense of this projection like or put another way does it if we're not going to have revenue from it,
are we going to break even? um if we're going to lose, is it something that's a service that the citizens of Victoria really would find attractive to enough that we would be subsidizing it through the general fund
budget and for, you know, through the park and rec budget. >> Um >> I'm okay with skate rentals as long as it covers our cost of acquiring, maintaining, replacing, disinfecting. you know what there will be they will
wear out they will need to be replaced they'll need to be sharpened is that a is that a value proposition for the city that makes sense >> miss Hardy please >> thank you mayor members of the council um we will bring that information back to you with that larger discussion so we'll be happy to answer all that great
I don't have that the answers to all of that but yes we will absolutely do that >> $5 yes $5 seems low >> to me >> well I mean it has >> with all that stuff Right. It seems >> it might seem low, but it might seem that it's not going to get done at all.
In which case, we would have bought $14,000 worth of skates. And I'm throwing numbers out there. And you know, will we will we rent enough pairs in open skates to be able to >> Yeah. >> make that a venue that >> and we will we will have a business plan on that option coming forward. Wonder
how often do we have the rinks available to even have open skate is the second question because we don't generally have free ice time. So it might not even right we could say we're going to do it but if there's no free ice then that's a problem. So >> it's a good point
>> and I >> I fully understand that I I made Jenna's day very bad tomorrow. I get it. >> All right. All right. Anything else on this slide? All right. Go ahead, Trish. moving forward. >> Great questions. Okay, next slide is
park and wreck. Um, so they are planning to restructure the Lions Park pavilion rental um to be able to book a specific time frame. Um, reason being that it would allow for
more rental options. And then the Charleston tune band stand is increasing its fees and the picnic table and memorial benches are increasing to cover costs. >> Okay. So this is if someone wants to
donate, this is what the their charges are. >> Exactly. >> To donate a picnic table. >> Correct. Yeah. Because the costs have gone up and especially with the concrete um the price to put the slab in is very expensive.
So, just one question here on the timing and stuff we're looking at. That's pretty tight timing. Are is this same day stuff? >> Yeah. So, their plan is to have um one of the park and recck staff go and clean between the 2 and 3:00 time frame.
>> Wow. Okay. >> That's pretty aggressive. Um but I mean it I'm not saying it can't be done. I just when I see an hour that's pretty quick turnaround. >> Yeah. Might take a team instead of a person. Okay. Any other questions on this?
>> Mine not really like I I only see like Monday through Thursday is they're not weekend. >> So the the fees for the Friday through Sunday are not changing. So I just put no change under the 25. >> Okay. >> Um because I was running out of room on
my >> understood. All right, Miss Hardy has a comment, please. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Great questions on all of these. So, um, so this is something and and I had lots of questions around this and so, um, hopefully we can answer some
of the questions. My understanding is that, um, the half-day rentals will not be available on the weekends and so it'll only be during the day. Um, and right now the way that that this is scheduled is that if a city or the Lions
or somebody were to hold an event um in the more let's say 8 8 to 10, we have a training up there, the city has a training up there. And the way that the system currently is set up is that that once that's booked, even though it's going to be available for the next 6
hours after 10:00, um it's not able to be rented out. And so, um so during the weekday, we'll have an opportunity to gain some revenue even if we're using it in different capacities. Um and um the
in between there's not a a larger demand until uh we get into the um we'll call them call it like the senior uh graduation parties. Um then I think there may be uh a little bit of a a rush
to get things cleaned up. But one of the things that the staff were keeping an eye on this year was how much um how much what type of work and how much work are we doing in between to do the cleaning to see if this is even reasonable. Um and so our understanding
is people are have been very respectful um with the pavilion and do a nice job um cleaning up after themselves for the most part. it's the emptying of the garbages, um maybe a a quick cleaning of the bathrooms. So, they have not um at least those who have been renting it so
far, um have been respectful to the building and in leaving it in good condition. Um when we do have our cleaning company come in and do the cleaning, we are charged $90 per cleaning. And so we did not think that under this scenario, if we were moving
in this direction, it would be um an option for us unless we significantly increased that cost. And um we would likely because that would be outside of our contract, we'd likely and during the day would likely be charged more for that service. And so in order to do
this, we had to make a decision to bring that inhouse, that cleaning piece. Um and so this would be to trial it. uh for one year and then if it works we'll you know we would be gathering what's working, what's not working. Um so it's
possible that this would go back to the way it has been um if it's not able um to work out the way that we think. But this would be an opportunity for us to make that beautiful building available to more people during the day, especially during that higher demand um
higher demand season. Do we have any data on uh I mean I'm sure we do. The use like non-resident versus compared to resident. I'm just wondering if if we want to raise the non-resident a
little bit higher and make it more I mean it's busy in the summer and we maybe want I mean obviously if it's we don't want it to sit empty either but I feel like our residents are using it a lot and so if that helps our residents get more access to it because the non-resident
fees are a little bit higher I >> I can I can get that information from Jenna Just a thought. I just >> Good to know. >> Other questions, comments on this.
>> All right. And then there's just one change in the admin section um a new fee for the one day consumption and display permit um which is $25. Can you that one day cons? So that would
be like a >> Yeah. >> When the lions have their fish fry and they have alcohol there. Is that what that what what is that? >> I'll let Claudia and status give us an example of this, please. >> No. No. Council member uh Roberts. The
consumption and display permit is when someone like the Lions or a different group um wants to bring in um hard alcohol or
let their members bring in hard alcohol and not charge for it. That's what the consumption and display is for. >> So they wouldn't be making money off it. It's basically just letting people bring their own >> and that this is required by state
statute. >> Um so and the fee is what we are allowed to charge by state statute. In the past we have not charged for that. Um so yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. I just confusing on
what that was. >> Yeah. Good good point. >> Thanks for clarifying that. >> Okay. This slide's looking at our utility franchise fee fund. Um, it's a 10-year projection 2026 through 2035.
The original undergrounding debt service will be paid off in year 2031. So, um, the green there, you'll see that most of the increase in our fund balance um, will be realized um, in 2032. um we'll continue to increase our fund
balance for more undergrounding projects over the next five years as they um approach. And then the other debt service payment that you'll see is the 160,000 that's left in those last four
years is for the park debt service. Uh staff are not recommending an increase in utility franchise fees at this time. Any questions about franchise fees? >> So everything like so the 300,000 drops
off in 2031. Correct. >> Correct. So >> so that's the undergrounding debt service. So is that 300,000 uh is 140,000 of it the underground and the other 160 is the was >> correct. I mean it varies a little bit
year-over-year because the principal will increase as the interest decreases but yes approximately. >> Okay, understood. Thank you. >> Any other questions on this? Okay.
So now we'll take a look at the updated 2026 general fund budget and levy. So the June preliminary budget levy projection was 9.26% 26%. After considering guidance given at that
workshop um from council, we're proposing a max tax levy increase of 9.96%. Um reminding you that that does not mean that your property taxes will increase by that. That is just a year-over-year
difference um in the tax levy. What are the proposed changes from June? The top two um lines are for training opportunities for the community development director um to participate in the compass peer training. And then
the second line is for the city manager if she is elected to the government finance officers association executive board. Um she will need to travel to Washington DC. So, we would remove that if she's not selected
before final um budget. And then the elections is to reprogram the DS200's. And uh the city received the notice of the levy for the Lake Mitaka Conservation District um since that last
um budget workshop and they have increased their fee $8,459. So it went from 20,000 to just over $29,000 like a 43% increase.
Um they stated that the increase was due to they went back to the amount that the levy was in 21. So they had lowered it for three years um to use up some
surplus reserve funds. So now they're reinstating that. And then also they are hiring an executive director position which is going to increase their personnel budget significantly. >> Do they not have an executive director
currently? >> They did have one and now they're getting another one again. They're reinstating it is what the letter said. >> So not adding but >> reinstating. Yeah.
Um the next line item is um because of the big beautiful bill um they included an exemption of a portion of overtime pay for individuals that are non-exempt. So this would include our public works personnel who currently
have the option to elect comp time or overtime. So, we can expect that we'll see fewer people electing comp time um and instead wanting overtime pay since it will likely be tax exempt for them. Currently, the comp time they use their
bank up before the end of the year, so they get more time off, but we're not paying that out um in cash. So, um, we've included 15,000 as an estimate of what it could cost, um, for some additional employees
to have overtime. Um, and then the final line item is the balance of the amount that we needed to hit the 9.9% levy goal. Um, the trail maintenance is definitely a need. Um, there's a great need for additional seal
coating and um, maintenance on the trails. So, um that's where that amount went to get us to the 53,700 um that we needed to hit the 9.9.
>> Okay. Questions, comments? >> Okay. I don't think I have any comments on these, but one thing that I'd like us to have a discussion about is this. This is the time for us to set our fees for 2026 and after this the window closes
without any kind of special council action. I'd like us to consider the thought of increasing our fees for parkland dedication in lie of land from these developers. We have seen, I think
over 2025, a repeated no, we won't dedicate land to these new subdivisions that we're plucking down and developers are paying the fees, paying the fees, paying the fees. So, there's a value equation for them in doing that. We are
not getting the land that we make these justifications that we have these concentric circles around parks that we have. And you know there's you know we make these value judgments on hey you know this many this distance is close
enough for a park um I feel like we are missing an opportunity to start shifting the direction on those decisions and if if those are the decisions that are being made then they need may be more expensive decisions and
the reason for that is that when that happens and the the case is made that there's another park close note by closer by. What we are doing is we are systematically increasing the demand on the existing park space that equipment wears out faster. That's more money
that's coming out of our general fund budget at some other point in some ratcheting up the budget to cover for that what was more or less unplanned depreciation on the existing equipment. So, um, I'd like us to give
consideration to raising those fees so that we can bring in more revenue from that and either get the land we need or then then let those fees pay for the increased burdens that are being placed on the existence.
>> Okay, Miss Hardy, I think there's some some restrictions on this, right? >> There are, mayor, mayor, members of the council, and council member Iansky. um we hear you and we'll we'll bring back um this item if there's council consensus to do that to just talk a
little bit more about park dedication and the requirements around that. I think it's a it's really good even with all the development that we're having just for the general public to be aware. So, um and I can certainly appreciate what you're saying because that is with all the parks and trails that we have as a growing community, um maintaining and
investing in what we have is very important to us. So, I certainly am hearing you. Um but the state law does require that the fees are proportional to the the need that that is um that the need proportional to what was created by
the development. So um and it restrict when you're taking park dedication fee in lie of land we are restricted to use those only for new park amenities and new parks. So we're not able to use those funds for park dedication.
>> Understood. um or park maintenance. >> And in the places where we have had new land dedicated, we have empty fields. So if our idea is to program those new spaces, then we need money for those new
spaces and and we should if if we're restricted by statute to put them into new facilities. those new facilities aren't getting built, then it just goes and reinforces my argument about the existing facilities taking on more burden because there isn't the resources
to uh keep those afloat. So, I think it's like uh madame city manager has said, it it bears out a discussion. Um, but I think we we would be remiss in how we're treating the citizens of Victoria
if we're not paying attention to this and and going for that revenue stream while we have the opportunity. >> All right. >> I I agree. I think it does warrant. It's a healthy discussion to have further and we're a growing community. So, um, to your point about the parks get
overburdened, 10 years ago, this probably wasn't as big of an issue, right? just weren't as big and you weren't seeing the growth and so I I think it I'm sure there's you're gonna bring up the statutes and things like that, but it's a healthy discussion to have.
>> Do we have any sense of park usage? >> It's a great question. Mayor, members of the council, just to be clear, do we like who's attending our parks, how often they're >> Yeah, I would say I mean if
>> and I think this goes to um as we think about how we how we are programming our parks and how how they're being used, you know, do we have 20 neighborhood parks that sit empty,
>> you know, the majority of the time? Um, do we have um park equipment that's not being used? Um, I you know I that's always been a question to me because park maintenance
is very expensive and um so that's always been a question to me about you know are they being used? Are they being used in the way they are currently programmed or is there some other things that we could be doing? And um that might be a good that might be a good project or a good question for our parks
interact department or committee to kind of figure out how they're being used. And I know you guys have do do some pop-up park stuff. >> That would might be a good opportunity to have a full discussion about parks.
And I would just say too, you know, yes, if we don't build new parks in certain neighborhoods, neighborhoods that have parks are getting uh >> tax, you know, they're being used more, right? So, yes, but if we b build more parks, that means we need more people to help take care of them, right? So,
there's an extra cost there, too. So no matter what we do, there's going to be an extra cost because it's either replacing the older stuff that's getting overused because we have less parts or if we have more parts, you're going to need more people to help take care of the public works and such.
>> Does do we separate out the public works staff that is uh benefits parks? So like there's the the So we know what park and wreck the parks cost us. >> Yeah. So um great question, mayor. Um,
so we have different departments and when the public works staff is filling out their time card, they are allocating hours to these certain um pay codes which are then um going to those specific departments and park
maintenance has its own department. So yes um we do have we have the amount that they that they cost. >> That might be an interesting exercise to look at what that looks like year-over-year. Yeah, Miss Hardy, please. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. The other thing I'll just add
is we did take a park survey a couple of years ago. Um, I think it's been a couple years now, and I we did ask some of the questions that were raised here this evening. So, when we bring back the discussion on park dedication, I think it would probably make sense to maybe
package this as just a parks conversation. Um, and we can bring back some of that survey information because we can look at it through a different lens as we're talking about this budget and our the future and how we want to set oursel up for future success here with our park. So, we'll bring all that
back for a future discussion. Um, and then we'll have an internal conversation as long as um you're okay with this to either bring that as a separate conversation or maybe we'll package it and bring it when we talk about the capital um budget. So if unless you've
got a preference right up but otherwise we'll take that back and and look at it and bring something back for you for sure. >> And I know it's extra work but it would also be I think introspective for us to know in comparison to our neighbors
i.e. Janhass, Chaska, Wakonia. What is the park space per capita of our communities? And there a couple ways we can look at that, right? We can look at, you know, um,
park acreage per person or number of parks per person so that we can get a sense as to are we really heavy on parks, are we light on parks? Lakes and parks isn't our name. We I think it helps us to know that if how we're doing
in terms of you know our neighbors in in that space to frame the discussion about you know do we have a good balance or do we have are we overparked are we underparked >> yeah I think that's a good conversation >> and I think in you know we had this
conversation it feels like many years ago uh but you know like even just you know is it we don't need as many neighborhood parks and those communities But we want more destination type park parts, right? Like I think the variety is nice, right? we have, you know, and when we were looking
at our southern growth area, that was one of the things we considered was, you know, do we want more of that destination park that you see like in Maple Grove and and places, you know, like where there's a lot of different stuff that might because we have a lot of neighborhood parks and it feels like
in the past at least, I don't know about the recent uh uh survey, but you know, they I it felt like, you know, people were asking for more, you know, different things in, you know, more of those destination type park type. >> Yeah.
>> And I think we're encroaching on the topics that would be part of a parks study, which we we've we've made a conscious decision as council to not spend that money to answer those questions now. So I I want to be
sensitive to staff's time and focus on that. of just, you know, like high level quick hits, you know, an in-depth paid park study, which is we all know is quite an expensive venture. And we felt like there are better places for our
funds right now. But just this a little bit more of generality on how um a small view of one of those segments that report could could help guide us. Thanks.
>> Okay. Great. Okay. So, this slide um shows the breakdown of the projected levy. Um so, the general fund is um actually being reduced slightly from 25 and then the
um debt service is increasing um due to the fire station debt payment. So, there was one issuance that dropped off and then we added the fire station. So, the fire station's about 1.4 4 million. Um, so we um end up with that 9.96%
levy. What does the 9.9% increase in the city's levy mean for your property tax bill? So, at our June meeting, I showed you the top chart with the preliminary market values from the county. Those values didn't include the adjusted net
tax capacity which is calculated based on property classification and it also didn't include the fiscal disparity numbers. So the bottom chart shows the updated numbers received from the county last week and we did receive about
$30,000 extra um increase in fiscal disparities and have an increased tax capacity. So both of those lower the tax rate. So as you can see um in that bottom chart, the tax rate is projected
to be flat compared to 25. Um and just a reminder from our June workshop that there was an overall market value increase to residential home values of 4.76%. So people will see that market value increase affect their overall tax bill
but the tax rate is only um moving about 07% at this with these numbers. Any questions about this >> questions? Just going quick. So, so if if I have an assessed valuation of a million5, my
taxes are only going up by $11. >> That's correct. The >> Yes, that would be correct. >> We're getting a new fire station and your taxes are only going to go up by $1. >> Good. It's a fair deal. >> That really taxes >> that really shows
>> portion of it. >> It really shows what that tax capacity does with that that that tax rate. So, it just shows, you know, we don't really have control over that that tax rate because it's really all driven by the tax capacity and what the county sets
for evaluations. >> But it but the other thing, um, Greg, to your point about this, um, you know, we we had to undertake a new fire station because of our growing community is paying for a lot of that. >> So, it's a good point.
>> All right. Okay. Um, yeah, we don't know what the rest of the school districts and the county and all those folks we don't yet know. >> But that bottom chart looks a lot better than the top chart. >> It does indeed. >> It does. Yeah. That that tax rate um
definitely makes a difference. But then um just again reminding you that you know people's values likely increase depending on their home um could have increased which then they will see that valuation increase which then their valuation is being at that rate. So just
to >> explain that. So here's what we're looking at from past present levy changes. The outlook for 27 um right now would be about eight I have 8.63%.
Um there's a couple of road projects that we'd be issuing debt for. If those go um we're not 100% sure and whether or not they happen to receive another funding source. So um that number could go up or down depending on those
issuances. Um and then 28 and 29 um we're looking to stay pretty steady um right around that between 3 to 4%. So, as stated earlier at our September 22nd meeting, we'll have to set our max
tax levy, which needs to be certified by September 30th, and we cannot have a final levy higher than the preliminary levy. So, um this is um where we will um
present to you at the next meeting um based on your feedback and then um we'll continue to discuss and refine um the levy throughout the fall to see what we can um reduce it by if any.
So, that leads us to a couple of slides of council discussion. Um, we had a question at the last workshop about what would the taxes be if we didn't have the new construction tax base. Um, so I um took took a look at that in the medium
value home taxes would go up an additional $60 a year um and the tax rate would increase. So, um this does show that growth is paying for growth. um it is reducing um the overall medium
home value um taxes with that growth. Um the next point um of discussion is the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition cost of $2,500 a year. Um staff would like to ask council if they
want to continue to be a member of that um coalition. Okay. Are is there another question too or is this >> I have more questions. This is the only question about the transportation coalition. >> Okay. Let's let's talk this over a
little bit then. So um the Southwest Quarter Transportation Coalition is a coalition that um Victoria has been a member of off and on. Is that fair enough to say? For probably >> 20 years maybe.
Um um and it started kind of with the um expansion of 212 and the coalition has members from Eden Prairie all the way to the border of Minnesota and um you know we have been supportive of this as a as
a quarter of commerce. Um it does come through our community and it impacts our community greatly. um as we have put together our program for construction, we're going to be through the city of Victoria. So, I think the question here
is how are we feeling about continuing to be a part of this coalition and supporting the expansion west of us at the cost of $2,500 a year. And these folks make a trip to
Washington DC on an annual basis. um they they do meet on a monthly basis. Um so it does cover some administrative costs and some travel costs. >> Do we think there's any benefit? Right. We so we do still have need funding for
the downtown portion of Highway 5. Will that be a help for us with that? >> Yeah, Miss Hardy, please. >> Thank you. >> Your opinion about this? >> Yeah, thank you, mayor, members of the council. Me, Council Member Roberts. That's a great question. And so they
have a long history, this organization has a long history of doing some lobbying work in Washington DC um and at the state level on behalf of its membership. Um and um they have been active in the highway five. And so I
think any opportunity that we have to get in front of our uh legislative delegation on the federal and the state side I think is um has been beneficial. I think that we're seeing that in um just with the highway five project with
um all all the funding that we have gotten with the different um approaches that we have taken and the county has certainly played a big role in that on our behalf. Um SWCTC has also been active in those conversations and those lobbying efforts and so I think there's
some value in continuing to do that. Um but the question would be um do we think you know is there value in doing it through this membership or do we feel like we're better off um taking those funds and doing that on our own? I think that is one of the the questions that is
out there. Um, I think if you were to choose not to do this, um, and do lobbying through SWCTC, I would encourage you to consider keeping the funds in there rather than reducing your budget so you can continue to do those efforts um, on your own. And that said,
they do they are well connected um, and they do uh, do a lot of that scheduling and because of their connections, we're able to get meetings um, perhaps easier than we could on our own. um because they have that name recognition and
continue to do that. The other piece to look at is into the future um as they focus out west. It's a matter of just do we find we city of Victoria, do you council members find that um does this investment as continue investment and
lobbying for that going west of here benefit our community broader the region? Um, and so that would be another um another way to look at it that is does the regional draw and do regional improvements actually um make things
better for our community and for the um $2,500 a year that you're investing? Do you think you know let's say we didn't uh continue to do this right and we have the 2500 so you're saying right we could do it
ourselves but do one does staff have capacity to do that right for or if we're find someone else to do it on our behalf it doesn't feel like that 2500 would probably go as long of a way long of a ways as it probably does here and I
guess I'm just with what we have still to do here It probably makes sense right now and maybe in another year or two. It doesn't. I mean, I feel like a couple years ago we didn't because the focus was really 212, right? Like 212 and it didn't make sense for us at that time be
part of it. But with all the road construction we have going on, I feel like it's a pretty small amount. >> I agree. I agree. I think this is well I think it's worthwhile to spend it. Um it does have a regional impact. They have had it for a long time. They're well
connected. Um I I feel like this is is something we can pay forward. >> Yeah, I think to your point too, uh Chad, the $2,500 we could use it directly, but would it get us as far as this? And this is an
annual decision, right? It's an annual membership. You can >> It's not like a fiveyear commitment or >> Yeah. So you're >> Well, I I think that like for all the reasons that we said about way five. That's those are all good reasons. I
think we need to think forward about where the next fight is going to come. And if if I had to place a marker on where that's going to be, it's going to be County Road 10 and the expansion through there. There's, you know, there's going to be the railroad is
going to have a pretty strong lobbying effort to want to keep doing what they're doing. Um there's high tension lines that are going to want to keep doing they're doing. Uh there's the interconnectivity between County Road 3 which is in our south growth development
area. I mean that's the next place that Victoria is going to grow. So if we feel like this being part of this, you know, can put resources and manpower on on that next area that we're going to face challenges. Um it's probably like we've
all I think consensus Well spent on whatever that consensus on that. Thank you. >> Perfect. My last slide of questions. Um, does council agree with the proposed changes to the revenues, fees, and charges?
Other than maybe the couple of questions that we're going to circle back on with you, the skates and whatnot. I'm feeling I'm feeling comfortable with where we landed on those. >> Yeah, >> I do. I do as well. >> I feel like we have we're all
>> likeminded on it. >> Mayor, members of the council, I'll just add um Thank you. I'll just add that um you won't actually adopt your fee schedule until December. And so there's plenty of time to revisit this if you learn more information or if you want to
revisit anything. So we certainly have ample opportunity to do that between now and when you would adopt this um in December. And that adoption is done by ordinance. So there'll also be a public hearing. Um so there you may be um
subject to hearing from public comment on these things too. That might help inform your decision when that time comes. >> Okay. >> So maybe the question is do you have enough information to know what areas we want to dive in further on? >> Yes. >> Through this discussion. Yes, that yeah,
that was good feedback that you gave um earlier and it does help to know as we are budgeting for some of these increased fees. So, if there was something that didn't feel right to you or you had questions or more concerns
about then it could ultimately affect the budget which is why we ask at this point. Well, and just as an example, and I think I brought it up earlier on the Lions Pavilion, I love the creativity. I I love the option, and we can see if it's a workable solution, and if it's
not, >> go to where we were before or another option, >> think it again. >> Great creativity. That's >> agreed. >> Great. >> Okay. >> And then, um, does council wish to proceed with the max tax levy of 9.96%.
Yeah, I'm good with >> I'm as well consensus on that. >> Okay. And then finally, what additional information would be helpful um to the council's policy decision making before the final max tax levy is approved on September 22nd? If there's something you
want me to bring back to you with that um preliminary levy vote before you vote, is there anything? I from my standpoint, I think we've given staff enough direction on the things that we have interest in and
get a viewpoint on. I >> agree. don't feel like we can add anything at this point where >> I I know in a previous meeting we talked right so the there was been a large
uh increase in the cost with the um yard waste dump and I guess um I'm curious now that that it's been a few months I guess right that we've changed the access to there have we seen
a big reduction uh in I guess I'll say legal dumping uh that is hopefully bringing our costs down. Um yeah, I guess that's >> Yeah. Um great question, Council Member Roberts. Um yes, it has. Um it has
solved a lot of the problems for with that um illegal dumping from contractors. um we're not seeing those trailer fs coming in and out throughout the week like we were previously. In addition, we do have that um very visible security
camera out there. So, that may have helped deter um some people from dumping illegally. Um, while we continue to have some problems here there, it's it's it's definitely been reduced to um in
comparison to where we were at. So, >> it's good to hear. >> And then did we I know we've had a I guess a couple of storms where we've had some high winds. you know, I don't think it's probably at the level as the last year, but have has that been a significant like has that been an increase from last year at all with the,
you know, public works having to pick up all the branches and down tree stuff? I I think last year was a really bad year if I remember right. Um, so we probably haven't hit that, but I know we've had a few. >> Yeah, I I can look at where we at our year to date. Um, I know I walked by
there last week and they had just emptied it like the week before and it wasn't like piled up like I've seen it in some some in just over a weekend. So, um they did open it a couple days like right after those storms during the week
to allow people to come in and and more conveniently get um rid of some of their compost, but overall um it's public works hasn't reported of any like excessive dumping or >> Thank you. >> Yeah, that's
>> good to hear. Appreciate it. >> Okay, I'm not seeing anything else from council on this item. Do you have anything else that you need from us, Trish? >> I do not. Thank you very much for your input. I appreciate it. >> All right. Very good. >> Thank you.
>> All right. We're moving on to our next item. We'll let the um planning staff get in place here. Item 2.2 is to discuss a proposed new residential zoning district, which would be called the R1A Oldtown
um district. And presenting on that this evening is our associate planner, Travis Brierly. Good evening, Travis. Welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Can you one second and get this pulled up? >> Yeah, go ahead. Whenever you're ready.
And these are the wrong things. There we go. So tonight um we're going to be talking about just a overview of a proposed R1A zoning district which is similar to um our R1 just in a smaller area. Uh just background with this uh
this is a all started with the zoning amendment request that was made for a change to dimensional standards for R1 which uh the city council uh voted to not adopt. uh and this is an alternate solution that um has been asked to move
forward for review. The process that we're looking at is uh going to the planning commission which we gone to the planning commission on July 15th as well as last week bring it to the city council tonight for a discussion on it. Uh we will need a public hearing before any of this passes
and then council consideration we're looking at uh sometime in September or early October to bring it back if everything keeps moving forward. The goals of the R1A district is to focus on redevelopment and not subdivision development. So this single
property development instead of large parcels, 4050 homes and and up from there. Uh the main focus of the R1A is to make the principal structure of the home being the focus of the property. So, keeping that single family look uh
that traditional as well as creating reasonable design standards to match with the neighborhood that is available or that is in the R1 area. Going into that, our R1 area is is basically this map. It's south of five um and going
down north of St. Victoria. If you look, you'll see that the neighborhoods are uh subdivisions going all the way back to 1914 in the area. So, we're mainly looking at the areas that are in red plus um a little bit uh down in the south with the with the deed helms
edition back in 1995. Couple things that we're looking at for the affected parcels is everything that's in the in the gold is would be the new R1A. Uh there is a property off Quamlit that is right now zoned as R1. We'd be looking at reszoning that to
central business district uh an apartment building so it better fits within that district. so it can become a standard formatting. Uh to the south along Patunia, there's a property that's currently R1, just north of the R3. Moving that to an R2 would make that
duplex property conforming. Uh we do have kind of the overall effect of the rules for this area. The majority of the properties on the left are underneath the shoreland zoning. You can see that by um the shaded area with the blue dots on it. Um, so they still still
have to follow shoreland regulations and all those rules. And then we have everything that's not in there that has a better potential. And then you'll notice that there's different colors on different parcels. When we start looking at the dimensional standards for the minimum lot dimensions, the parcels that
are in green that are on the right side could be split into two parcels. um the one that's in in dark blue in the dead center that could be split into two parcels, but it's still slightly affected by the shoreline regulations, primarily the impervious surface coverage that's available. And then the
two parcels you see that are highlighted in red, they're large enough to be split into two parcels. However, shoreline regulations would not allow for that to happen as the minimum lot size is much greater than our current R1 standard. And then we have the the two parcels that are in the off blue colors. They'll
just kind of highlight uh parcels that need to be reszoned. With that, they wouldn't be able to be split and they wouldn't be affected by anything that we did with the oldtown residential zoning. So, I'm just kind of getting into everything. Uh the intent, like I said, is for infill redevelopment
opportunities. Uh we want to maintain similar construction in the existing homes, i.e., we don't want to uh 4,300 ft home sitting next to a 950T Rambler. It just it's out of place. is out of character. We want to avoid that. We want to allow for the smaller lot
sizes as well with that for smaller front rear setbacks. Um we also want to allow for more var various housing stock within our comprehensive plan. Our R1 would allow for twin homes and duplexes. However, R1 does not. So the R1A would allow for twin homes and duplexes to be
placed there. It's a way that we can improve or improve the the use of the property by building something on there that generates a greater value of the property which ultimately helps the city in the longer run. When looking at the comprehensive plans, we have the 2040 comprehensive plan. There's no changes
we need to do that with that. And then with the 2050, we would add in the R1A as a zoning district. Um, and then our future land uses wouldn't be affected either by that. Uh there's a little bit of word tweaking we need to do, but uh through the planning commission, city council in the next several years, we'll
take care of that small change. Uh we also looked at the shoreline ordinance, reached out to DNR. The DNR will not adopt any variances to their requirements for the city for the purposes of this zoning. So they all still apply. When we are
looking at the biggest thing that we're probably looking at is going to be the dimensional standards on the screen in front of you. Um, we have the R1, so our general single family low density. So that's our current standard of a 12,000 foot lot, 80 ft wide, 130 ft deep, as
well as the setbacks in there. Um, with the R1A for a single family home, we'd be looking at 9100 square ft. And then shrinking the lot dimensional standards, 75 ft if it's a corner parcel and 65 ft if it's an interior parcel. also taking
the lot depth and dropping it from 130 to 110 ft and then reducing the front and rear rear setbacks by 5T while still maintaining the 10-ft setback on the property. And then with a twin home, same idea, uh but making a smaller
parcel and then duplexes um would actually be a larger parcel of 14,500. Those square footages are based on the densities that our comp plan has between the two and a half and the six units an acre. So when we look at twin homes, those are single family homes on two
parcels with an adjoining wall. A duplex is a single building on a single parcel and that's why it's twice the size and that's just to meet those density requirements. >> So repeat that again. The twin home is two single family homes adjoined by a wall. >> Correct. So they'd be next to each
other, but each part of the twin home is its own parcel. >> Okay? And then >> the duplex is >> one building on one parcel. Generally on a with a duplex building, you'll stack the units, but the units could be side by side as well, but it would just be one parcel for that,
>> but a two family home. >> Two family home. Correct. >> Got it. Thank you. Uh, one thing that was brought up during the planning commission was the idea of taking the 35% imperous surface and allowing that to be created uh, at a
higher number such as 40 50%. Staff did take a look into that. What that would allow to do is to actually build a larger footprint for a home or allow for greater accessory structures to be on the property. U, so that would be something that's considered. Uh staff's
opinion on that is that it could create homes out of place, but we didn't look at an alternate solution, which I'll present later on how we can uh control that if that's something the council would be interested in looking at. >> Uh can we just pause on that though for
a minute? >> The with the idea of 40 say 40% is service. Um we're going to keep sideyard setbacks essentially the same. So, if somebody wants to tear something down and put a
larger square foot home on that property, um that I think the what we're trying to avoid is this like where we see in some other older communities where somebody
drops in like a almost a fourtory house, single family um and then pushes the building out to the edges of the lot line and then that looks like something's just like a like an overgrown tooth in a
>> out of place. >> So, um I I kind of don't feel like with a 10-ft sideyard setback, we're necessarily going to get that feel. So, if we don't increase the impervious surfaces in
these spaces, um and then we would essentially create a toothless dog. It's like, okay, so you created this new um zoning district, but I'm still locked,
so to speak, by not really being able to bring uh you know, the amenities of a newer home into renovating the area, which is I think what we want. We want reinvestment in these older neighborhoods. We don't want to create
something that just locks people into having deteriorating home. So I I feel like okay I'm okay with this deepening of the setbacks, but if the effect of that is it can't be done because of impervious service, then maybe we're
doing a disservice with this. So I I think I hear where the planning commission was going. Um, I think we should give serious consideration to upping that imperous surface as long as with that we are not going to create
increased runoff from storm water affecting the existing neighbors because then that would be clearly something that's detrimental. So, you know, if we can craft things that way, I I think
that from where I'm seeing what we want to do with the intention of this and spur redevelopment in these existing parcels that we have, um, might not be a bad idea because as time goes on, if we
can't get something that works, uh, we're just going to have in this part that we're trying to do an increasingly deteriorating property value in in that part of town. >> Yeah, understood. >> And mayor and counsel, to the storm water point, that was one of the factors
that staff had looked at. When we're considering storm water, there are state regulations that don't allow for any changes to a property to increase the concentration or rate of flow of storm water when it leaves the property. Um when we do look at increasing imperous cover, you might need
individual lot storm water controls. Um the city council um to my understand is very aware of regional storm water ponding. When we're looking at infill development, we'd be looking something at rain gardens or some type of storage area for the water to be on site so that it can uh leave the property in a more
appropriate rate and concentration. The the downside of those type of structures is that they're not necessarily maintained. And after 10, 15, 20 years, that rain garden is now flat ground and didn't change anything because it has been maintained. There could be multiple owners over that time
period. it's things considered. That's it's something that's extremely difficult for the city to enforce uh as far as those maintenances, especially for individual lots, but it can be done and there can be other controls put in place as far as the the size of the home and
those dimensions. Uh towards the end of the presentation, there's some proposed rules uh that we looked at that would stop that from happening. Uh before I move on, are there any other questions with the dimensional standards, the bulk standards?
See none. >> Uh I mean I still have there's there's we're proposing to convert the lake of for lack of better expression. Um a parcel that's in the R1
right now that has a multi-dwelling building on it and then changing that to central business district. Um are are we do we h do we have the potential to create unintended
consequences with that by you know would now turning that into a commercial parcel and then somebody not maybe not the present owner but maybe the next owner says you know I'm going to knock this apartment building down because I think I can put in
something fast food here and then now we have something that is in congruent with the existing neighborhood. Whereas if we allowed the existing uh residential structure to maintain and
keep it in the zoning district that maybe some of the other uses is that if it does get past its useful life, it's torn down and we're creating let's say single family
residences or other um more, you know, um properties that are more congruent with the neighborhood that it sits in. >> Yeah. Mr. Riley, you got to comment on that? >> Absolutely. May Mayor and Council, uh, in response to that, there's pros and cons to doing the resoning. Doing the
currently the property that that's on quote unquote sits as a non-conforming property, and what that means is it means that it would be difficult for the property owner to make any improvements. Um, I've spoken to the the current property owner uh as the prior property owner actually passed away earlier this
spring. Um, so there's some questions on the future of the site and potential improvements and things like that. So if it stays R1, it makes that a little bit more difficult. However, if you go to CBD, it that becomes a legal conforming property and then at that point they can
make the expansions. Um, but to uh, Council Member Vansk's point, that does open it up to where that property then would be able to be redeveloped into something similar to what we have in the rest of our downtown area because it would be underneath the same zoning district. Um, and that might not be
appropriate for that parcel due to its proximity to single family homes and not having Highway 5 being a buffer zone between the two districts. Um, so it's something that there's pros and cons to each way that it could go. uh is the short-term value that we would gain out of it and the property owner would gain
out of it. We're at the long-term risk of causing potential issues in the future. >> Yeah. Something to consider for sure. And at if if something like that were to come forward with the council at that point in time, is it would it be okay
for us to deny that based on the fact that it doesn't it isn't congruent with the surroundings? >> Well, mayor and council, one of the things is that we have certain design standards and review processes within our CBD district. Um, and that goes through planning commission, comes
through the city council. Basically, you can't build anything in the CBD without first coming to the planning commission city council for approval. So, through that process, that could be used as a tool to help at least shape what that property could be redeveloped in in the
future. Um, but that's mainly what you have what the city has in place to stop something the stop of fourstory 60un apartment building that may not fit there and it would just look out of place and everything else. or if we expanded the
uses to um uh restaurants that have drive-thru services, would that be appropriate there? And that's the thing is it it all depends on um unfortunately who's who's all sitting at the dis at the time of that redevelopment and what the uh the community feels about that
type of stuff. But it's unlikely that that building would be torn down anytime soon. But it's always a potential. We can't really control what a private property owner does when it comes to the concerns of their property. >> So I have so if we keep it the way it
is, right? So they have less options of what they can do, right? But if they had an idea, right, they could bring it to us >> and then at that time we could change, >> right? Could we not change? >> We could change the zoning of that parcel >> at that at that parcel at that time to
if if it >> if if that idea met what we thought fit the neighborhood better than just open. >> Correct. Mayor and council, one of the one of the wonderful things that the city is allowed to do that has >> was we can choose our own zoning or land
use and it's something that there is a little bit of oversight on. But when it comes to the zoning, because that parcel is adjacent to current CBD, we can change it to the central business district at any time. And this is one of those things that we don't need the consent of property owners to do. I know
that sounds strange and weird, but that's one of the the ultimate authorities the city council does have is they can make that decision. Well, an alternate use could also, you know, if there's a compelling um
reuse, it could come as a conditional use permit. >> Could it not? >> Is as council member, as far as the proposed use on the site? >> Wait. So, let's say we dispense with the idea of turning it into CBD. Mhm. >> It stays in the air one, but because of that proximity, could that owner bring a
conditional apply for a conditional use permit to sort of change or or or bring an application to council member? Not necessarily. What they would want to do is apply for a zoning text amendment. So that would
affect all the R1 or all the R1A to allow for that type to go in. At that point, we could put a conditional use permit on it. But it'd be it'd be my my opinion that leaves down a slippery slope because we would be affecting the whole thing and that's why we're looking at R1A today instead of looking at
making a zoning text amendment change to the entire R1. >> That makes sense. >> Okay. Any other thoughts, questions? >> All right. >> Um, as as we go through this, uh, a lot
of the stuff that we're going to look at for our principal accessory uses already allowed in our R1. The main difference is twins homes and duplexes get added to the R1A. Uh there's a lot of words on this page, so I thought I'd simplify it, but basically uh what all this breaks down
to is limiting how accessory structures are are placed and built on residential properties. Since it's a lot of words, we'll just break it down into the simple changes. Um, for the R1A, it's being proposed that all accessory structures, whether attached or detached, can't have
a footprint greater than the footprint of the principal structure. So, if you have a footprint of your home where the foundation's 1,000 square ft, your attached garage plus any shed or any detached garage or anything like that can't be greater than that, thousand square ft.
Currently, what we have is we say that attached accessory structures, we don't have a limit. As long as it's attached, you can build as big as you want. meet the impervious and you're fine. Um, detached is 900 square feet is permitted and then up to,350 square feet is
permitted with a conditional use permit. So, this sets a standard where if someone is to redevelop a property, they have to look at how big they want the home versus how much garage space that they want on the property and find a balance to that. Which goes back to limiting how big a home is going to be
as well as limiting how big a garage is going to be. trying to keep that focus towards the single family home or duplex or twin home, what have you. Um, accessory structures heights wouldn't be greater than the principal structure. Under our current code, the height's 35
ft. The home could be a single family rambler and you could have a 35 ft uh detached or attached garage and that's well within our code. This would limit it. Yet, going back to the house should be the principal thing that you see when you look at a property. um getting rid
of metal covered storage buildings or pole barns. Right now we don't have a restriction against that, but that would get rid of uh the opportunity for someone to put in a metal shed, which when you have smaller lots and every closer together, you have to think about the noise that's caused by rain, wind,
storm, and other debris that could be bouncing off that. And that could be disturbing uh to neighbors or could be disruptive, and we'd want to avoid that type of stuff. Um you must have a principal structure. So, if you're going to split a property, that could be split
and it's going to leave just a garage on one or a shed and that wouldn't be allowed. You'd have to take down the shed until a principal structure is attached unless that shed is part of a building permit that would come into play to actually build it. So, the main reason behind that is you just don't
want to have a garage or a shed left on a parcel that could hinder its ability to redevelop because the whole point is to redevelop to something new. and increase the property values and the look of the feel of that neighborhood. The other thing that we looked at was
inner module containers, the shipping containers, conxes. We have a lot of people who are moving into Victoria. We get a lot of calls from pods and other shipping companies that want to drop off um a conx or shipping container and we've had requests to have it there for
a weekend. We've had a request to have it there for two weeks, things like that. What this would do is it sets a limit saying 48 hours. Now, it doesn't necessarily seem like a lot because that's not an entire weekend. What happens, this falls underneath the zoning code, and so it' be a zoning code enforcement action that' be handled by
staff instead of law enforcement. So, upon a complaint of one of these containers sitting in someone's yard, we go through our normal code enforcement process, but it still allows that flexibility, still allows some discretion um at the staff level to to resolve the issue of that being there in
violation of the code. Right now, we don't have any restrictions. Basically, as long as it's not put in put in the uh street, you can throw it on your property. >> What's magic about 48 hours? >> 48 hours is a determination between when
we look at vehicle standards between the between how long a vehicle is parked compared to when it becomes storage. So 48 hours, 72 hours are the two numbers that are generally used to define that. Uh, so we try to stick with either 24, 48, or 72 hours when looking
at a standard. The 48 hours is just an arbitrary number that was thrown in. Um, there's really if it needs to be longer, shorter, or completely removed, it's it doesn't have a whole lot effect. It just depends on how the city council
would want to see that type of language enforced. >> Yeah, I I favor going to 72. I don't think we need it longer than that, but I think 72 is fair. >> You're I concur. >> Yep. >> Trying to move >> takes a long time. >> Yeah.
>> One quick just clarification. So detached or attached. If you've got a thousand square feet, it just has to be a thousand or less. Doesn't matter if it's detached or attached for the garage. >> Uh is that accurate, >> council member? I think I understand what you're saying. So if the home
itself has a foundation, >> so let's say it's a thou the foundation for the home is 1,000 square feet. Yep. >> It has a threecar attached garage which is going to be 650 ft. >> At that point, now there's remaining 350 ft worth of foundation for your second
accessory building to be placed on the property. The current code only allows for one of two, so up to two, excuse me, uh, between a detached, attached, shed, um, and other accessory structures. So, we're not changing the limit of two.
We're just redefining how we're determining how big a the accessory structure can be in comparison to the home. And we want to make sure that the home is >> the the main reason structure. >> Yeah. That that's what you're looking at. You're not looking at the garage first and then, oh, there's a home attached to it.
>> Got it. >> Something like that. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, we did look at uh some conditional uses uh as well and these come from some of our R1 standards. One is accessory dwelling units and we do have in the
proposed language part of the entire zoning review. There's similar language of this already placed in there, but we want to make sure that attached access or accessory dwelling units are counted part of the principal structure, meaning that it's part of the footprint. It's got to meet the setbacks, that type of stuff. It's detached, meeting detached
setbacks. Um, it does count as an accessory unit. So, you wouldn't be able to have, say, a detached ADU and then have an attached garage to the principal home and then another garage that works for the ADU because then at that point it'd be three. That'd be too many. The
point of a single family home or even a duplex or a twin home is that there's just the one principal structure. We don't want an accessory structure being used as a principal structure. Um we also looked at off- streetet parking requirements and uh one of the things that we're proposing there is that you
have to increase by one space to accommodate that ADU whether it's attached or detached. The biggest thing that we want to avoid is getting into a situation where there's not enough off- streetet parking. And when winter rolls around and we have a storm, we get put in a position where public works and law
enforcement have to start making decisions on towing vehicles or the quality of plowing and just staff time and resources. It's probably the biggest thing in there. The other thing that we looked at is daycare facilities, which there's a lot of the state regulates daycare facilities. So, we don't want to
get into those regulations on our own, but what we can look at is we can look at parking and we can look at play equipment and we can say, you know, play equipment has to be in the rear yard of the property and not in an easement. That's something that makes sense. It's in the backyard so that when you're driving by, you're still looking at a
house, not necessarily uh it's not a new horizon. It's it's your it's your family daycare. um in there for parking. Uh making sure that if you have employees uh that are bringing out of the daycare that there's parking off street for
them. Um and making that way we don't have disruptions with flow of traffic and we don't have more parking generated on residential streets taking away from the other neighbors in the neighborhood. One thing that is being proposed um and that we looked at with the planning
commission last week was pos potential design standards. In here, the main things that we're looking at is the relationship to adjacent buildings or maintaining a similar design standard. So, when you do build a home, it has to fit within the neighborhood. If it doesn't fit within the neighborhood,
what would happen is that that would be reviewed by staff and if we felt that it didn't, we would work with the applicant to to have it there or they would be able to go through an appeal process through the planning commission and the city council to get a final judgment on does it meet that standard. Uh the other
thing we looked at is making sure the uh primary entrance is towards the street. uh a lot of older homes uh built, you'd have the driveway on the side of the home going to a detached garage if there was a detached and you have the entrance to the home on the side of the house, not on the street side. This would say that any redevelopment has to go with
the more modern standard where the entrance is facing the street. Uh in addition to that, uh minimum use of windows on the front wall facing the street at 15%. 15% is easily done. We haven't had any applications that have been below that. But what that does is
it would is it would potentially stop a redeveloped property from having a home placed on the site and it's a front door and a bedroom window and that's all that's on the front. We still want to try to encourage that more modern look to fit in with the development of houses
over the decades to come. Uh a private front yard requirement. This seems a little weird, but basically what this says is that you can't guard a gnome all the way to the rightway. you have to have space between the street and your
house that is an actual yard. Um so that will stop the basically putting in those front yard gardens. We do have a couple in town. Um some look really nice, some don't. It's all a matter of opinion, but this would just be a way to stop that type of activity from taking place. Um
and when we look at uh similar building materials for accessory structures, if you're going to put in an accessory structure, whether it be attached or detached, um you would be required to make it match in a similar design to the the principal structure. Currently in our residential zoning, if the you only
have to do that when the building gets to 200 or accessory structure is 200 square feet or greater, then we require that, which is common throughout any code that I've looked at. But this takes it a step further and says if you're going to do an accessory structure, you got to make it match because we're
trying to find something to modernize without taking away from the historic feel as well. Uh the other part to this is the tree preservation. When you are redeveloping a property, it's encouraged not to take down trees that um provide shade for the adjacent properties or if
you have we have older trees. We have trees that are over 100 years old on some of these properties. we shouldn't be cutting them down to take down a house is basically what this regulation says. Um, so with that, that's that's the giant overview of the R1A zoning and
some of the changes. Uh, a few of the questions that that staff had is one, uh, do the proposed accessory structure regulations make sense for the R1A? Uh, based on other applications that we've had and things that we've heard from the community, are the restrictions uh, to what can and can't be built within the
R1A reasonable? So that kind of goes to uh your design standards and layout of it which is something that we don't have in any of our other zonings except for the CBD and then should we allow for the increase of impervious surface uh knowing what uh we discussed earlier.
And with that I stand for any questions. >> Thank you so much. You did good work on this. Um I think um aside from the couple of things that we brought up during the presentation I think you did a great job on this. I feel like it it sets us up really well for redevelopment
in our um more our older parts of town and I think um the accessory structure regulations make sense to me. Restrictions are reasonable and impervious surface. I think as long as we can figure out where we we go with
that extra runoff, I'm I'm okay with increasing the permitted amount on a case-by case basis. Council, any other comments? I think I'm struggling just a little bit
with the concept of the private front yard if um I mean there are a fair number of homes in Victoria where people have chosen to have their front yard be a garden and I I get that in some cases it's not
terribly maintained but in vast majority um they are and I'm a little bit reticent about that much of a restriction. Um, I could see maybe cutting that to something
about 50% of the yard. So that there there is some yard but if I think that not not that I'm you know a heavy proponent of you know protecting the pollinators but that that is part of some of the appeal like people want to
to go that route and uh and especially in some of the older communities there there seems to be a bit more of a prepundonderance of that. I don't know if I want to reach to that depth of restricting that or, you know, cut it
down to give it, you know, that it's not impermissible, but maybe snug up. >> Um, you know, how how much that uh would we be willing to
>> because right now we're saying that we're not tolerating. >> Yeah. So, is there a happy medium for that front yard that we could allow? >> Have you seen Travis, have you seen some alternate language that might accommodate council member Ivansky's concerns? >> Mayor and council, one thing with this
is there's there's a lot of different ordinances that have been being looked at or especially over the past year. And one of the things that we looked at, we actually reached out to the city of Edina because they have a really big green thumb and a really large green initiative. And we were actually talking to them about pollinators and about
different regulations they have and what they see and issues and good things and whatnot. And a pollinator is a maintained area. You're getting rid of noxious weeds. You're having professionals come in taking care of that type of stuff. It's maintained. It's not just growing grass to grow
grass so the butterflies come around. Um, so with that, we've worked with them and that's something that we're going to be bringing forward and within the nuisance code uh to see if there's anything, but that's still a ways away. So, there is that mixed into it. Um, as
far as just going in here, that's the main thing to stop is that. But if we did allow for pollinator gardens or regular gardens or for what have you to be in the front yard, the other thing that would regulate it is our regulations on sighteline distances, especially at intersections and making
sure that those items do not create a hazard uh for pedestrian or vehicle traffic. So we have other means if we want to allow this to happen. The only thing that this has is an aesthetic appearance and that's all subjective to uh to anybody who reads it.
and and if the homeowner should choose to do something like that. So, >> okay. Any other questions, comments? Staff, you have everything you need for >> Mayor C. I' I'd like clarification on
the on uh to Council Member Vansy's point. Is that something that the council would like to see struck from these from these regulations because this will also have an effect on >> I mean I'm leaning towards having that yard restriction struck from this. I
think, you know, we it's I, you know, if somebody wants to have, you know, their especially if they're you we're bringing front yard setbacks down to 25 ft. >> Well, >> you know that you're not going to get these imposing
>> and considering we have other means of enforcement if it gets out of hand. >> I guess I'm okay with that. >> Yeah, I am. I as well. It's fine. >> Yeah. Okay. Looks like you got consensus on that then. >> Um, so the next steps going forward,
mayor and council, with this is to, uh, let the city attorney take a review of all the final language, what the ordinance would be. Um, and then we would go ahead and schedule a public hearing with the planning commission to get feedback and take any guidance from uh, the city
manager of anything in between if something should change. All right. >> I feel like we're a little bit late on guidance for Travis on the impervious surface question. Um, I mean I I kind of feel like if we're going to look to sort of promote
the use of these deeper setback the shorter setbacks which would allow larger dwellings to be built. Um the I wouldn't want that to be restrained so to speak by you know the essentially the
the same impervious surface requirement that we have. I feel like we could probably relax that a little bit in these instances. So, um, you know, maybe 50% is probably a little bit on the extreme side, but 40 feels like, um, a
decent balance. Again, subject to, you know, like you can't create a storm water problem for, >> right, >> your neighbors. Um, so, you know, it's it's a review of adequate drainage. Maybe there needs to be, you know, certainly in some of the denser areas of
um I'll just throw out my I'm living in the city of Chicago. I mean, the you you had large impervious surfaces by the time you had uh you know, sort of two garages and in the dwelling and you would need a catch basin to catch all
your rain water before it would flow into the storm source. So those kind of things I think we might want to explore about, you know, what do we do to make sure that we're not creating a burden for our existing neighborhood >> and that'll all be engineered. Mr.
primarily >> uh mayor and council to that point uh something that that I'll be doing is talking to the city engineer as well as looking at various uh recent uh subdivisions which were approved and kind of how those homes were set up as what because those were with the PDS had
smaller setbacks than what we're looking at as well as higher impervious numbers for a lot of the properties. Um, grant those use a different thing. And we'll also take a look at um the properties that we do have in the in the proposed R18 district to see how that could be
affected as far as development, provide some examples, and um if the if the council uh would like, I'd be more than happy to come back to a future workshop just to discuss this point with more detail and better examples prior to moving forward with any public hearing.
>> That sounds fine. You know, if the if the data can support it, then let's let the data I just >> don't want to create something that just we did something it was moot because of this point. >> Yeah, I think that's a great idea.
All right. Anything else? All right. There are no further items on our workshop agenda this evening. So, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> 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. I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned. We will be back in less than five minutes with our city council meeting. Part: 2
Good evening. It is now 6:42 and I call to order the regular meeting of the Victoria City Council. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The first item on our agenda this evening are announcements. Um, just a friendly reminder that the city offices will be closed on Monday, September 1st
in observance of Labor Day and will resume normal business hours on Tuesday, September 2nd. The city council will v visit various city properties and amenities as part of a workshop on Monday, September 8th, beginning at 3:30 p.m. Council will leave from city hall
and will post addresses and anticipated times of arrival as part of the meeting notice posted at city hall. The next item on our agenda this evening is to adopt the final agenda. Uh 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. Open forum is next on the agenda. This is an opportunity for anyone to address the
council on an item that is not on the agenda and not in application form that will be coming to the council at a future date. We have one individual who has registered to speak in advance this evening which is who is Dr. Aaron Radkkey this district 112 superintendent. Miss Rathky, welcome.
Please step forward to the podium. Welcome. It's nice to see you. Nice to see you. Thank you, Mayor, for allowing me to be here. Council Dr. Aaron Rathky. I'm the superintendent in Eastern Carver County Schools. This is my second year, but I was the assistant superintendent for a handful of years before that. So, this is my sixth year
in the district. So, I'm very proud of the work that's going on in Eastern Carver County. I have an opportunity today to share a little bit about what's happening in the district. Number one, we have two priorities this year. Uh always academic excellence, ensuring that we are providing the very best for
our community through our schools. What is one of the things that's such a beautiful thing about Eastern Carver County Schools is it knits our four communities together, Victoria, Carver, Chaza, and Chan. And it it is that one unifying thing for our four cities. The second piece is financial stability. And
and like many entities um financial stability is something we're striving for. It's it's a concern and um we know with federal funding and um state funding for education that there are some challenges in front of us. many districts across the state are facing it
and so is Eastern Carver County Schools. It's not a surprise. I didn't all of a sudden say, "Oh, whoops. We need more money." This has been something we've been anticipating projecting and planning. And when I started as the superintendent in July 1, that was one of my questions that I asked during my
100 day tour, which was what should I prioritize as the budget remains a challenge because we knew that it was coming. One of the things that we do is we uh always do a survey in our community before we decide if we're going to go out for a referendum or not. And just
really excited to report that 95% of our families say that their children is re receiving a well-rounded education that prepares them for our future for their future. 84% believe that their investments in local schools is wellinvested. and 87% of our our
families and community say that they rate the quality of ECCS schools as excellent or good. So, we're really proud of this, excited about the commitment um and the support we have from our community for our schools. Our fi, like I said, our financial
future is is a concern and we want to create some stability. And so I I want to share a little bit about how we got here. And I think that's really important because our community does want to know that we're being fiscally responsible, that we're being thoughtful, that we're investing in the right places, and that we're being we
are looking at our operational efficiencies and making sure we're getting a return on our investment. But we do know that the state has not kept up with inflation. And I don't think my I don't have that graph. Um and it creates a gap. So over two decades we've had uh the state not keeping up with
inflation as things have gone up. So that is one structural issue we just have at the state level. The second is is inflation is affecting all of us. So if your gas tank and your refrigerator costs more to fill to fill, so does ours at the school district. And so there's some concerns there as well. We also
want the very best teachers inside of our schools in front of our students. That's what they deserve. And our industry continues to be very competitive and wanting to make sure that we have the best compensation and benefits for our teachers and our staff so that we can recruit and retain
highquality talent. The only way that we can address these issues is contain cost or raise revenue. And so we cut $5 million last year and are projecting another 6.5 million over the next handful of years. Of course, those are
projections. We know that we can't predict what the next bianium is going to look like from the state, but we do know it it looks like it could be a challenge. This is a dollar bill that we show our community often when we talk to them about referendums because I do know that
our community does expect and want us to make sure that we are prioritizing our students and instruction. And so 80 cents on the dollar is invested in students in front uh stuff in front of our students as well as support for our students. This is really critical and important to our community. Um making
sure that we're being operationally efficient as well as prioritizing students. So the school board decided that we had we had three choices. One was to do nothing um and just contain costs to manage our budget. The second was to
consider what a midlevel ask would be. One of the things we hear from the community often is that you keep coming out, you keep coming out and asking for small portions. So, they were just kind of putting a band-aid and we're just saying um this will mean we don't cut anything. And what we're really saying
is is we want to make some investments in our community and in our schools. And so, we're asking for the community to support us at cap. So the legislature says this is the amount of money that you can ask the community for. 742 would
bring us to cap. That will be $23 a month for a home. That's $500,000. So in 2019 we went out for referendum. The one that didn't pass our median home value was about $ 350. In 21 when we went out for the referendum, our median house
value was about 375. Well, in 25 our median house value is $500,000. So on a $500,000 house, it would be $23 a month. That is about in 1921 and 25, that's been about 20ish dollars that we've
asked through our referendums. One of the things that I've had the just a great fortune to do is spend a 100 days listening to our community. I have talked to hundreds of students this year and wanting to know what investments our school students think that we need. And
so if our referendum passes, we know that we'll be able to main the rem um sustain the high programming um that we have inside of our organization. We are able to serve students who are interested I want to do it like this are interested in the trades are interested
um in woods and auto mechanics all the way to I take you know eight AP classes because I'm really excited to go to a four-year school. We have a vast range of um opportunities for our students. We want to be able to maintain that. One of the things that our community has really
high value in is activities, athletics, the arts, and we have an activities director that focuses on student clubs, on art, speech, debate. That is something that makes ECCS difference. There's hardly any schools in the state that have an investment in that. And our community has a really high value of
that. 94% of our students at the secondary at the high school participate in one activity outside of that bell time um outside of their classroom. That's such a high percentage of students that are engaging. And I believe it's because we are providing them high quality extracurricular
activities that range not just through athletics but also through the arts and activities. And so that we know that kids that are engaged are more likely to come to school. They have a better sense of belonging. And so we want to maintain that high level programming. Here are a couple things that we also want to
invest in that we heard our community talk about. One, we need to enhance our um gifted and talented programming particularly at the elementary level. We've been expanding it at the middle level and I want to be able to sustain that and again sustaining that at the high school. That is a gap that our
community continues to tell us that some of our comparable districts are have a kind of a lead on us and we want to make sure that we can do some investing. Our students and our families talk to us a lot about mental health and making sure that we can support the mental health needs of our students. Um we've added
and invested the legislature gave us a a line item that helped us invest in some mental health supports. Um we they pulled some of it back in 25. It was from 23 investment. They pulled a little bit back in 25 and we don't know if we're going to get it in the next bianium. We did invest in a fifth
counselor at both of our high schools so that we can ensure that our students are having more access. What our kids told us is they when they need help, they want someone they can go to and they love their teachers, but they also believe a counselor is someone that can help them with that social emotional piece. And so we want to we've invested
in that and we want to keep that investment. We also had our community talk a lot of to us about wanting to enhance our career and college pathways. And so we have done some investing in that and want to continue to do that. So not only do we want to sustain what we have, but we also want to do some
investments for our community and make sure that we're meeting the needs of what our community is telling us they think we need to do for the schools if it's not approved. You know, this is always kind of the doom and gloom part of a referendum is that there always are
things to lose. Um, you know, we have two choices. Like I said, revenue, you know, increase revenue or contained cost. And there are just some things on the line that I think really make Eastern Carver County Schools different. Um, it it meets the values that our community has, such as fifth grade band,
that activities director, um, supports at the kindergarten level. Our community wants small class sizes at that kindergarten level and adding more support around our kinders. Um, media specialists. Many districts have already abandoned that position. um we have a
high value of that position. It it helps our students get access to books, write levels, interest levels that they have. Um and we've created um some commitments to that that we would lose. Um also, we would have to reduce some of our gifted and talented and our community is
telling us we need more of that. And so these are tough cuts in front of us um that we don't want to have to make because I do think these are some of the pieces that really um make Eastern Carver County such a a special place and we want to continue to invest.
So the tax impact, and I kind of went through this already, is $23 a month. And we also know that that's the highest we'll ever be because we know our community is growing. One of the things that is happening in Eastern Carver County is we have, you know, a few of our cities are are growing quite
rapidly. And so as the tax base spreads out, we know that the cost of the the vote yes for a referendum will it will decrease over the course of time. I want to make sure I get this in 10 minutes. I love to talk about this. Um this graph
we often show and the blue the light blue at the bottom is our operating levy and the top is the uh capital projects levy or what we call often in eastern Carver County schools our tech technology levy and what this would allow us to do is move up one spot if we
pass or when we pass the referendum we'll move ahead of Still Water. But one of the things that I want to point out to the community here is that these are often districts that are ahead of us that we get compared to quite often and these districts here have been at cap,
that word that I used before for many years. And what our state has said is if we want excellent schools and great programming, our community has to invest. Um that is a structural issue, but it is the it is the realities that we have right now. And so we're excited
about the opportunity to do that investment in schools in our schools. But I also want to just acknowledge anytime we ask our community members to support us to spend money to to invest their livelihoods and something that we have to take it really seriously and want to make sure that we're providing
the promise that we're making through the referendum. And so trying to really map that out clearly of what the benefit is and what the um reality would be if the referendum did not pass. One of the things here that I just want to point out as well is like maybe you're wondering why does Hopkins have such a
big um amount of money. They just have more industry than we do. And so the tax burden is shared in the community with industry. It's one of the beautiful things about Eastern Carver County and it's one of the hard things about Eastern Carver County when we talk about referendums because it does it does lay
on our homeowners. So, uh, voting starts November 4th, and of course, as you all know, um, mail and ballots has, you know, quadrupled over the last handful of years, and so those things start September 19th. You can
vote in person. Thank you. We are going to be at the Victoria Rec Center for this opportunity to vote on November 4th. uh if we wanted to make sure that the council was informed that you had information from Eastern Carver County and also want to make sure that the
community knows if they have questions um they can go to our website. There's an email address. We also have a phone line so you can just leave a voicemail and we will have a full presentation two times for the community that will be lengthier than this and give a full scope of what we're planning on doing a
little bit more about Eastern Carver County Schools. There'll be one in person and one virtually during the day. And so there's plenty of opportunity for us to inform the community. And I just want to acknowledge, you know, the loss of the newspaper is just a challenge to make sure that we are informing people. And one of the commitments that we've
continued to make is that our cities, our communities know what's in front of them so that they're informed voters, not trying to hide. We want to make sure that we're informing our communities so that they can support us and make an informed decision. So I I can I'm stand for any questions that you have, but I
just want to thank you again for the time tonight. Thank you, Dr. Rathky. Any quick questions for Dr. Rathky? All right. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the council on an item that is not in the agenda and
not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date? All right. Seeing no one, we'll move on to the next item, which is the consent agenda. Consent agenda items are routine administrative and do not require deliberation or are housekeeping items
that are required by law. They're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Uh starting with Miss Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent items for a separate discussion and vote this evening? None from staff. Madame Mayor, any members of the council wishing to pull an item from consent or any members
of the audience? Seeing none, I will uh entertain a motion for the consent agenda. Please. Motion to adopt the consent 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. Moving on to our regular agenda. The first item on our agenda 6.1 is to consider granting a new cable telei television franchise to Comcast. Presenting this evening is our
IT manager, Eric Shy. Mr. Shy, welcome. Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Um, on April, sorry, one minute. On April 28th, Victoria Council held a public hearing to consider applications from Comcast and Midco for cable
franchises to provide services in the city. The council directed staff to negotiate with both companies using the existing midco or mediacom franchise as a template to ensure consistent terms and conditions among competing vendors.
Negoti negotiations focused on key aspects like build area service area buildout construction standards customer service and financial protections for the city. Comcast has submitted a financial application that we feel is
substantially inferior to the city's existing agreement with Mediacom and competing proposal from Midco. Initially, Comcast Comcast proposed serving the entire community. However, Comcast reverted to a limited service model. Their current proposal includes
several terms that the city finds unacceptable. Limited service area commitment to serve only two neighborhoods where they have built um infrastructure unrealistic expansion clauses and uh community support.
After consideration, staff advises denying the adoption to grant a new cable television franchise agreement to Comcast. I'll stand for any questions. Um we also have our attorney, Mr. Vos, in the audio or available as well as
well as Carly from Comcast. Okay. Uh, council member Vos or Attorney Vos, how are you this evening? I'm doing well, mayor. Thank you. Excellent. This is your area of expertise. Uh, so we are looking to you to shed
some light on this for us, please. Yeah, Mayor. I'm happy to to weigh in on it. Maybe we can start with Carly Warner, Comcast representative, is here. Um, I have uh my my default mode is always uh it's fine to hear from applicants. I think you typically
proceed that way as well. I do want to and it's in this case, mayor, it's going to be your call whether you want to hear from uh Carly or not. There isn't a legal requirement that we continue to hear from the company about this. I just want to point out, you know, for for your edification and in deciding if you
want to hear from Carly and for council deciding that um you you see from the the updated report uh that I've raised this question about sort of when when is the input going to stop from Comcast, right? we got some late breaking input
uh immediately prior shortly prior a couple days prior to your last council meeting where this was scheduled to be heard decided uh and it that communication raised a new legal uh issue that we hadn't previously heard about hadn't been raised before and I
responded to that uh as you see in your packet I respond to that saying we're going to consider this we're going to consider this new legal issue that's been raised but this needs to be it now right we can't just have new things being raised right before each meeting where you're going to decide, you the
council are going to decide what you're going to do with the application. So, I have said that to the company uh in writing in the in the letters that you see in the packet. So, I just I want I want to abide by the concept that I've laid out and whether you want to hear from Carly or not, I want to abide by
the concept that we can't continue to hear about new things uh each decision on the application. So, I'd leave it to you if you do want to hear from Carly. Can we just limit it though to hearing about a summary of what what
Comcast believes has been submitted to us? I don't want to hear about new issues at this point. We've said we're not going to hear about new issues. So, I guess I'd like you to have my back on that one is what I'm I think that's fair. Miss Warner, if you would like to address council, please step forward.
Please state your name and for the um for the record. Yes. My name is Karly Wernern. I'm with Comcast Cable Communications. Uh, and thank you, mayor, council members, for hearing from me um tonight. I appreciate
Bob um what or Mr. Vos, what you uh have laid out here as um the guard rails. I will say though that I do disagree with your version of events in the fact that I thought what we were doing was
negotiating a franchise per the um council's instructions last time I was here um and then was told you were going to deny our application and so when I was going back and forth I thought we were in a negotiation phase so forgive
me I did not understand the process that you had laid out Um, and so I don't believe it was that I was trying to throw new issues. I thought we were trying to get to a solve. Um, but regardless, we are where we are now. And, um, you know, I just want to say a
couple things. Obviously, we are I'm here tonight to ask you to to reject staff and, um, outside council's recommendation that the cable franchise be denied and ask them to really negotiate a franchise with us. Um, while
Comcast is obviously disappointed in the recommendation being made, we are hopeful this matter could still get resolved through further discussion, there are just two points I want to make clear and it's in the back, it's in the the letter that we submitted. It's in the packet. So, I know you've had a chance to read it. So, I just want to
pull out just and highlight a couple points for this consideration that I'm asking for you tonight. and it's that we at Comcast, we're not asking the city to do anything new or novel or untested in courts.
It's a bit confusing, frankly, that we're being treated like we are. Um, as you saw in our response, the FCC has said unambiguously that a city may not deny a cable franchise on the basis that the new
entrant will not agree to the exact same franchise terms as the incumbent operator, including buildout. My understanding is that was the major issue here and we and I'm happy to answer questions about circumstances around that, but that is the law that is
facing us right now. I think it's a well understood principle that state law cannot be applied in a way that would violate federal law. Even putting aside the fact that federal law on this issue is very clear. Outside council's memo did also not discuss the
fact that there was a case in prior Lake Minnesota where the court held that Minnesota state law can be followed while also complying with federal law. And in that case, the incumbent cable operator sued a city that had awarded a
franchise on different terms and conditions. Again, the buildout issue. And the court explained that the city was in complian the city's action was in compliance with state law and also federal law.
I just want you to understand that because the the memo asking you to deny this does not address that. It says that this is a violation of state law. period. And the result why the FCC had passed these laws and the federal government passed these laws was to increase and
encourage competition. And that is exactly what has happened. That is exactly what has happened. So, that's just the second point I want to make real quick is that all we're asking you to do is allow us to give residents in the areas that we have already
constructed the opportunity to choose our cable, our traditional cable service if that's what they want. I know that there are a ton of video options. I know a lot of people are cutting the cord. that's kind of the the
the trendy thing to do. But there are still a significant amount of residents, I'm sure, in Victoria as well, that prefer to have all their sports and news and movies all in one package, the traditional cable package, and use R,
which I believe is a very cutting edge interface and voice remote that we have with it. They would like that option. And certainly I know um you know we've been working with the developers of Marsh Hollow Hunters Brook and they say the same that they would very much
obviously prefer that their um residents would have the full option from Comcast uh when they come to our Comcast store that we're about to open in Chanhassen or folks go door to door to sell that you can't tell them sorry you live in Victoria you cannot have that particular
option. Um, so I just want to say in closing that you'll you saw in the packet most of legal authority and points raised in the letter from Comcast council were not responded to. Regardless, if the city's
outside council is correct and adopting a franchise like what Comcast has proposed would violate Minnesota law, then the incumbent provider could demonstrate per state law that the terms
of their franchise or our franchise is more favorable or less burdensome, those are the words in state law, more favorable or less burdensome than their current franchise terms. Therefore, I urge this council to allow us to negotiate a franchise. We'll put it out
for public comment per regular ordinance process and the incumbent operator can submit something saying or explaining how they are being harmed or how the terms that we are proposing are more favorable or less burdensome
because right now it's just conjecture. We're making a lot of assumptions and I'm and I'll tell you a lot of the assumptions are unreasonable or illogical about how we could be harming incoming cable operators right now trying to when if we're trying to offer service. In fact, the only thing you're
probably going to hear from them is they don't want another competitor. So, um I just I firmly believe that none of the issues that are laid out for you are insurmountable and further discussions and an openness to solve them will get us there.
Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Uh any questions for Miss Warner? You say that you right the point of this is competition, right? But really, you're only wanting competition in two neighborhoods.
Like, we want competition. We want you to compete in the whole in the whole city. That's what we're asking. But you're actually not wanting to compete in the whole city. You're wanting to compete in two neighborhoods. So, I guess what would you say to that?
Yeah. No, I appreciate that question and that that's fair. And I'm telling you, nobody wanted to build the entire city of Victoria more than we did. and we came in um as Comcast and this is in the record and asked for um the city to open the RFP process for a franchise. We discussed with staff many times that
that would be our preference is to build the whole city um not knowing that Midco was going to also come. We had certainly known that Metronet had made their uh intentions clear and um could understand how we could kind of build around Metronet
eventually compete of course um but the build schedule itself but then mid coach just started moving very fast and furious and I don't think Cara's here but really what happened was we were starting to have significant issues in the right of way. you heard that that was in the record when we stood in front
of you in the public um hearing in April that had started to become making itself parent. uh those issues just got more amplified and so what we asked for was a slowdown and what we're proposing is a model around um and frankly we had to take some of those crews that were
working because the city of Victoria asked us to slow down um and you know move them to Chan Hassan and and Wakonia and other cities that we are fully building um and and what we're asking in this application then was the slowdown right and we said if we hit these
certain standards we'll come back um and uh build more. And if you see the franchise application, it's in the it's in your packet, you'll see that. Uh but frankly, the circumstances changed. The issues got very insurmountable. And um
it was we we we were the ones uh I'll tell you uh who were more disappointed than anyone that that the circumstances changed so fast. I just have a question for staff. Did did we not have Comcast and Midco
present to us in the same evening as to why they like Victoria that they want to serve the market that uh they're interested in building out? Yes, council member. Um on April 28th
they were they both had presented to uh council about franchise and and building that out. Was that your question? Yes. And thank you for answering. And and mayor and council, if I can at this
point, just weigh in. You'd asked me sort of a I want to hang on just a second. Miss her, you can go ahead and take a seat. If we if you're going to hang around here, we'll call you back up. Yeah. No, and I I appreciate you listening to me and and like I said, we have built uh we had to pivot. The question really is, you know, what we do
with those residents now. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Very good. Attorney Bos. Yeah. Mayor and council members, I appreciate Miss Warner uh sort of doing what I had requested, which is sort of sticking to the to the things that are in front of us. Uh and I think her uh
comments did that nicely. So, I was going to touch on several things, but maybe it would be most useful if I sort of use the comments she provided to you to to sort of parlay off of that rather than sort of following my own my own framework. So, I think there's sort of three things that I want to respond to
uh fairly quickly. first is uh that the negotiate uh issue. Um and you see from the staff report and from my memo that there's sort of two things that cities are asked to look at when they consider granting a franchise to a a cable
operator uh and in particular a competitive franchise like Comcast is looking for. The two things are um the company's qualifications. There isn't an issue about that. Comcast is obviously qualified to provide cable TV services. They do it all over the country. Uh they're the biggest I think in the
country. Uh and so there's there's no issue about that. The other question though that cities need to look at is does in Minnesota in particular uh is does the competitor's uh franchise proposal do the terms that they're willing to accept comply with
state law and do they make sense? I mean it's both a does it make sense? you have to make a policy decision about whether it makes sense to you and you also have to make a decision about um do the terms they're willing to accept comply with state law and so Carly makes the right point about
well uh we wanted to negotiate about that and I I want to respond to that and this is a little bit down in the weeds about that but I I think that's where that takes us a little bit uh and that is that um you know Comcast made their initial application saying they were going to build out the whole city they
then made a choice. I mean, Miss Warner makes it sound like they were forced by the fact that another company uh applied. That's of course not correct. They just made a choice to not uh elect to go forward with competing everywhere. They don't want to do that because they don't think it serves their economic
interests. Uh and so, um uh when that happened, they made a proposal to us that was different, materially different than what their application suggested, building out the whole city. And we the staff and I found their proposal to not
comply with state law. U state law again prohibits statutoily prohibits this city from granting a franchise to a competitor in the cable TV market if the fran if the franchise that competitor wants would be more beneficial or less burdensome to
that competitor than the city's franchise with Mediacom and now with Midco. state law pro prohibits us from granting that franchise flatly prohibits it. Okay. And so we saw that the proposal that the company was willing to accept would not meet that standard. Uh
it it is clear and I spill out the reasons why in the report. I would say Miss Warner says I didn't respond to certain things they've raised. I'm not going to argue about that. I I've said several times now in writing to you in documents that the company has that their proposal clearly does not comply
with the state level playing field requirement. There is no response to that at all. I don't think that's actually debatable. The idea that a company would only build out two neighborhoods in the face of an existing franchise or in this case two franchises that require buildout everywhere
effectively everywhere. I mean that clearly not equally burdensome or beneficial. It's not. Uh, and so there isn't really a debate about that. Um, but Miss Warner's point is, well, we we wanted to negotiate some more about that. The reality is this. I just said
to her, this is informal. I hate to get down into the weeds, but that's what this calls for. I just said back, I don't have any direction to come back with anything in particular. If you company Comcast would like to propose something else that gets us closer to
compliance with state law, something closer in terms of burdensomeness or benefits, feel free to go ahead and that didn't happen. There was not, you know, the proposal is what it is. In other words, um so it's fair to say we didn't
negotiate, but it's because the city just said, "Well, you're very, very far away from compliance with state law here. We're not going to start from that standpoint, right? We're not going to start from something that's clearly not acceptable under state law. Give us something else. And and there isn't
anything else. And I I will tell you my view is um the the Comcast is not in a position to commit to building out your whole city and and is not in a position to commit to a different arrangement that would cause them to build out your
whole city. What they proposed is serving two neighborhoods and then potentially building out only if they're very very successful in those two neighborhoods. I think that's the end of the story on that issue. So that's the negotiate
issue. It's a fair fair point to say we thought we were going to negotiate, but that's that's the inside baseball about what actually happened on the issues that were presented uh to the city to the city staff. Um so that's one point. The second point is um what I've already
said, the suggestion here is that because neither Midco or Mediacom have objected to the franchise proposal, a franchise proposal, by the way, that was just emailed to us. I mean, it's not like it was made public in some sense, but that because they haven't objected to that franchise proposal that that's
the test somehow under state law. If nobody objects, then the city can do it. That again is just legally incorrect. That is not what state law says. The fact that an incumbent may not be aware of the terms that are being proposed or may not have objected to those terms doesn't change what the statute says,
which is that cities can't grant more beneficial terms to a competitor than the incumbent has. It's a flat statutory prohibition against the city doing that. So it it's not relevant what who has
said what from Midco or from Mediacom. what matters is what the statute says. Uh and then um uh last point is and I guess to be fair Miss Warner didn't raise this but I think you understand from the documents that are in front of you that this is a core issue that's
been uh in play is that uh well she did make the point the the point being that other cities have found ways to grant franchises that provide a competitor with a somewhat different service area buildout obligation than the incumbent
has. They've provided a case to us that they think reflects an example of that. But what that they've told us all along is with the the proposal they've made mirrors what Century Link, a big incumbent phone company around the state of Minnesota. What Century Link did in Minneapolis and St. Paul and Bloomington
and Burnsville, which is Century Link made a proposal for a buildout in those communities that was somewhat different than Comcast. Comcast was the incumbent provider in those cities. They made a proposal for a franchise buildout obligation that was somewhat different than Comcast and a number of cities
approved that granted that. I have said in the report all of the ways in which the Century Link buildout proposal and the Century Link ultimate obligations are entirely different than what's being proposed here. And I'm not going to go through all of those, but
the most obvious is just what has already been brought out. Comcast is prepared to commit to serving two neighborhoods out of all of the neighborhoods in your community. What Century Link was proposing to do and was approved to do was serve a very very large percentage of those communities
where it was looking for a competitive franchise. Not 100%. Comcast I think is correct and was correct in saying in those communities we effectively serve 100% of Minneapolis or just about 100% of Minneapolis. Century Link's proposal wasn't to serve
100% initially, but it was to serve a very, very large percentage of Minneapolis. That's apples and oranges to what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is again, council member, two neighborhoods with no meaningful commitment to build beyond that. That's just not the same thing as
what Century Link was proposing. And I'll just say it again um because it's said in my initial report, my letter back to to Carly and to Comcast and in my follow-up report, but it's never been responded to. The proposal that's been made to us does not comply with state
law. Uh or it's extraordinarily likely that a court would find if we ever got there that it doesn't comply with state law for the reason I just said again. It's just too different and too much less ownorous than the obligation to
build out the entirety of the city. So, I'll stop there. I think I've covered what I wanted to cover and I think that's responsive to Miss Warner's comments. I have a question for you. If we don't deny this, what does uh if we deny this current proposal or agreement, do c is
it uh can they can you continue can we continue negotiating? Yeah. And and mayor and council that's actually happened um that that situation has occurred. There are there are precious few there are a few but there are a precious few cities that have had
have been put in a position where they've denied a competitive cable franchise. Again, there have been a few, but but what you're describing, Mayor, has occurred where initially um a competitor has come in and made proposals that would not fly, would not comply with state law or were
objectionable for other reasons and have ultimately gone back to the drawing board and come back with different proposals. That can be done. I think I I don't want to sort of go on record about exactly procedurally how we would do that, but certainly there is nothing in
state law nor in your in your local law that would now prevent Comcast from making a different proposal. whether it needs to be a whole new application process or we can somehow sort of wave a new fee or you know there are procedural things that maybe we need to work
through but theoretically the company if you deny tonight can still make a different proposal later and is not prohibited from doing that by a denial. Okay, very good. Thank you. Um council questions for Bob the Warner
on this item. I mean, it's not a question, I guess, but it just it feels so, you know, we've talked about how they had their application that was original application that was going to be the whole city. Um, but before that, my understanding is is that they talked to
city staff and asked about initially just doing two neighborhoods. Um, and we said, "No, that you that doesn't comply with state law. We need to build out the whole thing." So, that's when they came back and said, "Okay, we'll do it. We'll file the application for the whole city, but now
we're back to two neighborhoods. It just feels might not been in the intent, but what it looks like is a work trying to work around the system, right? Like we couldn't get our two. We'll say we're going to do this and now we're going to try and backtrack and get just our two
neighborhoods. Um, you know, and then, you know, un Comcast is a a billion-dollar company and it just it feels a little big company trying to bully the city type thing in my opinion. So, uh, it it, you know, and and to be
honest, it, you know, we've had lots of issues with them. We we constantly got calls, right? So, about issues in neighborhoods of, you know, other lines being broken. um uh driveways being ruined. Um it and we
haven't really had those issues since Comcast has had to stop. So I think there's a lot of reasons for denying this. So the one thing that I want to say is I would um on the level playing field um you know mediacom and
midco have committed to building out our whole city um and I feel like from a from a standpoint they're making the investment. I love to see Comcast do the very same thing just so our uh to level the playing field on the market for our residents. It would be great if all of
our residents had all the choices to um for cable services. So, um, so I I'm leaning towards denying this based on that on on that level. Other comments? I I just have a question for Bob. Um,
the the the question of the um the FCC arguments cited. My read of that seems to view that the locust of that is not necessarily that
federal law supersedes state law on this. It was a question about what is a reasonable um viewpoint of a city to take about how the buildout takes place and that it
would be unreasonable to say do a buildout so that you're ready in four months. Do a buildout so that you're ready in um 12 months. reasonableness feels like that that was the nexus of why those decisions were made and that if there
was a full commitment to the entire existing area that it would be unreasonable to say deliver that tomorrow to anybody who calls is that the correct view of what the FCC was trying to get to in that space?
Yeah, and mayor and council, I actually had that written down. That was my fourth point, but I failed to to bring it up. So, I apologize. I'm glad you you you steered me back to the the other point because uh obviously that was the focus of Miss Warner's original uh communication and then the follow-up
from corporate council. So, uh, the the, uh, the very very short summary before I get to your point, council member, the very very short summary is that, um, you know, the argument raised was that if you don't if you deny this franchise, that is contrary to the FCC's order. And
of course, I responded saying, I mean, the way lawyers do in two pages. In effect, what I said was, "Show me where in the FCC order it says that Minnesota's state law is preempted. Where is it that Minnesota law no longer applies to Victoria?" And the answer back was, "Yeah, it still applies." So,
I mean, that that's obviously a summary of the back and forth, but that's the back and forth. The six the FCC order does not preempt, does not invalidate the state law that we're talking about here, the state law still applies to us. We still have to comply with them. Period. So, uh, to your point, council
member, yes. Um, if you go past that, the fact that the FCC orders don't dictate anything here, if you go past that and you dive into the details of the FCC orders, um, what they say is exactly what you said. Cities should not, uh, cause buildouts to have to
occur instantly. Cities should not be unreasonable in the way they impose those buildouts. And one of the examples given in the FCC order is don't be unreasonable cities and say to a new competitor, sorry I'm lost my voice.
Um don't say to a new competitor you must build out our city much much faster than the incumbent was required to do it. Don't say to a competitor you must build out more of the city than the com than the incumbent does. And if you do have a buildout in the incumbent's
franchise, uh, don't make the buildout obligation be more strenuous on the competitor than the incumbent. And of course, we're doing none of that, right? I mean, Minnesota state law doesn't require to do us to do any of that. And the staff and I have not attempted to do any of that. We are literally attempting
to say to Comcast, we want you to build out in the same way over time and only in neighborhoods where there are sufficient homes to justify it. We want you to build out the way Midco is now going to build out and the way Mediacom has in the past. So, putting aside the
fact that the FCC order doesn't dictate anything here, what we're doing isn't out of compliance with the FCC order. So, um you know, it's sort of it's bumps at spike kind of thing. It it it's not it doesn't it doesn't cause you to have to rethink your your direction uh here.
Very good. Thank you. Thank you, J. Yeah. Anything else? No, go ahead. That that's the biggest thing for me is just the build out in the two neighborhoods and so different from the co and mediacom and um that's the difficult part for me. Definitely.
All right. Very good. All right. Council, at this point, I will entertain a motion. I make a motion to deny adoption granting a new cable television franchise to Comcast of Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi LLC.
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. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on our agenda 6.2 is the Victoria Condos mixeduse development
sketch plat. Presenting this evening is city planner Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, have a seat and welcome. Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh, give me just a moment here to boot up my presentation for everyone.
Great. Yes, we have a sketch plat uh prepared by Monarch Development and submitted to the city for consideration for a mixeduse development proposal. So uh no approvals or actions are to be taken during this meeting. Uh it's just
pro to provide guidance to the applicant as they work for uh preliminary plat and other future potential land use applications. So looking at the location and area, there are three parcels totaling 0.63
acres. There is the city parking lot as well as another portion of city parking lot in a L-shaped piece here which is also owned by the city. And then the uh private garage building located at 7942
Quamlit. Uh really the project area is going to be limited to 32 acres centered around this building. Um that information will come into play later when we talk about density, but locationwise it is located right in the
heart of our downtown. So it's west of Clam, east of Ry's Way, south of Vixs and Stiger Lake Lane, and then north of the Burrow and Tower Boulevard. With this mixeduse building, they are
proposing 10 condo units as well as two groundf flooror commercial units and one groundf flooror uh private storage or use for uh collector vehicles. So the existing conditions as I
mentioned there is an existing private garage storage building uh with access towl currently. Uh there's the existing city parking lot which has a total of 43 stalls in it right now. Uh there are
utilities available along Quamlit and Tower Boulevard and it is also within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake. So the shoreline district comes into play. This was previously reviewed by the plan commission and city council in 2022.
with their previous concept included 63 apartment units with the same groundf flooror commercial uh storage shore showroom concept. Uh just a note about that. There was some misinformation that spread in the community regarding the
parking generated and uh resulting impacts to residents and businesses as well as a distortion of the maximum building height or the number of stories that were presented with that concept. So, uh, the applicant has worked with
members of the community and has come back with a revised concept for consideration by the plane commission and city council. On the left is what was proposed in 2022 with those uh with the balconies as you can see. And
then here on the image on the right is the proposed uh condo concept uh with just a few balconies but still retaining that ground floor commercial space. So if we break this down floor by floor
uh under the building is a proposed private parking garage consisting of 20 parking spaces. Then moving up to the ground floor is where those commercial units come into play here. Each of them are just over 2,000 square feet in size.
Uh as well as some modifications to the existing city parking lot. What they would do is close off the entrances onto Quamlit Street and then it would be one way in and back out onto Ry's way for the development.
Then moving up to the second and third levels, that would be for the condo units. Four units per floor. So, eight of the 10 units between levels two and three, they're all two-bedroom concepts. Uh, the smallest is about 1,400 square
ft in size, moving up to 2,200 square ft. And then the final top floor would be those final two condo units as well as an amenity and roof deck for the residents. They did provide some renderings from
various elevations as well for consideration. So, here is the view from the south. Here's Tower Boulevard for reference with a few parallel parking spaces in front. The ground floor commercial, that amenity deck that was presented on the last slide. Um, and
then how the residents would access the building is for this entrance off of Ry's way. And then the parking garage entrance would also be located here. Also shown in the image in the bottom right going underneath the building for
the residents. So our comprehensive plan guides this property as downtown mixed use which allows 24 to 75 units per acre. It also envisions this type of development with mixeduse retail office on the ground floor and highdensity residential up
above. the proposed density uh comes out to 31 and a quarter units per acre which is within that range. So those 10 units on that 32 uh acres that I mentioned earlier and so a comprehensive plan amendment is not anticipated at this
time because it does fall within the allowed density range. For the zoning, it is zoned central business district which allows mixeduse buildings um at with a conditional use permit. Our district also allows various
commercial uses with a conditional use permit. So depending on what moves into those uh commercial spaces, additional cups may be required. Uh we expect to review the mixeduse
building specifically with a cup approval consideration at preliminary plat. Uh for the amenity deck on the top floor if they have like a swimming pool for instance that's an accessory conditional use in our code. So that would require an additional cup. Uh but
really we don't have any bulk standards. So no setbacks, no minimum sizes, uh things like that in our CBD. So the only thing we'd be looking at is height. We have a maximum height requirement of 50 ft. They are proposing 49 ft. And then
what that looks like in terms of scale with our existing downtown buildings, uh it's just slightly smaller than the Victoria Flats building currently is in relation to grade and comparison. So for the streets and pedestrian
connections, as I mentioned, they would be closing two of those access points on Quamocllet for the modifications to the city parking lot. Uh the two accesses on Ry's Way would remain. Uh just one would
be in and the other would be out. Uh the underground parking would come from Ry's Way. And then they are proposing concrete sidewalks outlined in red throughout the entire site. Uh there's not a sidewalk on this side of Quamlit
right now. As you may have seen, we have people walk in the street or in parking spaces to get down to VIX. So that's um a much needed amenity that is proposed with this concept. Can you back up one quick second? Yes, absolutely. Do we lose those
parking spaces? Those with those extra. Yeah, that little bumpout. We lose those parking spaces with this. Correct. Uh, mayor, they are proposing to make some adjustments to our city parking lot, resulting in a loss of
these five spaces here. They are proposing on taking out the existing uh evergreen trees that are located here and adding some additional stalls to account for that. I'll cover parking in a later slide uh to talk about overall
net increase to parking for this development. Uh continuing with the streets and pedestrian connections, the fire department has requested in the review memo that was attached to the case that we do have one more uh access retained
on quamoclit for the parking lot which may impact some of the parking counts proposed by the applicant. Uh, additionally, engineering requested clarification on parking stall layout with size functionality. So, uh, that's something that will have to be analyzed
later, as well as, uh, the dimensions and the curb adjustments on Tower Boulevard to make this parallel parking work. Uh, we expect those to be addressed in preliminary plat with future conversations with staff. So,
looking at parking, um I'm going to break this down in two ways because I know parking is a very um controversial topic in our downtown. So, starting with what we have right now, uh as I mentioned, the city parking lot has 43
stalls currently. The total parking proposed with this is 86 stalls. So that includes those 20 underground stalls, all of the parking modifications in the city lot, uh new parking along Quamlit
and Tower Boulevard, 86 stalls. Um what that means is there is a net increase of 23 public parking stalls in total. So we take that 86 the new minus what we have
43 minus the 20 underground inaccessible public or private parking stalls that's how we end up with 23. Then separately looking at that total parking again going back to 86 stalls taking away
those 20 private stalls that leaves 66 public available stalls. Um when we calculate the required retail uses uh which are anticipated for these two commercial spaces they need 15 stalls
per our code. So 66 - 15 we still have 51 public parking stalls available. The private showroom or garage use here only needs one parking stall per our code. So we get a net increase of 23 parking
stalls. But actually we have 50 stalls available for public parking with all uses accounted for with this proposed development. Can we pause it for just a moment there? Yes. So if the
what we'll just affectionately at this point call the showroom which pursuant to what we have here requires one stall. Mhm. If that changes to essentially the same retail space in the future, there's
still enough net addition to park that space for that use. Is that is that a fair statement, mayor and council member? That's correct. What that would result in is
another seven stalls for consideration. Seven or eight. Uh so that would bring those 50 public stalls uh down to 43 or 42 which is essentially what we have today. Correct. Yes. So net net just make the presumption
that the showroom is no longer the showroom that it you know becomes a retail space. By the time this is all said and done we lose zero parking spaces of what we have currently today. Is that a fair statement,
Mayor and council members? That's correct. Okay. Any other questions on parking? Yeah, just one on the um underground parking 20 stalls. I you know, let's average out two per unit, right? How about for like visitors with it? You
know, are they required to park outside in a visitor lot or what are you thinking for that or or even along those lines like um liveries and that kind of thing? What's your plan with that? Mr. Rank, welcome members of the council. Carl Rock with Monarch. I just want to
state that my co-developer on this pursuit is Gier Homes. They're active in Victoria and so they're not involved in Downtown West, but here only. But you're regarding your question on on visitor parking. Um, we believe some of these units will not always use two stalls and
so they're they're likely in reality be one or two stalls available uh for that purpose. has a guest and so we're we're so early on but that's something we're certainly looking at as far as in the garage is preferable if someone's a guest there overnight instead of being outside.
Okay. Okay. Mr. Runker, are these proposed to be condos for owner owner rental? Do you have that level of detail yet? Yes, these are uh designed as owner occupied residences because there's been since this proposed in 2022, of course,
a lot of new rental apartments that have been built or under construction now in downtown Victoria. These are just 10. So two-bedroom of different size owner occupied condos. That was one of my questions too, Carl. So um 10 twobedroom just different size
twobedroom is the difference between the 1400 and 2200. Yeah, we were thinking that people facing north stiger lake looking down at views would pay a premium and therefore want larger units at 2200 ft and still have a nice view with sunlight facing south and the the community that way.
Those are slightly smaller, 1400 square feet. Thank you. Just to muddy the waters, the the the public parking that we have in what I'll call inside the flats, which is right outside. We have public
spaces there. Do we allow overnight parking in those spaces? Mayor and council members, yes, I believe we do. Um, getting nods from city manager. Um, yes. So, that is a private parking lot
with a public agreement, I believe, to allow guests or users of the downtown business area to park there, including overnight guests for the Victoria Flats. Okay. And as such, those are public
spaces. I'm maybe I'm going to go out on a ledge, but some of that has been financed by KIF. Correct. Would those be available to overnight guests of this new development
or would that be off limits? It's mayor and council member. I'm not quite sure I have an answer to that and we don't have to have an answer today and we're at Sketchblat. We can ruminate about parking. So it could be overnight because we
don't prohibit overnight parking. I'm not sure how they would determine residents and guests and ownership of vehicles. So, I would assume it's all public and available to use for any Thank you. I I mayor, members of the
council, I agree with Mr. McCann um and his comments, but just to be safe, we would probably just want to look at that use agreement just to make sure that there isn't any restrictions related to that. Very good. Um I I am curious um about these parking
spaces on Quamoclit. Does that turn Quamlit into a oneway? That feels like there's not enough room there. Mayor and council member, our engineering staff did look at the parking and the width of Quamlit Street
and they didn't seem to have any concerns about making that a oneway. I think they believe they can make it work with a two-way still. Okay. I think it's hard to visualize. mayor because we've just been so used to this scene the way it is for so long.
Um, but there is a very large apron of concrete that sits between the front of the existing building now and the street and then the island what I'll call islands at the end of the existing parking lot
seem pretty sizable. So the I get what you're saying but I think the math The math works. The math feels like that works. But um can we query the developer at this point
or do you still want to finish your presentation? That's fine if we want to keep asking questions. Now I mean I think I have. Let's let's let's finish and then we can go into Carl take a seat here for a couple minutes and we'll get you back.
Thanks. Okay. Uh continuing on looking at landscaping and tree preservation. So they'll need to supply boulevard trees every 35 ft uh place 20 ft away from intersections for vision clearance.
They'll have to place foundation plantings where practical. Uh side note that our CBD is exempt from open space and minimum planting requirements. So we will not be evaluating those with further submitts. And then we will look
at tree preservation here for those evergreens that I mentioned earlier that will be replaced with uh proposed parking. So we expect that over 20% will be removed. So those additional landscaping um will have to be
considered for incorporation with future submittals. Then looking at the shoreland overlay district. This property is entirely within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake, which is a recreational development lake that requires a 150 ft ordinary high water
line setback. They're about 400 ft away from the lake, so they're completely fine there. And then our shoreland requires a maximum 80% impervious in our central business district. So what is existing out there for the site uh
currently exceeds that 80%. So it's a non-conforming use. But when you change a non-conforming use like the applicant is proposing with a new uh structure that nonconformity goes away. So how do we resolve this 80% maximum impervious?
A variance could be considered since that's what's existing out there today. Um what we would want to see basically is no net increase in storm water use because that's what the impervious standard is trying to control. So that's
something we'll have to evaluate further with a potential variance application in the future. Then residential shoreland planned unit developments or RSPUDs are required for buildings more than four units per acre or four just four
units. my apologies. Within the shoreland area, that requires a density tier analysis and a minimum open space requirement, but we did have an exemption built into our code a few years ago. If you remember the shoreland ordinance that came in for the central
business district, um a development in our central business district is exempt from RSPUDs if they're not providing riparian access. um if they're consistent with the density range in the comp plan and they're consistent with the other requirements in the shoreland
district. So, uh if that variance, for example, is approved, they would be compliant with all three of these standards and they they would be exempt from that tier analysis and open space requirement. If they did have to go through a tier analysis, I don't think
10 units would be larger than their allowable unit count just for reference, but the open space requirement of 50% would be uh difficult to meet for this development. So for signage, lighting and
architecture, signage and lighting will be evaluated at preliminary plat. They have some uh wall signage shown and then uh lighting will probably be pretty similar to what we have existing in our downtown currently, but something we'll
have to evaluate further. They also did provide uh some renderings which seem to meet all of our design standards of our central business district, including those building brakes to provide some fair v variation.
uh the altered roof designs, enhanced entries, and some high quality exterior materials for parkland dedication. This would generate a fifth of an acre required or a cash fee of $21,000.
Um I provide the ratio here based on our code requirements. And for mixeduse buildings, we have to consider the residential component and the commercial component component and combine them. Uh but commercial projects less than an acre are exempt. So take that out of the
calculation here. Um they are not proposing any parks or trails based on the submittals provided. Part of that being because we have great amenities in our downtown already. So uh any additional parkland here is not necessary.
Looking at grading and storm water management, they have to meet the MCWD rules. There aren't any existing wetlands on the site, so we don't expect that to be an issue here. And then the storm water facilities rely on that downtown regional storm water that we
have. So, the city engineer in the review memo did request some further details and evaluation on the drainage and storm sewer allocations for this site. And then I mentioned earlier that utilities are available. So water is
available on Quamoclit. Um and our fire department I believe requested an additional hydrant near the building for this and our engineering just wants to look at potential uses for the water usage of the building and that sewer is
available on Quamoclit and Tower Boulevard. So they have two uh potential options for connection, but they are proposing a connection to Tower Boulevard. This was brought to the plan commission for feedback last week. They were
generally supportive of the concept. Some of the discussion revolved around surprisingly parking. Um and then a lot about the architecture and historical elements. And I believe in my staff report I had noted that this was a prior
firehouse. It actually was not. I was informed by assistant city manager uh Alyssa this morning that that was not the case. It was actually a beverage bottling facility and distribution facility. So, my apologies for that error in the report. Um, they also had a
lot of discussion about traffic flow and how that would affect our existing downtown public streets as well as the reorientation of the city parking lot, the private store room or showroom storage use and how snow removal would
work with this development. With that, uh, just a reminder that there is no action required this evening. I have a few questions on the screen to guide discussion. I can uh answer any questions you may have as well as uh the representative from
Monarch Development. Okay. I have a I have a couple of questions. So, the um fire department said they still wanted access to that parking lot off of Kamoclquit. So, does that impact the parking numbers then? Mayor and council members, that's
correct. Uh going back to our parking slide here, they noted they wanted an additional access towamlit here. Uh for example, if it comes through here, that could impact two maybe three, four stalls at the most on quamlit. And they
only want one. So I would expect at the most a maximum parking impact of what they're showing here to be four stalls with that. So in the on the other side on the Ry's way side, right? One way is
an in and the other way is an out. So would that be an So you're going around. If we added the one, would that be an either? Would it be wide enough for an eitheror type thing? Like you could get out, but you could also go in there. That's something we'd have to look at. Uh in that situation I just mentioned
with an impact to four stalls. That would probably be a entrance and exit situation. uh if it's just exit that would probably only impact two to three stalls at the most but that's something the developer and staff will have to look at closer
and we'll look at that and I do want to mention I've met with the neighboring owners Terry Harbin and Mayor Davis and Tom Colmpus today and three other times in the last year and a half and as of today you know Terry Harman has requested that we look at Quamoclip further south between Burrow and Old
National Bank and so I I think that is something we could explore if there's additional stalls to be gained on quantit that direction. And I also want to state that uh we are going to be working with them on a joint application uh for expanding the downtown tiffs district for public parking purposes or
other infrastructure that they're proposing. And my other question is this is actually a four-story building, but you're saying because of the way the grade is that it actually won't stick up any further than the flats. Correct.
Yeah. And it's actually, if you see in this diagram, it's shorter, three stories on the Winchester Ry side in Ry's way to make it feel more relatable to the Clock Tar building at Winchester Ry. It also serves a purpose, as you see, for a a deck for the residents to
have great views and a little club space. And then two condos um on the east side facing Victoria Flats, but just slightly shorter than Victoria Flats in height. So, the tallest point there is 49 feet towards the flats on the east side. Yep.
Y that's good to hear that you're talking with other business owners and things on parking and being creative on that side of it. Um I think the question was asked, does this fit? And personally, I think this fits this fits pretty good
into this spot. it. Uh uh we looked at 2022 versus this and it's night and day. So um I like the looks of this. Um the one question I had too is on the uh
amenity deck. I assume that's kind of an outdoor indoor type half and half you're thinking of like a club. Yeah. With with they can sit out and look at the great views but yet maybe a club room like you said or something. Exactly. Okay. Getting to know the owners and manager of Victoria Flats. That's the most
popular in that building is the rooftop deck and the indoor space. They wish they would have made it bigger. And I So, we're trying to make this in a smaller way. What that is on Victoria Flats. Great. Thank you. Uh I just have a couple questions. Um
uh one of the things in previous the previous iterations of this that uh we've heard from some of the downtown business owners and I know like you said that you've been in contact with them. uh is you know they would love to see a parking deck at some point on the public
spot. Is that feasible with the way you are designing and building this current if if Okay, perfect. Yeah. So the the outline we have now does accommodate what they that group came up with with Walker Parking Consultants as a as a proposed design
for a one-story deck with an entrance offic at the top and then an entrance off Ry's way. So it does accommodate that. Okay. So, if there is a a tiff scenario here where we're joined to applicants, we're open to building that at the same time. If that works out, if call it's a million half, we don't know what it cost
today, but if it's a million half dollar single level parking deck and the city would support that use, it could make sense to do dig a hole at one time and build the parking at one time like that. What's what's your plan for construction if all this goes on according to plan? When do you expect to be?
Um, we we are um it's dependent really on the lender we select with GE. Again, their relationship is who I'm leaning on for this one, this version of it in terms of how many pre-sales they'll need. Um, their realtors have already been talking to, they know a lot of homeowners in the community already that
are interested. Um, and Mr. Gan himself might be interested as well. So, we're if we have some pre-sales, we might be already end this year that we would want to start. If not, it push in the spring most likely.
Um, your entry into the underground, is that a two-way? Like they can get in and out? Is it a oneway and you kind of have to is is how how big is that entry? It's wide enough to be a two-way. I don't you know if you can see the dimension, Brian, but it's it's meant to
be wide enough for two vehicles to go across each other in and out. I mean, with only 20 vehicles, it's unlikely to happen very often, but it's meant to be wide enough. Sure. Um and then my only other question is um I know again in the last iteration of
this there was concern about if the residential spa or sorry not the residential the commercial space um you know what if all of a sudden they decide to put a a restaurant in there and I know I think previously you're like we don't really want to do that because of smells for our residents and stuff like
that but um you know I guess you know because you need obviously more parking if it was a restaurant. Um, is there, you know, any way we can work that into like whatever like that this won't have, you know, a restaurant concept we have
on this project is we're selling out the condos levels two through four. Gandhi and I would sell those out and the HOA takes over. Rich Ganon would own the first floor. So upon completion, he owns the first floor and would find two tenants for the spaces. And so up until,
you know, the last iteration, he was open to having restriction on that because we haven't, for example, put in a a duct through the building for restaurant ventilation. So, we've not designed it for that. It's really designed for just, you know, retail uses that would not be restaurants. Driving more traffic, of course, like a
restaurant would Well, whatever those uses are, you're going to have to be able to park it within the requirements that you've given us here. So, so if you come up with a restaurant that you can't park, we have to say we have to find a different spot for that. When my moral is like in the future, right? like you know you know if you
know if the no right but we've seen in other instances around you know in the community where that doesn't always happen right so we've given previous whether it's previous councils right like they've allowed
you know other buildings to get away with not having adequate parking so I it I it was a cons it's it's just a concern that was brought up so I wanted to talk about it at least and I I think open to that again as we move ahead on
this further like it's been three years since he's talked to tenants at that time and I don't know if those tenants are still available they were not restaurants they were complimentary to what's downtown that case other questions yeah I mean I just kind of like maybe
want to kick some maybe some ideas um and it's sort of like throwing the baby root bar in the pool which Carl's a big catty shack fan so he reference Um, so the ramp going into
this the side of the building, is that still going to be on the city's parcel? Yes. Um Rich again I wanted me to remind everyone on this uh this version of the proposal that he sold the flagshaped
parcel which is really small parcel to the city uh for parking I think 10 years ago or so and the city would be staffing know is that our proposal to make this fit would be to uh replat it. So the project is including that to make room
here for the the garage go down. Um, if there was a scenario where there was a onele park deck the city supported, we could reorient that entrance ramp to be within the garage. If you've seen my excelsier project, you could you go through the public garage to get into a separate door for the resident. So that could be the case if that were to come
to fruition before plantary plant. So that could change the orientation of that ramp if that were the case. Well, I'm kind of thinking about like somewhat distant future and
I I'm I think that it's pretty been pretty well established that certainly this council um wants additional parking to come from development. And if we were do going to
you know for lack of a better expression give up the parking lot we would want development there and not a parking ramp. So towards that concept um one thought that looking at this that came into my mind and I don't know if
it's feasible but would we be able to um establish an alley that goes from Quamoc clip to Ry's way and that is all more or less level and then do you I
don't have a lot of heartburn about Maybe having what is now been lowered in the front come up a a little bit so that the entrance into the parking for the building can come at alley level rather than being scooped out and then still
put the parking spaces for now in the alleyway. But you would then have essentially the alley coming into the building and then later if there comes a project that can say we'll develop this
parking lot into some sort of you know uh developed parking lot that then that alley could serve coming into the backside of whatever goes there. and the alley would then be the way that both buildings would be served by an
entrance. So we um do away with this scooping out and locking the use to that exclusive ramp into perpetuity. Does that make sense? Yeah. I think the the challenge of that
might be the grades or how do you park the condo residents with the grades of the retail showing up on tower that might be a little bit of challenge to park you know in terms of elevations that way that's an area you're suggesting a alley behind yeah I'm suggesting an alley but for the
time being those six parking spots where the trees are they they live in the alley like we don't today build it as an alley but we plot for an alley that when future development comes, then that
can be that alley could be like reconstituted into a full alley that would serve both of these buildings. And and I I hear what you're saying with the grades, but you like I don't have a lot of heartburn about, you know, the front of this building becoming a little bit
taller. So that even though the alley might be sloped, that the entrance to the garage comes in off of the alley. Yeah. The retail be up a bit. Yeah. The alley comes down a bit and they're able to come off an alley condition that way.
Yeah. And then so and then later in because we would in that future development look to add parking spaces that would restore the spaces that would be lost by
the entry into the alley from quamlet. kind of see where I'm going with So, a future You're saying the future building potentially, the future building and this building would both be served by an alley. Granted, the alley might be sloped, but you would essentially raise the front
height of this building so that you could come in at almost street level alley-wise into your parking garage. Then the future building would, you know, have the back of it there and it could be served by the same alley to however it would need to take into
consideration. Would it be directly across from that door? Maybe. Would it be from the door would be closer towlet? Possibly. But I think if we scoop this out, fill it with concrete and make a ramp, that's it. There's nothing else that's going to go
there for time eternal. And I again I have less heartburn about the front of this building being lower. I could, you know, see it coming up a bit. And you I would even be comfortable with a rooftop deck that, you know, sits up top of this
and has, you know, an even better view out into Stiger Lake from up there. And maybe that gives you a little bit room to maybe add one more unit into the condo complex, but that means that
you're going to have uh two more parking spaces that you'll need underground. These are just kind of some food for thought ideas that um it's like pulling on a sweater, right? You pull on the string and you have to rethink a whole bunch of things. But yeah, um including in our case selling condos
that the future the buyers are sophisticated. They're gonna ask, okay, what's the city going to do with this lot someday or ramp, right? And they're gonna ask that question. So, we just want to, you know, we'll consider that, too. I think what you're saying makes sense from an urban building perspective, maybe to think about how do we sell the
first units if they're, you know, they're for sale in that case. Looking at views are really important much as we can. Understood. Okay. Other questions, comments? Brian, you want to go to your list of questions? Make sure we got them all answered for you guys.
Yeah. Council member Roberts, the reasoning for the extra entrance uh on Qualit um is that just flow is it before emergency like in case there's an emergency is what what is the reasoning I guess that the
mayor and council member Roberts my understanding is that it's the ladder there that in case of an emergency they just would like an additional access point. And part of me is like I mean obviously you want to trust but I'm like you know
I feel like you see that a lot right in parking lots where you have one entry right you have to go around and you go out the one way and so you know if there's an emergency where there's emergency vehicles needed they're going to park wherever they have to right I mean I share your kind of like do we
need to have that extra entry I I understand the ask but the loss lo of parking spaces for an event that is seemingly unlikely. And then as you
point out when there there seems like there's plenty of room on the street, parking spaces across the way. Um, even within the interior of the parking lot, um,
it will be just as difficult to get in there from Ry's way as it would be for I I don't feel like the sacrificing of the parking spaces is is worthy. The juice isn't worth
Yeah, I get it. We can talk about it. All right. Where's our list of questions? Sorry you guys. I know feed through the will be very mad. Um I I do you have what you need? I mean
Yeah. Okay. And Carl, do you have what you need for I do. Yeah. Just this feedback from what you has been helpful as we continue to evolve the plans for Plat and wanting to execute on what's a dormant building and Rich has been very patient on this as well.
Yeah, we appreciate that patience. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Council, there's no more items on our regular agenda. So, moving on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney Vos, you're up first. I do not, mayor. Thank you. Miss Hardy, anything from staff?
None from staff this evening, mayor. How about the council? Anything from the council? I just uh I just wondered if um Well, kind of meant Do you need to talk to It's hardy. Oh, yeah.
Um, so I guess I just, you know, we've had lots of discussions, uh, heard from people about the ebikes. Oh, and I'm just wondering with school starting, um, I've heard of kids riding their ebikes to the middle school, I'm
sure even some at ages might be riding it to the elementary school. I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to talk with the school district even, right? Like Victoria Elementary and see if like they can help curb some of that stuff, right? Like we don't want them here type thing. Um so don't ride your
ebikes to school. I I don't know. I just or an opportunity for our cso to go in and and uh because uh I'm not sure it's getting any better. But yeah, sorry, you got any thoughts on that? Um thank you. Yeah, a couple brief
thoughts here. Um, so I this is a a challenge that many communities are struggling. So again, we know it's not just Victoria. So, uh, kind of a an evolving emerging um, as they become issue for all of us as these ebikes
become more popular. Um, we've had some success, I would say, in educating uh, parents. the what we found initially and early on is that a lot of times parents didn't really understand that there's an age
limit with some of these um ebikes. And so as we start to push more information out there and educate the public um on that, I think I think we're starting to see some relief, although it's not anywhere near um a problem being solved.
So we've put some signage along the trails. You may have seen that if you've been on some of our trails lately. Um, we've also done some social media campaigns. Uh, during our truck rodeo, we got out there and did um some engagement and we've been doing some
engagement in the community events that were at um classic car show, the um farmers market um talking about things at the park popup events that we're having. So, we are trying to get the word out there. We'll be bringing to you
September 22nd um an ebike ordinance to to we've been working with language doing some research talking to other communities and talking to our um the sheriff's office our law enforcement partners on this and seeing what they're hearing and
seeing um in kind of their channels. So, um I one thing that we hadn't discussed though was having our cso go into the elementary school uh and have those conversation with students and we can um look at doing that and coupling that
with just regular bike safety because we know students are driving riding their bikes to school. So, if we kind of um did some engagement around bike safety, bike etiquette, um we could certainly look at doing that. So, that's a great suggestion and
uh we'll do that. So, sorry for the long-winded answer. Yeah, we did I did get a um was visiting with a resident recently and got some great compliments on our bike safety her bike handout that we had. So, pass that along to staff. Thank you very much. We'll do that. Thank you.
One other thing. Sorry. Go ahead. Cara's not here tonight, so I'm going to put you on the spot. I don't know if it's um so, uh Marsh Lake, the roundabout, Marsh Lake Road and Highway 11, right? It's been delayed a couple times. I have we heard any uh
revised opening date yet, mayor, council member Roberts, members of the council, we have not. That Cara and I did meet this afternoon uh um and that was one of the questions that I had asked. We have been getting a number of phone calls uh late last week and we did
get a number of phone calls today at city hall with people asking that question. Unfortunately, the county's web page has is not helpful in providing any new information. Um, so at this point in time, we do not have anything new to share. Fingers crossed. We're all
hopeful that um that we will be that road will reopen soon. Uh but I will um certainly share as soon as that becomes available and then we'll make sure that we're sharing out whatever the county communicates through our channels. And again, you'll be happy just as much as anyone
else. Yeah. Yes. And again, that that closure, continued closure is just for the safety. It's not ready to open, right? I mean, with all the water and the rain and everything we've had, it's just not safe to open up the not complete and it's not safe, right, Council Member Rif. Yes. That and mayor,
members of the council, essentially that's correct. It's a safety issue at this point. So, what we do know and what has been shared publicly is that um there was some water that was seeping through the pavement and the pavement had failed and so a portion of the road
had to be um taken out and then it had to be redone and so that's what we're um what we're working through right now. So, it's not the entire thing. It's just a portion of the road. Um, so they're hopeful. They were hopeful at the time when they began that process that it
would be a quick uh turnaround and so fingers continue to be crossed. Dry weather. Yes, exactly. Fingers crossed. All right. Anything else from councel? All right. There are no more items to come before the body this evening. So I am looking for a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn.
Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourn.