[0:00] tons of times where I'm like, it's just

[0:01] like no one's home for dinner. It's just

[0:03] Kate and I and it's like, oh, okay, I

[0:04] guess what are we going to do?

[0:05] >> Yeah, exactly. [laughter]

[0:06] >> You have to talk to each other now.

[0:10] » [laughter]

[0:11] >> Well,

[0:12] less things on the calendar I thought,

[0:14] but it's really not.

[0:16] You still find a way to

[0:18] >> Yeah.

[0:19] >> get busy and do stuff and which is okay.

[0:22] >> Yeah, there's always good stuff to do.

[0:24] >> [laughter]

[0:26] >> One is one. Ben went back to Nebraska.

[0:28] Zach is going back Friday.

[0:30] >> Cuz what years are they?

[0:32] >> Uh juniors, both juniors.

[0:33] >> Well, that went fast.

[0:34] >> It just they start later.

[0:36] >> Yeah.

[0:37] >> About a week apart.

[0:39] Yeah, it did go fast.

[0:41] >> Will they get done in four or will they

[0:42] have to go a little early?

[0:43] >> That's the plan.

[0:45] >> [laughter]

[0:46] >> That's That's the plan.

[0:47] >> Did they stay the course? Did they

[0:49] >> So far they've not

[0:51] >> what I want to do and this is what I

[0:52] >> They've not changed majors.

[0:53] >> You're getting the one minute finger.

[0:56] >> Oh. Oh, she's

[0:58] >> Look alive.

[1:00] >> Is that Dan's AI?

[1:02] >> Yeah. Yes. [laughter]

[1:09] » Okay, I better shut my phone off.

[1:28] » Good evening. It's now 5:30 and I call

[1:30] to order the workshop of Victoria City

[1:32] Council. Our workshops are informal so

[1:34] that with that we're going to dive right

[1:35] into our agenda this evening. We have

[1:38] just one item on our workshop agenda

[1:39] this evening and that item is to discuss

[1:43] the proposed 2027 fees and charges and

[1:45] our preliminary 2027 general fund budget

[1:48] and levy projections.

[1:50] Kicking us off on that item this evening

[1:52] is our assistant city manager and

[1:54] finance director Trisha Pollock. Ms.

[1:56] Pollock, welcome.

[1:57] >> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and

[1:59] members of the council. Abby and I are

[2:01] going to be tag teaming the presentation

[2:03] tonight.

[2:04] >> Perfect. Welcome Abby as well.

[2:07] >> So, this is our third workshop and the

[2:09] final workshop before our max tax levy

[2:12] adoption in September.

[2:14] And our first topic is fees and charges

[2:17] for services.

[2:20] So, our sources of revenue are primarily

[2:22] property taxes, which are 83% or 8.2

[2:28] million of our total revenues of 9.8

[2:31] million.

[2:32] The charges and services include permit

[2:35] revenue, park program fees, and facility

[2:37] rentals that make up 15% or 1.5 million

[2:43] of the total revenues, and then other

[2:45] sources make up 2%, and those include

[2:48] intergovernmental revenues such as

[2:50] police aid and grants. Um includes

[2:53] interest earnings and other

[2:54] miscellaneous refunds and

[2:56] reimbursements.

[3:00] The criteria for adjusting fees include

[3:03] market comparisons, which are set at the

[3:05] mid to upper quartile of the market.

[3:08] Some fees are also set by legislation,

[3:11] such as international building code.

[3:14] And many of our fees are cost recovery

[3:16] and self-supporting where possible.

[3:22] So, how do we project the revenues for

[3:24] the 17% that's not levy or franchise

[3:27] fees?

[3:29] We begin by looking at the 3-year

[3:31] average. So, in this case, the 3-year

[3:34] average is 2023, 24, and 25.

[3:38] And then we also look at our

[3:40] year-to-date for 2026 to determine

[3:42] whether or not there are any trends that

[3:44] have been changing.

[3:46] Our largest revenue for services is

[3:49] building permits, which can be difficult

[3:51] to predict.

[3:53] However, we we look at both the

[3:55] available lots in the city and weigh in

[3:57] the projections from the building

[3:59] department and planning staff

[4:01] to come up with an estimated number of

[4:03] building permits.

[4:05] We are budgeting 130 new homes for 2027,

[4:09] which is 14 less than 2026

[4:13] and decreases the revenue by $49,000.

[4:17] It does reflect a slower pace of new

[4:19] residential homes next year. However, we

[4:22] did increase the plan check fees,

[4:24] mechanical and plumbing permits. So,

[4:26] this incorporates some additional budget

[4:29] for expected commercial permits to come

[4:31] in next year.

[4:34] And then, we are also reducing our

[4:36] budget for facility rentals and

[4:38] recreation fees. While facility rentals

[4:41] continue to stay stable, we've been

[4:43] reducing the number of programs

[4:45] and therefore reducing the overall

[4:47] revenues

[4:48] as expected. So,

[4:50] I am going to pass this over to Abby

[4:54] unless you have specific questions about

[4:57] budgeting and these revenues.

[4:59] >> Thank you. Council, questions for Ms.

[5:02] before we

[5:03] volley over to Abby.

[5:07] Uh I think we're good here.

[5:10] Whoops.

[5:10] >> I I unplugged us.

[5:16] We're just having a moment.

[5:18] >> We are We are having a moment.

[5:26] » Bring out Alyssa.

[5:27] >> Here. Oh, there we go.

[5:28] >> We're back. We're back.

[5:30] >> Back in business.

[5:30] >> All right. So, these next few slides

[5:33] will detail out the changes to the 2027

[5:35] fee schedule um that don't include

[5:38] water, sewer, stormwater, which we'll

[5:40] discuss in November when we look at the

[5:41] inner enterprise budgets.

[5:44] So, for community development, we're

[5:46] increasing tree replacement from 100 to

[5:48] 250 per caliper inch. That's the

[5:51] circumference at 6 in from the ground.

[5:54] For miscellaneous licenses and charges,

[5:57] we're changing the annual solicitor

[5:59] permits from 70 per solicitor to $100

[6:03] per company and then plus a $40 per

[6:06] solicitor on top of that.

[6:08] So, for a 10-person crew, this would be

[6:10] a reduction from 700 to $500.

[6:14] Um we're no longer emailing references

[6:16] for each individual crew member, so

[6:18] staff time is reduced there.

[6:21] We're also removing the weekly hawker

[6:24] peddler license in favor of having only

[6:26] an annual license. And the reasoning

[6:28] here is that staff time required to

[6:30] process the license is the same

[6:33] regardless if it's weekly or annually.

[6:36] And additionally, we have not received a

[6:37] request for a weekly permit in the last

[6:39] 4 years.

[6:42] The council candidacy application fee is

[6:45] set by the Minnesota state statute. Uh

[6:47] staff is proposing to include the fee

[6:49] for transparency.

[6:53] And public works, staff is proposing a

[6:55] new fee for a water shutoff and turn on

[6:58] that is outside the regular hours.

[7:01] Minimum pay for a callback is 2 hours.

[7:04] And callbacks are paid at an overtime

[7:05] rate. And so to recover the cost for the

[7:08] 2 hours of overtime pay, we're proposing

[7:10] a new fee there.

[7:11] >> I have a question for you. What's the

[7:12] difference between our solicitor and

[7:14] hawker

[7:15] peddler licenses? What's What would be

[7:17] the difference between those two?

[7:20] >> I'll pass it to Claudia since our city

[7:21] clerk is so handily right here next to

[7:23] me.

[7:24] >> Claudia, thank you.

[7:25] >> So, a solicitor permit would be someone

[7:27] who's going like door-to-door

[7:31] for um

[7:32] items that will be delivered at a later

[7:36] time and date.

[7:38] Um and then your your um your other one,

[7:41] the hawker, is like the ice cream.

[7:45] >> Oh, so they're delivering to you

[7:48] right now. You're going to purchase

[7:50] something. Oh, and it's food.

[7:52] >> the hawker like ice cream is food or it

[7:55] could be something else. That's normally

[7:57] all we get for the hawker is like the

[8:00] ice cream or but it could be something

[8:02] else, you know.

[8:04] >> Food related.

[8:05] >> usually a food.

[8:07] >> Do we

[8:08] like a would a food truck come under

[8:09] that license?

[8:11] >> No, that would be you could license a

[8:14] food truck.

[8:15] But they're also licensed by

[8:19] Minnesota Department of Health.

[8:20] >> Okay.

[8:22] Um, so the solicitor permits, those

[8:25] would that would include

[8:27] um, people who are selling pest control

[8:30] services, window washing, any of those

[8:34] things. So folks, [cough]

[8:35] if they're coming to your door, you

[8:36] should ask them for their solicitor

[8:38] permit.

[8:39] >> Correct. We also have them posted on our

[8:41] website.

[8:42] >> Okay, very good. And if they don't have

[8:44] one, send them down to City Hall to get

[8:45] one.

[8:47] Okay.

[8:50] Thank you, Abby. Any other questions,

[8:52] Council?

[8:54] >> Just had a How often do we have a water

[8:56] shut on shut off outside regular hours?

[8:59] Like 10 a year, 100? I'm just curious.

[9:02] >> Um,

[9:04] thank you for that question. Um, we

[9:05] don't really get too often. It's usually

[9:07] an emergency turn on and shut off.

[9:10] Um, where the pager phone will get

[9:13] called and they'll have to respond. Um,

[9:16] you know, usually after late in the

[9:18] evening and they have to have like a

[9:20] plumber come in. The plumber will

[9:22] um, call the pager phone to have that

[9:26] turned the water turned off.

[9:28] >> Because it's probably a flooding

[9:29] situation.

[9:30] >> Yeah, exactly. So, um, we just recently

[9:34] had a couple of them, but I can't recall

[9:37] that we've had any other ones this year.

[9:39] So, it's it's not real common.

[9:41] >> Okay. Thank you.

[9:43] >> Any other

[9:43] >> Dear members of the council, I just want

[9:45] to add for transparency purposes when

[9:48] that happens, when we the way that our

[9:50] callbacks work for public public works,

[9:53] and Trish can talk to this, too, if I'm

[9:56] either misspeaking or

[9:58] not clear, but um we have a minimum time

[10:01] that we have to pay when we're doing

[10:03] callbacks and overtimes, so it's a

[10:05] minimum of 2 hours.

[10:07] >> Correct.

[10:07] >> Um so, if they show up and it's a

[10:11] 5-minute fix,

[10:13] >> [cough]

[10:13] >> we're paying for those 2 hours. So,

[10:15] we're trying to recover those those

[10:16] costs.

[10:18] Um

[10:20] >> Got it.

[10:20] >> Thank you.

[10:22] >> Right.

[10:23] Okay.

[10:24] Carry on.

[10:25] >> Excellent.

[10:26] >> Okay, the next two slides are Park and

[10:28] Rec in the VRC, so we'll start off with

[10:31] the Victoria Recreation Center.

[10:33] Um the VRC chain charges

[10:37] Sorry, the VRC changes

[10:39] um they center on a new discount rate,

[10:42] and so the discount rate would be for

[10:44] youth, that's 18 and under, seniors,

[10:46] which is 60 plus, military, and first

[10:50] responders residing in Victoria. And so,

[10:53] for a one-time daily pass, it would be a

[10:56] $5 fee, and for a multi-day 10-punch

[10:59] pass, it would be the proportionate $5

[11:02] fee.

[11:04] Um with the transition to cashless,

[11:06] staff would like to provide an option

[11:09] for discounted users for entry without

[11:12] committing to a membership.

[11:13] Additionally, staff would would be tran-

[11:16] transitioning open pickleball from a

[11:18] program to an entry fee option to allow

[11:21] consistent guidelines around the

[11:23] activity.

[11:26] Staff is proposing to remove the

[11:28] advertising kiosk in the VRC. The city's

[11:31] bond attorney has recommended against

[11:33] any advertising at the VRC until the

[11:35] bonds are fully paid for.

[11:38] And staff is also proposing changes to

[11:40] the multi-purpose room.

[11:42] The half room service is not regularly

[11:45] used due to the small size of the half

[11:47] room and in cases where a half room is

[11:49] rented, typically the other half remains

[11:52] open.

[11:53] Um additionally, this creates additional

[11:55] staff time to prepare the room for each

[11:57] renter.

[12:00] Any questions on this slide?

[12:02] Council?

[12:03] All righty. Self-explanatory.

[12:06] Go ahead.

[12:07] Okay, and the next one is for park and

[12:09] rec. So, for park and rec, staff is

[12:11] proposing to revise the shelter rental

[12:14] structure for simplicity and

[12:15] consistency.

[12:17] Staff is proposing to reduce the cost

[12:20] from prior year as staff received

[12:22] significant reduction in usage,

[12:24] potentially due to the cost barriers.

[12:26] We're also proposing to break out the

[12:28] shelters into two groups.

[12:30] The first are for the four post park

[12:32] shelters with limited services and

[12:34] amenities. That would be like Madis

[12:36] Madeleine Creek. And then the second

[12:38] group of shelters would be the ones with

[12:41] restrooms.

[12:43] So, both groups are proposing decreased

[12:45] fees.

[12:47] The second chunk here is in relation to

[12:49] Lions Pavilion. Staff is proposing to

[12:52] decrease the weekend rentals for

[12:53] residents from 350 to 300 a day and

[12:57] increase weekend rentals for

[12:59] non-residents from 350 to 400.

[13:03] And for there, we're we're actually just

[13:05] trying to make the premium of a weekend

[13:07] rental consistent across the board. So,

[13:10] the premium on a weekend rental would be

[13:11] $50.

[13:14] Um up next is the athletic fields. So,

[13:17] field rentals are currently not being

[13:19] charged consistently across the city.

[13:21] Staff is recommending removing this item

[13:24] as it does not cost staff additional

[13:26] time to reserve the fields. However,

[13:29] field prep is a is a rare service, but

[13:32] it does take significant time and cost.

[13:36] As the city would allow the use of the

[13:37] fields at no cost, we would charge them

[13:39] for the additional labor, such as field

[13:42] prep and lining a space.

[13:45] And lastly, we're proposing to remove

[13:47] the ice arena packages as the city does

[13:49] not have the ability to determine and

[13:51] schedule ice time to the requirements

[13:53] needed for this type of service.

[13:59] All right.

[14:01] Council questions

[14:04] on this?

[14:07] Okay. All right.

[14:09] Um we did do a special deep dive this

[14:12] year.

[14:13] Um we did a market analysis of our

[14:15] Parkland dedication fees. We compared

[14:18] both our industrial and residential

[14:20] Parkland dedication fees to the market

[14:22] cities in the area.

[14:24] A brief overview of Parkland dedication

[14:26] fees for anyone watching at home is that

[14:28] the city of Victoria and other

[14:30] communities, as you see here, require a

[14:32] certain percentage of each new

[14:34] development to be dedicated to park

[14:36] space.

[14:37] A developer can choose to pay a Parkland

[14:39] dedication fee in lieu of the land for

[14:41] the park.

[14:43] For the analysis, I reviewed the fee

[14:44] schedules of our market cities

[14:47] uh and compared where Victoria falls

[14:50] within our neighboring communities. On

[14:52] this slide are the Parkland dedication

[14:54] fees for residential developments.

[14:57] Uh here we Here we have the green bar

[14:59] for single family,

[15:01] pink for duplexes, and blue for a

[15:04] multi-family.

[15:06] Um for the For the single family, the

[15:08] green bar, I found that we are close to

[15:10] average. We're very comparable to

[15:12] Chaska, Carver, and Minnetonka.

[15:15] For duplex and multi-family, I found

[15:17] that we're a little bit below average

[15:19] here.

[15:20] And I included a table there at the

[15:21] bottom with the average and the median.

[15:33] » Council que-

[15:34] questions on this. Now, this is

[15:35] something we've been talking about.

[15:38] Council member Wright, you've got a

[15:39] question.

[15:40] >> Well, I was just it's more of a comment.

[15:42] I didn't think we were that low on the

[15:45] duplex and multi-family side.

[15:48] To our peers.

[15:49] >> Yeah.

[15:50] I would I would also favor boosting

[15:52] those up.

[15:53] It feels like most other market cities

[15:56] all have the same

[15:58] rate for Parkland dedication regardless

[16:01] of what the housing unit is. I I would

[16:04] favor us going consistent that way as

[16:07] well.

[16:08] >> W- Where Do Do we survey Waconia?

[16:13] >> I don't see them on here.

[16:15] >> I don't believe Waconia is in here. Um

[16:18] >> I think

[16:19] were they were they one of the ones that

[16:21] had kind of the anomaly of the way that

[16:24] they

[16:25] >> Yes.

[16:26] >> Yeah.

[16:26] >> You're right. So, Waconia did not have

[16:28] like a flat fee in their fee schedule.

[16:31] It was very formula-based.

[16:33] It was like 5% of

[16:35] something something. And so, it wasn't

[16:37] easy to have a consistent

[16:40] um comparison with Waconia in there, but

[16:42] I definitely could pull Waconia for you

[16:44] if you would like.

[16:45] >> Yeah, and then how do we Do we Do we

[16:48] have

[16:50] Minnetrista? Do we have Mound?

[16:55] We have

[16:56] >> I could add Mound, yes.

[16:59] And I could also add Minnetrista if you

[17:01] if you'd like.

[17:06] Yes, absolutely.

[17:07] >> So, like Minnetonka is

[17:09] five across [snorts] the board and

[17:11] Carver's about

[17:13] 4,800 across the board, it looks like.

[17:16] >> Correct, yep.

[17:18] >> Chanhassen about the same.

[17:22] >> Those are the three that I

[17:23] >> Chanhassen

[17:24] is higher.

[17:29] » I mean my my thought is we need to be

[17:31] more in the zone of Eden Prairie,

[17:34] Rogers, Corcoran, Chanhassen,

[17:37] Shakopee. I mean the It's It's one thing

[17:40] to look at the averages of these

[17:41] communities. It's all It's a completely

[17:44] different

[17:45] um

[17:46] view to look at the utilization. I mean

[17:49] we we have so much more of activity

[17:52] going on here and we have so much more

[17:55] of um

[17:56] parks that we need to pay for.

[17:58] >> I think Minnetonka is a good one to look

[17:59] at, too.

[18:01] In some respects, but they're more built

[18:03] out, but it's

[18:04] >> Right.

[18:04] >> Yeah, I mean the we we seemed and it seems that the project

[18:09] after project after project after project is not committing

[18:13] land, they're dedicating

[18:15] >> Mhm.

[18:15] >> fees. If If that's the direction that

[18:17] developers want to go, then I think it's

[18:20] incumbent for the city of Victoria to be

[18:22] able to use that to provide its

[18:24] residents with the benefits that they

[18:26] keep telling us that they want, that

[18:27] they need, we know that are outrageously

[18:30] expensive, and that we routinely make compromises to what we

[18:34] need to do

[18:36] um because we just don't have the

[18:38] funding to do it. So, if we have a

[18:40] captive audience that is is looking to

[18:44] um

[18:46] utilize fees in terms of dedication,

[18:49] they don't want to dedicate the land

[18:50] because they're making a decision that

[18:52] it's more profitable for them to chunk

[18:55] another property on there, let's start

[18:57] to shift that balance of the equation

[18:59] towards maximizing the benefit for

[19:02] Victoria. We should be able to find the

[19:04] inflection point of where somebody says,

[19:08] "I think that that's a a high and I

[19:10] maybe don't want to develop there." I

[19:12] don't think we're at that problem. And

[19:14] we certainly are one of the communities

[19:15] in the Twin Cities that have the space

[19:18] to do it. So, um

[19:20] and and then on top of it, we

[19:23] continually get pushed and this is to my

[19:25] good friend Council Member Patterson,

[19:28] you you as well as I know the constant

[19:31] pushing on this council and planning

[19:33] commission and staff to continue to

[19:35] shrink down these side yard setbacks so

[19:38] that a particular parcel of land can put

[19:41] that many more profitable homes on it.

[19:44] The that that should come at a cost to

[19:47] the developer that hey, Victoria's not

[19:50] the place to run over on this kind of

[19:52] thing.

[19:53] We want these services. This is our

[19:55] time. Uh you know, we should be really

[20:00] um

[20:01] almost adamant on being able to push

[20:04] these high these fees higher to pay for

[20:06] the things that we know we desperately

[20:08] need and our residents desperately want.

[20:11] >> There is

[20:13] a statutory limit on this, is there not?

[20:17] Yeah, Ms. Hardy, please.

[20:18] >> Mayor and members of the council, we

[20:20] don't have the benefit of our attorney

[20:21] being here, but if I recall from the

[20:23] conversation that we last had about this

[20:26] earlier in the year,

[20:28] and you might notice on the chart here,

[20:30] we did include Burnsville. So, there's

[20:32] not necessarily a statutory limit. My

[20:34] understanding was that there was a court

[20:36] case

[20:37] with Burnsville that essentially set

[20:40] this

[20:41] I'll use in quotes a ceiling for what is

[20:44] acceptable.

[20:46] And so, we wanted to put the Burnsville

[20:48] information there just for visibility

[20:50] into what that ceiling would look like.

[20:54] Um

[20:55] >> Is there a formula to that ceiling?

[20:58] >> That I don't know enough about the court

[21:00] case or I have not read through all of

[21:02] that and maybe Bob could talk more to

[21:04] that, but

[21:05] >> I think it'd be instructive.

[21:07] Madam City Manager for

[21:10] Bob to bring that to us because

[21:12] my recollection of the conversation with

[21:14] him about is that this was a disparity

[21:18] between how commercial

[21:21] developments were being assessed

[21:22] Parkland dedication fees versus a

[21:25] multi-family or a duplex because the I

[21:28] think the

[21:29] underlying crux of the argument is that

[21:32] well, I mean people are going to be

[21:33] here. They're not going to be using

[21:36] parks and trails and things like that

[21:38] cuz they're going to be working. They

[21:39] leave and they go home. So, it's not

[21:40] necessarily fair to a commercial

[21:43] property to be

[21:44] assessed an outrageously large Parkland

[21:47] dedication fee.

[21:49] Where we're going with this is we are

[21:52] tying the the use of those funds with

[21:55] the source of the funds better in a

[21:57] residential setting versus a commercial

[21:59] setting. So, if we could get if we could

[22:01] get that clarity so that we're you know,

[22:03] making value-based decisions on the

[22:06] right basis would be helpful.

[22:08] >> I guess I would just say I mean, I

[22:10] completely agree with everything

[22:11] Councilmember Urbanski has said.

[22:14] Um

[22:15] I wonder where and this is obviously

[22:18] what staff is probably going to have to

[22:19] look into is that like where's that

[22:24] right line, right? Because we don't want

[22:26] to get to a point where it's so high,

[22:28] you know, that yes, they're just giving

[22:30] you know, the minimum amount of land

[22:33] that's just going to be like they're not

[22:34] going to really do anything with it, but

[22:35] now it's you know, our like we're going

[22:38] to have to take care of it. We're going

[22:39] to have to right? So, we don't want just

[22:41] there's got to be some

[22:45] I don't want to say negative, but like

[22:46] there's like a give like a push and pull

[22:48] here with this. So, I I completely agree

[22:50] with you that we want to get uh

[22:54] as much as we can, right? And we want

[22:56] I'd rather have them, you know, build

[22:58] nice big beautiful

[23:00] park, but

[23:01] um you know, what like you said, right?

[23:04] Like right now we're just it's, you

[23:05] know, we're not going to do it because

[23:07] the fee is low enough where they're

[23:08] just, you know, we'd rather put another

[23:09] house on a lot and do it, but um, I

[23:13] guess I'm just curious if

[23:15] whether it's uh, you guys or Ms. Hardy,

[23:18] like if there's any

[23:21] if we've looked at this enough to know

[23:22] if like what would be the downside of I

[23:24] guess raising this to a point where

[23:28] you know, it

[23:30] like what would be the downside?

[23:33] >> Mayor Council Member Roberts, members of

[23:35] the council, no, we've not done a deep

[23:36] dive analysis on that, but just from the

[23:39] things that you're saying are are

[23:40] exactly the things that we would likely

[23:42] be flagging. So, if the council would

[23:45] like us to do a deeper dive in this and

[23:46] do some additional analysis, we can

[23:48] certainly do that and bring this back

[23:50] for um, your budget discussion this

[23:52] fall.

[23:52] >> Yeah, I think

[23:54] >> And I think it's similar to like look at

[23:55] a couple spotlight cities. I think you

[23:57] brought up some Council Member Wanski to

[23:59] add

[24:00] I think the other thing is

[24:03] Delano, Buffalo.

[24:05] Some of these areas that are a little

[24:06] farther away, but they're growth

[24:08] communities.

[24:09] >> Right.

[24:09] >> And and look at it from that

[24:11] perspective. I mean, I'm I'm looking at

[24:13] multi-family. I think we're not we're

[24:15] the lowest.

[24:18] Yep, maybe Chaska's just one slot below.

[24:21] And then duplex we're pretty far we're

[24:23] as you said, we're pretty

[24:26] um, close to average or above average on

[24:28] the single family. I'm just wondering I

[24:30] just was surprised at the discrepancy.

[24:32] >> Yeah.

[24:32] >> Sorry.

[24:33] I was just curious and you probably

[24:36] don't look into it um, you know, most of

[24:38] these

[24:39] the single family is either the highest

[24:42] or

[24:43] you know, even with the other ones. I'm

[24:45] curious

[24:46] why Burnsville and Elk River are

[24:48] basically the exact opposite of the like

[24:51] what I mean, I know like Burnsville's a

[24:53] much bigger city, right? So,

[24:55] um, but I'm just curious as to why that

[24:58] would

[24:59] be.

[25:00] >> You know, I think things also like we

[25:02] perspective again is like utilization.

[25:05] Um, I I think that

[25:07] we're probably

[25:09] at least in sort of our current vision

[25:11] and alignment on the balance of

[25:13] multi-family and duplexes vis-a-vis

[25:16] residential in the city of Victoria.

[25:18] We've heard from our residents on, you

[25:20] know, their um desires on the the mix

[25:24] that we have. I think we re- I have a

[25:27] There's

[25:28] little daylight between us on we feel

[25:30] like we have the right balance. So,

[25:34] while the the bars tell a story that

[25:36] we're below,

[25:38] will we actually have that utilized?

[25:41] Possibly not, right? So, we don't

[25:43] necessarily need to get that as right as

[25:46] where the next development is going to

[25:49] come from and that next development is

[25:52] leaning its way towards single-family.

[25:55] And we should like Councilmember Roberts

[25:58] is alluding to, what's what's the choke

[26:00] point? Where does a developer say, "Hey,

[26:02] I want to give you land because you

[26:04] charged me too much to buy it from you."

[26:06] Um,

[26:07] it would be I think instructive for us

[26:09] to look at the last 2 years of developments that

[26:14] have taken place in the city of Victoria

[26:16] and say, "What percentage of those

[26:19] projects have these developers come to

[26:22] the city and said, 'I want to buy land

[26:24] instead of giving you

[26:25] Um, so and you guys have heard me with

[26:28] my smart-ass clique, "We all I want to

[26:30] be known as the city of lakes and parks,

[26:32] not the city of lakes and parkland

[26:34] dedication fees." So, um

[26:37] I think that we we can't we can't build

[26:41] parcels of land. We can

[26:44] really shape what we do with the parcel

[26:46] of lands

[26:48] to the best of our abilities and part of

[26:49] that ability has to deal with how much

[26:51] we have in terms of financial resources

[26:54] to do it. If we don't ask for the

[26:56] resources, we won't get them and we'll

[26:58] just be saying, I I would have loved to

[27:01] do this, but I can't. I mean, I

[27:05] >> Any other comments for staff?

[27:08] >> I would just say what what's the

[27:10] negative of of doubling the duplex and

[27:12] the multi-family park dedication fees? I

[27:14] mean, it to me that looks like that's

[27:15] going to get us

[27:16] in line with a lot of the other cities

[27:18] that we're comparing ourselves to here.

[27:21] Um

[27:23] I guess I can't figure out what the

[27:24] downside would be other than they choose

[27:27] not to develop here, but they're not

[27:28] getting any better deal anywhere else

[27:30] for it. So, why not be even with

[27:32] everybody else?

[27:33] >> I I'm I'm aligned with you. There

[27:35] There's we can certainly

[27:37] you know, bring us in line with other

[27:39] communities there. Again, I think that

[27:42] utilization as we've all pointed to may

[27:44] not be there, but yeah, the the

[27:46] consistency would I think it'd be a very

[27:49] noble cause in this.

[27:50] >> All right, staff, I'm seeing consensus

[27:53] around let's take a look at a couple

[27:55] more market rate or market

[27:58] cities.

[28:00] Um

[28:00] give us some ideas about where we can

[28:03] where that inflection point is and then

[28:05] we also want to hear from Bob about

[28:08] what

[28:10] We don't want to see ourselves in court

[28:11] over this either. So,

[28:14] um

[28:15] everybody staff clear on that? Great.

[28:18] Okay. Any final thoughts?

[28:21] We're moving on. Excellent. Thank you.

[28:24] >> Okay, so while this slide is for

[28:26] residential fees,

[28:29] slide is the same Parkland dedication

[28:31] fees. It's a market comparison, but it's

[28:33] for industrial and commercial fees.

[28:36] Um

[28:38] Victoria, as you can see here, is the

[28:40] second lowest,

[28:42] higher only

[28:43] higher more only than Carver. So, I've

[28:46] included Burnsville here, also way at

[28:48] the end. Um Burnsville is not considered

[28:51] one of our market cities.

[28:53] Um and so, it's not included in the

[28:55] average in the table below there,

[28:56] either.

[28:58] But, I just wanted to include it because

[29:00] of the discussion around it.

[29:02] Um looking at the table, Victoria is

[29:04] well below the average and mean for

[29:07] Parkland dedication fees for our market

[29:08] cities

[29:10] on the industrial and commercial uses,

[29:11] too.

[29:13] >> Okay, so this was the These were the

[29:15] fees that we just said we we can collect

[29:18] Parkland dedication fees from these

[29:19] folks, but these are people who are here

[29:21] for work and not

[29:24] I mean, we certainly could we use these for to create a plaza

[29:30] where people can have lunch, those kinds

[29:32] of things? Is that considered Parkland?

[29:34] >> I think so. I

[29:37] >> You know, if we had a market

[29:38] >> or

[29:39] >> Yeah, if we had a, you know, an office

[29:41] park

[29:42] to create a plaza or an area where

[29:46] people could you know, with benches or

[29:48] picnic tables, those kinds of things.

[29:50] >> Mayor and Council, I do think if you're

[29:51] calling it a park and actually naming it

[29:54] and you accept it as a park, you could

[29:56] certainly use Parkland dedication for

[29:58] that. The only restriction on Parkland

[30:00] dedication fees is that you can't use it

[30:03] for ongoing maintenance or to do

[30:06] replacement of existing amenities.

[30:11] » Obviously, I think it's like a good spot

[30:13] where we can get ahead of this by

[30:15] bringing us up the average to the place

[30:17] that I think we're going to see

[30:19] this kind of activity. Downtown West is

[30:21] largely done, so

[30:23] um certainly, we're probably not going

[30:25] to

[30:26] be able to

[30:28] garner much in that space.

[30:30] Um but, the South growth area is a place

[30:34] where

[30:35] these

[30:36] where we where we one would expect we're

[30:38] going to see this

[30:40] kind of um

[30:41] commercial development and

[30:43] we we would be well served with

[30:48] having those areas develop and

[30:51] um

[30:53] get in line with other communities on

[30:55] this uh

[30:57] again cuz

[30:59] we we we know that this stuff is

[31:01] expensive. We know that it's needed and

[31:03] this is our place to get it if we're not

[31:05] going to get land.

[31:07] >> The only thing I would say, I mean we

[31:08] definitely have obviously room to grow

[31:10] here based off of

[31:12] these numbers.

[31:13] Um

[31:14] I do think we need to be careful in this

[31:16] area of getting too high. I I think we

[31:19] want to

[31:21] you know, residential I think is a

[31:23] different beast. We have plenty of

[31:25] people that want to build houses here.

[31:26] We keep searching for the right

[31:28] commercial developments and I'm I do

[31:30] think we want to be careful and be more

[31:32] cognizant of trying to entice commercial

[31:34] development here. So um you know, that

[31:37] could be a factor in yes yes we're still

[31:40] lower than most these, but our land

[31:42] prices are also probably higher than a

[31:44] lot of these places as well. So we know

[31:46] our land prices tend to be high in

[31:48] Victoria. So

[31:50] um

[31:50] you know,

[31:51] we've wanted to get more commercial

[31:53] development to help take the burden off

[31:55] our taxpayers. So um I would just say

[31:58] although we want

[32:00] I think we have room to maybe raise this

[32:02] a little bit. I also want to be careful

[32:04] and not uh dissuade commercial

[32:06] development or industrial development

[32:07] from coming because of these additional

[32:09] fees here.

[32:10] >> It's a good point.

[32:14] » Any other comments on this?

[32:18] Okay.

[32:19] I think we see some room for growth

[32:21] here.

[32:23] >> Excellent. Thank you.

[32:24] >> I'm going to pass it back to Trish.

[32:27] >> Okay.

[32:29] so next up um this slide is

[32:32] looking at our utility franchise fee

[32:34] fund. Um it's a 10-year projection.

[32:38] We currently are building about 100,000

[32:41] annually in fund balance. The original

[32:45] undergrounding debt will be paid off in

[32:47] year 2031.

[32:50] And then the Wasserman Park bonds will

[32:52] be paid off in 2036.

[32:55] So, staff are not recommending an

[32:56] increase in utility franchise fees at

[32:59] this time.

[33:00] Um, and just for added information, the

[33:03] franchise fee agreement does sunset

[33:06] after 20 years. So, it would be at year

[33:08] end 2036 when it would need to be

[33:11] renegotiated.

[33:15] » And so, currently those are the only two

[33:17] obligations we have to

[33:19] the franchise fees.

[33:20] >> That's correct, Mayor.

[33:23] » Council, thoughts, comments, questions?

[33:38] » Okay.

[33:43] » I'm a little uncomfortable collecting

[33:44] fees if we don't have a purpose for

[33:45] them.

[33:47] Um,

[33:49] I'm feeling like this is something we

[33:52] might want to revisit once we've been able to service our debt

[33:57] that we owe.

[33:58] Um, unless we have another purpose for

[34:01] using these franchise fees, we could

[34:04] um, pause them. We could set them early.

[34:09] Um,

[34:11] Council, any thoughts on that?

[34:15] » The fee's for burying cables, right? And

[34:17] then we used it for Wasserman Park or

[34:20] Wasserman Preserve,

[34:22] which

[34:23] could be considered outside of the

[34:24] original purpose of those fees.

[34:27] Um,

[34:31] I'm with you. I think it should be

[34:33] sunset once we paid off our debt for

[34:35] these two things.

[34:39] I know that's not what staff wants to

[34:40] hear, but

[34:41] >> [laughter]

[34:42] >> I mean, just to be just to be clear

[34:43] though, the the 20 years will align with

[34:48] the bonds ending for Washington Park, so

[34:51] that

[34:52] but once that when that sunsets, we're

[34:54] going to have a fund balance of $2.6

[34:56] million.

[34:59] Um, that's correct, Mayor. That's the

[35:00] projection. I mean, we are projecting

[35:03] what revenues will be, so I can't say

[35:05] that that's going to be exactly what the

[35:07] fund balance will be, but approximately

[35:09] according to projections and continued

[35:12] growth in the city.

[35:13] >> Right.

[35:14] >> Um, that's what we would anticipate.

[35:17] Um,

[35:18] I did have a conversation with Cara

[35:21] asking about additional undergrounding

[35:23] projects and

[35:25] at this time, unless we want to bury

[35:28] lines that are already above ground,

[35:32] um, we wouldn't have any

[35:34] additional projects that

[35:37] is on their radar,

[35:38] um, from an engineering standpoint, so.

[35:41] >> Let me ask this question. So, we are

[35:44] currently

[35:45] collecting a franchise fee and that's a

[35:47] fee that we have set.

[35:49] So, we have the ability to either raise

[35:51] or lower that fee and that fee is

[35:54] um, spent based on council direction or

[35:56] council policy.

[35:58] I'm seeing a nod from our city manager

[36:00] that that is true. So, we could, um,

[36:04] we could reduce that fee, so we're not

[36:07] with a, you know, we don't have that

[36:09] fund balance that high that has no

[36:12] assignment to it.

[36:14] Um,

[36:16] we could sun-

[36:17] we could carry on with it and then

[36:19] sunset it, let it automatically sunset

[36:21] in 2036. One of the things I think

[36:24] that's in is

[36:27] interesting about franchise fees is

[36:28] every member

[36:30] every community member pays them.

[36:33] So, if we have projects that we feel

[36:36] like everybody should have a part in,

[36:39] this is a good way to pay for some of

[36:41] those kinds of things.

[36:43] So, every, you know, nonprofit that

[36:46] isn't paying property taxes does pay

[36:48] franchise fees.

[36:49] Um

[36:50] so, that's that's something to consider,

[36:53] but

[36:55] this is a policy conversation for sure.

[37:02] So, I would encourage

[37:05] I don't know that we want to make any

[37:07] changes at this point, but I'd encourage

[37:08] Council to give this some thought.

[37:12] >> Yeah, Mayor, I mean, I I share with you

[37:14] on your thoughts on that. The

[37:17] um

[37:19] there is certainly a great benefit to

[37:22] have something where,

[37:23] you know,

[37:25] effectively, what you've said is it's a

[37:26] head tax. Every head that walks around.

[37:29] They breathe the same amount of oxygen

[37:32] regardless of whether or not their house

[37:34] is worth 500,000 or whether it's worth 5

[37:37] million. So, that there is a certain

[37:39] fairness to it. Um

[37:41] we don't really start to accelerate on

[37:43] this till we get to 2032. And so, that's

[37:47] 5 years forward in the future. Future.

[37:51] We do like run up against a little bit

[37:54] of like we don't have a crystal ball

[37:56] here.

[37:56] >> Mhm.

[37:56] >> Um

[37:58] we we don't know what potentially could

[38:00] be

[38:01] around the corner. Certainly, uh if we

[38:04] pay attention to the headlines, those of

[38:07] late are things like

[38:09] where is this enormous amount of

[38:11] electricity going to come from to power

[38:13] the latest and greatest AI boom that's

[38:15] just right around the corner that's

[38:17] going to make us all very productive and

[38:19] we'll be able to sit and do nothing and

[38:21] just earn

[38:22] passive income. Um Um

[38:24] somehow or another those those projects

[38:26] are going to make their way into an

[38:28] infrastructure need that we might have

[38:30] to face that we we can't foresee today.

[38:33] So, I agree that um a policy perspective

[38:36] is good. Uh

[38:38] it's a tool in our toolkit that we just

[38:42] uh

[38:42] need to be judicious about, but we've

[38:44] certainly have uh made

[38:47] a good amount of benefit to the citizens

[38:49] of Victoria

[38:50] over the years by having interfund

[38:54] loans as well that have, you know,

[38:56] really made the burden of

[38:58] uh

[38:59] other large projects that more uh

[39:03] that that that, you know, bringing

[39:04] benefit. So, let's I mean, I

[39:07] Again, you make a great point, but we

[39:08] don't want to

[39:10] necessarily artificially hamstring

[39:12] ourselves or

[39:14] uh

[39:15] take away from some of our tools.

[39:20] » Okay. Other comments? Thoughts?

[39:23] >> I think Ms. Hardy has one.

[39:24] >> Thank you, Mayor, and

[39:26] members of the council. I just want to

[39:28] say from a staff perspective, we 100%

[39:31] understand and know that this is a

[39:32] policy decision. So, whatever the

[39:34] council decides that we are 100%

[39:37] comfortable with that. So, when you're

[39:38] ready to have that policy conversation,

[39:41] we'd be happy to do whatever research

[39:43] that you would like and bring that

[39:45] information back for you to consider. Um

[39:48] I think all the things that you have

[39:49] said here are all very good things to

[39:50] consider. I will note that um the

[39:53] franchise fees are allowed for any

[39:56] public purpose. So, as you look for

[39:58] alternative funding sources, you heard

[40:00] earlier 83% of our property taxes or our

[40:03] revenues are property taxes. So, um if

[40:05] you're looking at um having um this is

[40:09] essentially a tax, a tax that is

[40:11] collected not only by property owners,

[40:13] but everybody even those who don't pay

[40:16] property taxes would be subject to

[40:17] paying these fees.

[40:19] Um cities, for example, will use these

[40:22] types of utility franchise fees for

[40:24] things like sidewalks and trail

[40:26] maintenance replacements, trail gap uh

[40:29] construction,

[40:31] um some of the road so mill and overlay

[40:33] projects, things like that.

[40:36] Um it could be for the recreation

[40:37] centers we're looking at to have

[40:39] property tax support for those. So,

[40:40] there there could be some policy

[40:42] decisions where you're looking for

[40:45] uh property tax relief um where this

[40:48] could come into a policy decision, but

[40:51] um

[40:52] noted that that's in the future. So, as

[40:55] you're thinking about those things, I

[40:56] just wanted um

[40:58] wanted you to have some additional

[40:59] context to think about.

[41:01] >> And those are good alternate uses, what

[41:03] you're discussing. Um what would be a

[41:07] good next step? Would it Is it a Is it a

[41:10] workshop type item, do you think?

[41:13] Would that be a benefit?

[41:15] I I think it would be a benefit to me

[41:17] personally.

[41:18] >> Yeah.

[41:19] >> Mayor members of the council, I think

[41:20] this would be a really good all-day

[41:22] workshop discussion cuz then you could

[41:24] align it with your strategic priorities

[41:26] and really take that deep dive.

[41:27] >> I I I tend to agree with you. I mean, I hesitate to just stockpile money

[41:35] because we can

[41:37] without a purpose to it. And I feel like

[41:40] we with the changes coming up with the

[41:43] rec center and all of those kinds of

[41:45] things, that that would be really a good

[41:47] and useful exercise for us.

[41:49] >> I I would just add

[41:50] I mean, I I agree with Council member

[41:52] Vanski, right? Like this is

[41:55] you know, we should be looking at it

[41:56] now, right? And and and and figuring

[41:58] these things out, but you know, we're

[42:01] 2036, 2032, whatever is

[42:03] aways out and you know, a lot can change

[42:06] in that time. We've also got

[42:08] being that they can be used for pretty

[42:09] much anything it sounds like or most

[42:11] things that, you know, we've got the uh

[42:15] cold storage unit that's down here

[42:17] that's going to have to be replaced at

[42:19] some point, right? We're going to need

[42:20] funds for that. We have um you know,

[42:22] what what might we have to do to the old

[42:25] fire station to um

[42:27] you know, make it usable for whatever is

[42:29] determined that we need to use uh

[42:32] the rec center.

[42:34] We've heard parking a lot, right? It

[42:35] could be used for you know, whatever is

[42:37] determined with parking. So, um I I just

[42:40] I hesitate to say like, "Yeah, we

[42:42] shouldn't

[42:43] we should just stop doing these because

[42:45] they're

[42:46] it's not

[42:48] these aren't dream things that we're

[42:50] thinking about. There are real things

[42:52] that in the near very near future we're

[42:54] going to have to start figuring out how

[42:56] to pay. So.

[42:58] And it's another option where you're

[43:00] like, "We don't have to take out a loan.

[43:02] We have the money, right?" So, we're not

[43:03] paying interest. We're not you know, so.

[43:08] » We don't have the money right now. We

[43:09] have $677,000

[43:11] right now.

[43:12] >> but I'm saying in

[43:13] by 2032 we will, right? Right? So.

[43:16] >> I mean, it's we're looking at 10 years

[43:18] down the road and I'm just saying

[43:20] as a tax, which is what it is,

[43:24] if we don't have something or an area to

[43:27] put it, there's no reason to continue to

[43:29] charge for it. That's my point.

[43:34] » All right. More to come on this

[43:36] discussion.

[43:37] All right. Trish, carry on.

[43:39] >> All right.

[43:41] Okay, now we're going to look at the

[43:43] updated 2027 general fund budget and

[43:46] levy.

[43:47] So, in June the preliminary budget levy

[43:50] projection was 3.31%

[43:53] increase.

[43:55] After considering the guidance given

[43:56] from council at that June workshop and

[43:59] additional budget reviews, we are

[44:01] proposing a max tax levy increase of

[44:03] 4.85%.

[44:06] This doesn't mean that property taxes

[44:07] will increase that much. Um that is the

[44:10] amount that it will increase over the

[44:13] 2026

[44:15] um levy.

[44:18] And the changes that have been made

[44:20] since June

[44:22] are um per council direction, an

[44:25] additional parks and rec full-time

[44:27] employee was added back into the budget

[44:30] at $91,000 annually.

[44:33] Um this position will manage open space corridors and capital assets.

[44:40] This position was included in the

[44:43] current year's adopted budget, but had

[44:44] been removed from the proposed 2027

[44:48] budget presented in June.

[44:51] And then the next item, even though

[44:54] um

[44:55] this request won't have a general fund

[44:57] budget impact, we wanted to present the

[44:59] utility department full-time employee

[45:02] request.

[45:03] Um one water operator is going to be

[45:07] reducing their hours to 32 hours a week

[45:09] beginning in January,

[45:12] which will be creating a staffing gap

[45:15] for water on-call coverage and snow

[45:17] plowing responsibilities.

[45:20] Um so by requesting one additional FTE,

[45:23] um the position will additionally

[45:25] support a planned reorganization of

[45:28] public works duties,

[45:30] um as the operational and technical

[45:33] responsibilities are continuing to

[45:35] expand.

[45:36] And this will allow um some existing

[45:39] staff to absorb higher-level technical

[45:42] work, which will then provide a greater

[45:44] support to our public works director and

[45:47] our public works superintendent.

[45:50] And in addition, streets and stormwater

[45:53] duties are going to be um

[45:55] aligned to improve efficiencies on

[45:58] shared activities,

[46:00] uh such as street sweeping,

[46:02] blacktopping, milling, and pond

[46:04] maintenance where um, a larger crew is

[46:06] needed to perform those duties.

[46:09] And this position allows us to maintain

[46:12] our service levels, improve operational

[46:15] flexibility,

[46:16] and supports uh, growing public works

[46:19] demands um, with a single additional

[46:22] FTE.

[46:23] Again, no increase to the general fund

[46:25] budget, and we will discuss the further

[46:28] impact um, that this will have to the

[46:31] enterprise funds at our November

[46:33] discussion.

[46:36] Um, the next is the fire department

[46:38] wages for paid on-call and duty crew.

[46:42] They have fallen below our market

[46:44] cities. So, we are planning a 7.7%

[46:48] increase versus the normal 3% increase

[46:52] um, to begin uh, plan to get the wages

[46:55] closer to market over the next few

[46:58] years.

[47:00] And then, in addition, one paid on-call

[47:02] or duty crew firefighter will be added

[47:05] to the team.

[47:08] And then, in 2027

[47:11] elections, um,

[47:12] which we normally don't have, we may

[47:14] have to hold a special election um, at a

[47:18] estimated cost of $17,000 if Senator

[47:21] Klobuchar wins the governor's race.

[47:25] Um, and then, per council direction at

[47:28] our last workshop, we added in

[47:30] wayfinding signs for a total of 75,000.

[47:34] 35,000 will be coming from the general

[47:36] fund, and the um, remaining 40,000 is

[47:40] going to come from the shared parking

[47:41] fund.

[47:45] Um, we're removing 15,000 for a um,

[47:49] laser fiche upgrade project.

[47:52] Um,

[47:53] and then, finally, Southwest Transit

[47:55] will be removed from the 2027 budget.

[47:58] Um there have been some discussions at

[48:00] the county level of possibly subsidizing

[48:03] this service to Victoria residents.

[48:06] And in the next slide, Abby's going to

[48:08] take over um and will give you more

[48:10] context into who is currently using um

[48:13] the service and other options available

[48:16] for um transit services in Victoria.

[48:21] » So, just a quick question on the

[48:23] election thing.

[48:24] >> Yes.

[48:25] >> Is there a decision

[48:28] somebody makes the decision about

[48:29] whether to appoint

[48:31] a a replacement for Senator Klobuchar or

[48:34] to hold a special election?

[48:36] >> So, apparently in state statute, which I

[48:38] recently learned is that this is a

[48:40] position that they are not allowed to

[48:43] appoint.

[48:44] >> Oh, okay. I just learned that too. I did

[48:46] not know that.

[48:48] Okay, thank you.

[48:49] >> The county I had a meeting with the

[48:50] county and that's what they said. So,

[48:51] there will be

[48:53] is what they're telling us, an election

[48:55] if um governor if she does win the

[48:59] governor's race.

[49:00] Um there's still some talk about the

[49:03] state maybe providing cities funding,

[49:06] but they're not going to make that

[49:07] decision, I guess, until probably they

[49:10] know for sure if she if there actually

[49:12] is going to be an election. So, we're

[49:14] just

[49:15] all the cities are just planning on that

[49:17] there's going to be an election just in

[49:19] case for budgetary purposes.

[49:24] >> Okay. Thanks.

[49:26] All right, Abby.

[49:29] >> All right. So, about a year ago, we

[49:31] completed a large analysis to find

[49:34] trends in the ridership data.

[49:36] We looked at all the rides for the 12

[49:38] months between August 2024 and August

[49:41] 2025.

[49:43] In that time, there were 1,391

[49:46] total rides picked up in Victoria.

[49:50] What we found is that a lot of those

[49:51] rides are repeat individuals. In fact,

[49:54] the top 30 riders made up 80% of the

[49:58] rides.

[49:59] Uh in total, we saw 147 individual

[50:02] riders, which is about 1.2% of the

[50:05] population of Victoria.

[50:08] How are these riders utilizing the

[50:10] service? Um looking at the trends in the

[50:13] pickup and drop-off addresses, we can

[50:15] surmise that people are coming in to

[50:17] work.

[50:19] We can see in the data that the same

[50:21] individual riders are being picked up at

[50:24] the elementary school, downtown

[50:26] restaurants, downtown businesses, and

[50:28] being dropped off at apartment buildings

[50:31] in neighboring towns.

[50:34] Um Southwest charges the city based on

[50:36] the pickup location.

[50:39] So, neighboring cities are billed for

[50:40] transportation into Victoria, and

[50:42] Victoria is charged for transportation

[50:44] back home.

[50:46] And we also saw riders being picked up

[50:48] at homes in Victoria and being dropped

[50:50] off at retail, grocery stores, and

[50:53] medical facilities in the area.

[50:55] 10% of the pickups for the year were

[50:57] picked up at Able Light.

[51:01] There is an alternative to Southwest

[51:03] Transit that is currently operating in

[51:05] Victoria. It's called Transit Link. And

[51:08] it has a similar cost to the rider,

[51:10] similar coverage area, and there is no

[51:13] cost to the city for residents to use

[51:16] this.

[51:17] In summary, a small percentage of

[51:19] Victoria's population use Southwest

[51:22] Transit, and the people who use it use

[51:24] it for necessary travel.

[51:26] There are current alternatives that will

[51:28] not impact the tax levy, and depending

[51:31] on where the county lands for funding

[51:33] may continue to be a service available

[51:35] to residents.

[51:36] >> Okay, so I have a question on So,

[51:39] currently we are subsidizing the

[51:41] Southwest Transit

[51:42] rides.

[51:44] Will those rides still be available, but

[51:46] without a subsidy if we choose not to

[51:49] fund it.

[51:50] Do we know that answer?

[51:52] >> So, Mayor and members of the council,

[51:53] I'll jump in here. So,

[51:57] Transit Link, so we'll start with that,

[51:59] the Met Council service will continue to

[52:01] operate um as far as we know.

[52:04] Um and that will not have a property tax

[52:07] contribution. So, that the rider

[52:10] calls or schedules their appointment,

[52:13] they get picked up, they pay their fee

[52:15] directly to the bus driver um when they

[52:18] get on, and we just get ridership data,

[52:21] we don't get a bill. On Southwest

[52:25] Transit,

[52:26] if the county decides that they will

[52:30] continue to fund the service for

[52:33] Victoria,

[52:35] um and pick up our share of the cost, so

[52:38] what we've been contributing now with

[52:41] property tax levy, um is the ask on the

[52:44] table.

[52:45] Um and so, if the county makes that

[52:48] decision, which it sounds like they're

[52:50] going to make that decision by the end

[52:52] of the year, just not before max tax,

[52:56] then

[52:57] that service would continue in the

[53:00] similar fashion as Transit Link, so the

[53:03] Met Council Transit, where the rider

[53:05] would pay their fee,

[53:07] we would get a report, but we would not

[53:09] be paying that subsidy. In place of that

[53:12] would be

[53:13] the county paying that subsidy for us.

[53:16] And so, if the county decides not to do

[53:19] that, it is my understanding that

[53:21] Southwest Transit will cease their

[53:23] on-demand

[53:25] service here in Victoria.

[53:28] So, that doesn't mean that those transit

[53:30] services go away, cuz the Met Council,

[53:32] the Transit Link services will continue.

[53:36] >> Does Does the Transit Link, I mean, when

[53:40] you say it's similar or just like Salt

[53:42] Lake. I mean, they're all able to take

[53:44] wheelchairs cuz my biggest concern is

[53:47] you know, yes, it's only 1.2% of

[53:49] Victoria's population, but

[53:52] as we see, 10% are from AbleLight. I'm

[53:54] sure a lot of them are people who can't

[53:55] drive, who can't especially right,

[53:57] whatever.

[53:58] I'm just concerned about

[54:00] the ability for

[54:02] our

[54:03] more vulnerable

[54:05] residents to be able to get to the

[54:07] places they need to get to.

[54:09] >> Mayor members of the council, my

[54:10] understanding is that it's it's similar

[54:12] buses and similar services.

[54:15] The only thing that would change would

[54:17] the biggest difference is Southwest says

[54:21] you can go on an app and literally do I

[54:26] need to to be picked up in 2 hours and

[54:28] they will try to accommodate that as

[54:30] best as possible. The difference with

[54:34] Met Council service is that they request

[54:38] 24-hour notice.

[54:41] They will try to accommodate any if I

[54:44] need to be picked up in 2 hours, it

[54:46] might be we can't get there for 3 hours,

[54:49] but to guarantee

[54:51] the ride, 24 hours is requested. So,

[54:55] with some of the

[54:57] um

[54:58] the the data that we've collected and

[55:00] how people are using it, a lot of it is

[55:03] to get to and from work. Those are

[55:05] fairly predictable jobs. You know your

[55:07] schedule probably 24 hours in advance,

[55:10] so we feel like with some education um

[55:14] and some direct, I'll call it marketing

[55:16] or outreach to those individuals, we can

[55:19] help them make that transition if

[55:21] Southwest

[55:22] is no longer funded. Part of what's

[55:25] driving this change is at the Southwest

[55:28] board level,

[55:30] they have said that they really want to

[55:32] focus on recouping their costs for um

[55:36] for operating, and um to operate

[55:41] uh per ride, they're telling us it's

[55:43] close to $40. Um so, we're paying $12 a

[55:47] ride. I think the rider's paying four or

[55:49] five dollars, so

[55:52] um there's a significant gap there. Um

[55:55] and so, it would be very challenging for

[55:58] us um

[56:00] to continue to to pay $40 a ride or $35

[56:04] a ride.

[56:06] >> Two two things. Uh I'm not seeing a lot

[56:08] of downside in Transit Link as an

[56:10] option. Number one. And then, you said

[56:13] the county if

[56:14] decision by the end of the calendar

[56:16] year, roughly?

[56:17] >> my understanding.

[56:18] >> Okay.

[56:20] >> Not before Max Tax.

[56:22] >> Got it.

[56:23] >> Do we have individual rider data? Like,

[56:25] do we get that data at all? So, like we

[56:27] could try and, like you said, reach out

[56:29] and

[56:30] you know,

[56:32] see provide that data and then I'll

[56:33] obviously also our Kendra and her team

[56:36] is are great at social media, so we can

[56:37] pump out as much information as possible

[56:40] to the public about this change, you

[56:42] know?

[56:43] >> Yeah.

[56:45] Okay. Other questions? Thoughts?

[56:47] >> I would just add that part of that I

[56:49] would like maybe just because not some

[56:52] of these, you know, this our seniors and

[56:54] stuff might not be on social media, so

[56:55] like visiting whether it's visiting

[56:58] AbleLight or um you know, getting a

[57:01] pamphlet to AbleLight, like just making

[57:03] sure we're uh doing our best to reach

[57:05] out to those. Seems maybe it's even one

[57:08] of those uh donuts, you know, in

[57:10] Victoria type thing where we're doing

[57:12] something.

[57:13] >> Mayor members of the council, just a

[57:14] quick note. Um I know that we're short

[57:16] on time, but I just want to say that we

[57:18] have met staff have met with um the

[57:20] Transit Link people,

[57:23] um and they are very much in support of

[57:25] coming out. They actually donuts was one

[57:27] of the things that um they said that

[57:29] they would be interested or even going

[57:31] um and come like if, for example if we

[57:34] have a lot of right writers at Ablelight

[57:36] that they would be willing to go to

[57:38] Ablelight and share who they are and how

[57:41] and help people get connected.

[57:44] So they've been really good partners.

[57:46] >> And this all could be moot if the county decides to fund it this so.

[57:54] » All right, go ahead.

[57:56] >> Okay, so

[57:58] um

[58:00] back to the levy. So the breakdown of

[58:02] the projected levy

[58:05] um is as shown the overall increase in

[58:07] the levy is about $475,000

[58:11] or 4.85%.

[58:17] And as you can see here we're looking at

[58:19] a fairly steady levy over the next

[58:21] couple of years after returning to a

[58:24] level similar um to 2022

[58:28] after having a few recent years that

[58:30] included investments in higher cost

[58:32] infrastructure.

[58:38] And what does this 4.85%

[58:41] increase in the city's levy mean for

[58:43] your property tax bill?

[58:45] Um this chart shows a projected tax rate

[58:48] with the updated market values I

[58:50] received from the county last week.

[58:53] Um the adjusted net tax capacity

[58:57] um increased by 7.9%

[59:00] um which does include new construction

[59:03] values. So as you can see the projected

[59:06] tax rate

[59:08] um will decrease resulting in a decrease

[59:10] in taxes if your home value remained

[59:13] stable year over year.

[59:16] Now if your home value increased by 3

[59:18] and 1/2% which reflects the overall

[59:21] market value increase

[59:23] um your taxes should stay close to the

[59:25] same um because of the lower tax rate.

[59:32] Any questions on the levy numbers?

[59:35] >> And this is based on the 4.85%?

[59:38] >> It is, yes.

[59:41] That's great news.

[59:42] >> [snorts]

[59:44] >> Okay.

[59:45] Any other questions, comments on this?

[59:48] No.

[59:49] Then um as stated earlier, our September

[59:52] 14th meeting will have to set our max

[59:54] tax levy,

[59:56] um

[59:57] which needs to be certified to the

[59:59] county by September 30th.

[1:00:01] Um we will continue to review and refine

[1:00:04] the tax levy throughout the fall.

[1:00:08] And then just a few questions. I know I

[1:00:11] think the first question we already

[1:00:12] answered with the parkland dedication

[1:00:15] fees. Um I think we're all pretty clear

[1:00:17] on what you are asking about that.

[1:00:19] Um but the next question is asking

[1:00:22] council if they wish to proceed with a

[1:00:24] max tax levy of 4.85%.

[1:00:27] And then if there's any additional

[1:00:29] information that you would um like to

[1:00:32] see um before that's approved on the

[1:00:35] September 14th meeting.

[1:00:38] Council, anything more than what we've

[1:00:40] already directed for staff?

[1:00:43] >> Not for me.

[1:00:44] >> I think we're all set then.

[1:00:46] All right, that's the end of my

[1:00:48] presentation. Thank you. All right, any

[1:00:50] final thoughts for

[1:00:53] Trish and team before we adjourn the

[1:00:55] workshop.

[1:00:58] » Okay, there are no further items on our

[1:00:59] workshop agenda this evening, so I will

[1:01:01] entertain a motion to adjourn.

[1:01:02] >> I make a motion to adjourn.

[1:01:04] >> Second.

[1:01:04] >> We have a motion and a second. All in

[1:01:06] favor signify by saying I.

[1:01:07] >> I.

[1:01:08] >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand

[1:01:10] adjourned.

City Council Workshop - Aug 24 2026

Transcript