tons of times where I'm like, it's just
like no one's home for dinner. It's just
Kate and I and it's like, oh, okay, I
guess what are we going to do?
>> Yeah, exactly. [laughter]
>> You have to talk to each other now.
» [laughter]
>> Well,
less things on the calendar I thought,
but it's really not.
You still find a way to
>> Yeah.
>> get busy and do stuff and which is okay.
>> Yeah, there's always good stuff to do.
>> [laughter]
>> One is one. Ben went back to Nebraska.
Zach is going back Friday.
>> Cuz what years are they?
>> Uh juniors, both juniors.
>> Well, that went fast.
>> It just they start later.
>> Yeah.
>> About a week apart.
Yeah, it did go fast.
>> Will they get done in four or will they
have to go a little early?
>> That's the plan.
>> [laughter]
>> That's That's the plan.
>> Did they stay the course? Did they
>> So far they've not
>> what I want to do and this is what I
>> They've not changed majors.
>> You're getting the one minute finger.
>> Oh. Oh, she's
>> Look alive.
>> Is that Dan's AI?
>> Yeah. Yes. [laughter]
» Okay, I better shut my phone off.
» Good evening. It's now 5:30 and I call
to order the workshop of Victoria City
Council. Our workshops are informal so
that with that we're going to dive right
into our agenda this evening. We have
just one item on our workshop agenda
this evening and that item is to discuss
the proposed 2027 fees and charges and
our preliminary 2027 general fund budget
and levy projections.
Kicking us off on that item this evening
is our assistant city manager and
finance director Trisha Pollock. Ms.
Pollock, welcome.
>> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and
members of the council. Abby and I are
going to be tag teaming the presentation
tonight.
>> Perfect. Welcome Abby as well.
>> So, this is our third workshop and the
final workshop before our max tax levy
adoption in September.
And our first topic is fees and charges
for services.
So, our sources of revenue are primarily
property taxes, which are 83% or 8.2
million of our total revenues of 9.8
million.
The charges and services include permit
revenue, park program fees, and facility
rentals that make up 15% or 1.5 million
of the total revenues, and then other
sources make up 2%, and those include
intergovernmental revenues such as
police aid and grants. Um includes
interest earnings and other
miscellaneous refunds and
reimbursements.
The criteria for adjusting fees include
market comparisons, which are set at the
mid to upper quartile of the market.
Some fees are also set by legislation,
such as international building code.
And many of our fees are cost recovery
and self-supporting where possible.
So, how do we project the revenues for
the 17% that's not levy or franchise
fees?
We begin by looking at the 3-year
average. So, in this case, the 3-year
average is 2023, 24, and 25.
And then we also look at our
year-to-date for 2026 to determine
whether or not there are any trends that
have been changing.
Our largest revenue for services is
building permits, which can be difficult
to predict.
However, we we look at both the
available lots in the city and weigh in
the projections from the building
department and planning staff
to come up with an estimated number of
building permits.
We are budgeting 130 new homes for 2027,
which is 14 less than 2026
and decreases the revenue by $49,000.
It does reflect a slower pace of new
residential homes next year. However, we
did increase the plan check fees,
mechanical and plumbing permits. So,
this incorporates some additional budget
for expected commercial permits to come
in next year.
And then, we are also reducing our
budget for facility rentals and
recreation fees. While facility rentals
continue to stay stable, we've been
reducing the number of programs
and therefore reducing the overall
revenues
as expected. So,
I am going to pass this over to Abby
unless you have specific questions about
budgeting and these revenues.
>> Thank you. Council, questions for Ms.
before we
volley over to Abby.
Uh I think we're good here.
Whoops.
>> I I unplugged us.
We're just having a moment.
>> We are We are having a moment.
» Bring out Alyssa.
>> Here. Oh, there we go.
>> We're back. We're back.
>> Back in business.
>> All right. So, these next few slides
will detail out the changes to the 2027
fee schedule um that don't include
water, sewer, stormwater, which we'll
discuss in November when we look at the
inner enterprise budgets.
So, for community development, we're
increasing tree replacement from 100 to
250 per caliper inch. That's the
circumference at 6 in from the ground.
For miscellaneous licenses and charges,
we're changing the annual solicitor
permits from 70 per solicitor to $100
per company and then plus a $40 per
solicitor on top of that.
So, for a 10-person crew, this would be
a reduction from 700 to $500.
Um we're no longer emailing references
for each individual crew member, so
staff time is reduced there.
We're also removing the weekly hawker
peddler license in favor of having only
an annual license. And the reasoning
here is that staff time required to
process the license is the same
regardless if it's weekly or annually.
And additionally, we have not received a
request for a weekly permit in the last
4 years.
The council candidacy application fee is
set by the Minnesota state statute. Uh
staff is proposing to include the fee
for transparency.
And public works, staff is proposing a
new fee for a water shutoff and turn on
that is outside the regular hours.
Minimum pay for a callback is 2 hours.
And callbacks are paid at an overtime
rate. And so to recover the cost for the
2 hours of overtime pay, we're proposing
a new fee there.
>> I have a question for you. What's the
difference between our solicitor and
hawker
peddler licenses? What's What would be
the difference between those two?
>> I'll pass it to Claudia since our city
clerk is so handily right here next to
me.
>> Claudia, thank you.
>> So, a solicitor permit would be someone
who's going like door-to-door
for um
items that will be delivered at a later
time and date.
Um and then your your um your other one,
the hawker, is like the ice cream.
>> Oh, so they're delivering to you
right now. You're going to purchase
something. Oh, and it's food.
>> the hawker like ice cream is food or it
could be something else. That's normally
all we get for the hawker is like the
ice cream or but it could be something
else, you know.
>> Food related.
>> usually a food.
>> Do we
like a would a food truck come under
that license?
>> No, that would be you could license a
food truck.
But they're also licensed by
Minnesota Department of Health.
>> Okay.
Um, so the solicitor permits, those
would that would include
um, people who are selling pest control
services, window washing, any of those
things. So folks, [cough]
if they're coming to your door, you
should ask them for their solicitor
permit.
>> Correct. We also have them posted on our
website.
>> Okay, very good. And if they don't have
one, send them down to City Hall to get
one.
Okay.
Thank you, Abby. Any other questions,
Council?
>> Just had a How often do we have a water
shut on shut off outside regular hours?
Like 10 a year, 100? I'm just curious.
>> Um,
thank you for that question. Um, we
don't really get too often. It's usually
an emergency turn on and shut off.
Um, where the pager phone will get
called and they'll have to respond. Um,
you know, usually after late in the
evening and they have to have like a
plumber come in. The plumber will
um, call the pager phone to have that
turned the water turned off.
>> Because it's probably a flooding
situation.
>> Yeah, exactly. So, um, we just recently
had a couple of them, but I can't recall
that we've had any other ones this year.
So, it's it's not real common.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other
>> Dear members of the council, I just want
to add for transparency purposes when
that happens, when we the way that our
callbacks work for public public works,
and Trish can talk to this, too, if I'm
either misspeaking or
not clear, but um we have a minimum time
that we have to pay when we're doing
callbacks and overtimes, so it's a
minimum of 2 hours.
>> Correct.
>> Um so, if they show up and it's a
5-minute fix,
>> [cough]
>> we're paying for those 2 hours. So,
we're trying to recover those those
costs.
Um
>> Got it.
>> Thank you.
>> Right.
Okay.
Carry on.
>> Excellent.
>> Okay, the next two slides are Park and
Rec in the VRC, so we'll start off with
the Victoria Recreation Center.
Um the VRC chain charges
Sorry, the VRC changes
um they center on a new discount rate,
and so the discount rate would be for
youth, that's 18 and under, seniors,
which is 60 plus, military, and first
responders residing in Victoria. And so,
for a one-time daily pass, it would be a
$5 fee, and for a multi-day 10-punch
pass, it would be the proportionate $5
fee.
Um with the transition to cashless,
staff would like to provide an option
for discounted users for entry without
committing to a membership.
Additionally, staff would would be tran-
transitioning open pickleball from a
program to an entry fee option to allow
consistent guidelines around the
activity.
Staff is proposing to remove the
advertising kiosk in the VRC. The city's
bond attorney has recommended against
any advertising at the VRC until the
bonds are fully paid for.
And staff is also proposing changes to
the multi-purpose room.
The half room service is not regularly
used due to the small size of the half
room and in cases where a half room is
rented, typically the other half remains
open.
Um additionally, this creates additional
staff time to prepare the room for each
renter.
Any questions on this slide?
Council?
All righty. Self-explanatory.
Go ahead.
Okay, and the next one is for park and
rec. So, for park and rec, staff is
proposing to revise the shelter rental
structure for simplicity and
consistency.
Staff is proposing to reduce the cost
from prior year as staff received
significant reduction in usage,
potentially due to the cost barriers.
We're also proposing to break out the
shelters into two groups.
The first are for the four post park
shelters with limited services and
amenities. That would be like Madis
Madeleine Creek. And then the second
group of shelters would be the ones with
restrooms.
So, both groups are proposing decreased
fees.
The second chunk here is in relation to
Lions Pavilion. Staff is proposing to
decrease the weekend rentals for
residents from 350 to 300 a day and
increase weekend rentals for
non-residents from 350 to 400.
And for there, we're we're actually just
trying to make the premium of a weekend
rental consistent across the board. So,
the premium on a weekend rental would be
$50.
Um up next is the athletic fields. So,
field rentals are currently not being
charged consistently across the city.
Staff is recommending removing this item
as it does not cost staff additional
time to reserve the fields. However,
field prep is a is a rare service, but
it does take significant time and cost.
As the city would allow the use of the
fields at no cost, we would charge them
for the additional labor, such as field
prep and lining a space.
And lastly, we're proposing to remove
the ice arena packages as the city does
not have the ability to determine and
schedule ice time to the requirements
needed for this type of service.
All right.
Council questions
on this?
Okay. All right.
Um we did do a special deep dive this
year.
Um we did a market analysis of our
Parkland dedication fees. We compared
both our industrial and residential
Parkland dedication fees to the market
cities in the area.
A brief overview of Parkland dedication
fees for anyone watching at home is that
the city of Victoria and other
communities, as you see here, require a
certain percentage of each new
development to be dedicated to park
space.
A developer can choose to pay a Parkland
dedication fee in lieu of the land for
the park.
For the analysis, I reviewed the fee
schedules of our market cities
uh and compared where Victoria falls
within our neighboring communities. On
this slide are the Parkland dedication
fees for residential developments.
Uh here we Here we have the green bar
for single family,
pink for duplexes, and blue for a
multi-family.
Um for the For the single family, the
green bar, I found that we are close to
average. We're very comparable to
Chaska, Carver, and Minnetonka.
For duplex and multi-family, I found
that we're a little bit below average
here.
And I included a table there at the
bottom with the average and the median.
» Council que-
questions on this. Now, this is
something we've been talking about.
Council member Wright, you've got a
question.
>> Well, I was just it's more of a comment.
I didn't think we were that low on the
duplex and multi-family side.
To our peers.
>> Yeah.
I would I would also favor boosting
those up.
It feels like most other market cities
all have the same
rate for Parkland dedication regardless
of what the housing unit is. I I would
favor us going consistent that way as
well.
>> W- Where Do Do we survey Waconia?
>> I don't see them on here.
>> I don't believe Waconia is in here. Um
>> I think
were they were they one of the ones that
had kind of the anomaly of the way that
they
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> You're right. So, Waconia did not have
like a flat fee in their fee schedule.
It was very formula-based.
It was like 5% of
something something. And so, it wasn't
easy to have a consistent
um comparison with Waconia in there, but
I definitely could pull Waconia for you
if you would like.
>> Yeah, and then how do we Do we Do we
have
Minnetrista? Do we have Mound?
We have
>> I could add Mound, yes.
And I could also add Minnetrista if you
if you'd like.
Yes, absolutely.
>> So, like Minnetonka is
five across [snorts] the board and
Carver's about
4,800 across the board, it looks like.
>> Correct, yep.
>> Chanhassen about the same.
>> Those are the three that I
>> Chanhassen
is higher.
» I mean my my thought is we need to be
more in the zone of Eden Prairie,
Rogers, Corcoran, Chanhassen,
Shakopee. I mean the It's It's one thing
to look at the averages of these
communities. It's all It's a completely
different
um
view to look at the utilization. I mean
we we have so much more of activity
going on here and we have so much more
of um
parks that we need to pay for.
>> I think Minnetonka is a good one to look
at, too.
In some respects, but they're more built
out, but it's
>> Right.
>> Yeah, I mean the we we seemed and it seems that the project
after project after project after project is not committing
land, they're dedicating
>> Mhm.
>> fees. If If that's the direction that
developers want to go, then I think it's
incumbent for the city of Victoria to be
able to use that to provide its
residents with the benefits that they
keep telling us that they want, that
they need, we know that are outrageously
expensive, and that we routinely make compromises to what we
need to do
um because we just don't have the
funding to do it. So, if we have a
captive audience that is is looking to
um
utilize fees in terms of dedication,
they don't want to dedicate the land
because they're making a decision that
it's more profitable for them to chunk
another property on there, let's start
to shift that balance of the equation
towards maximizing the benefit for
Victoria. We should be able to find the
inflection point of where somebody says,
"I think that that's a a high and I
maybe don't want to develop there." I
don't think we're at that problem. And
we certainly are one of the communities
in the Twin Cities that have the space
to do it. So, um
and and then on top of it, we
continually get pushed and this is to my
good friend Council Member Patterson,
you you as well as I know the constant
pushing on this council and planning
commission and staff to continue to
shrink down these side yard setbacks so
that a particular parcel of land can put
that many more profitable homes on it.
The that that should come at a cost to
the developer that hey, Victoria's not
the place to run over on this kind of
thing.
We want these services. This is our
time. Uh you know, we should be really
um
almost adamant on being able to push
these high these fees higher to pay for
the things that we know we desperately
need and our residents desperately want.
>> There is
a statutory limit on this, is there not?
Yeah, Ms. Hardy, please.
>> Mayor and members of the council, we
don't have the benefit of our attorney
being here, but if I recall from the
conversation that we last had about this
earlier in the year,
and you might notice on the chart here,
we did include Burnsville. So, there's
not necessarily a statutory limit. My
understanding was that there was a court
case
with Burnsville that essentially set
this
I'll use in quotes a ceiling for what is
acceptable.
And so, we wanted to put the Burnsville
information there just for visibility
into what that ceiling would look like.
Um
>> Is there a formula to that ceiling?
>> That I don't know enough about the court
case or I have not read through all of
that and maybe Bob could talk more to
that, but
>> I think it'd be instructive.
Madam City Manager for
Bob to bring that to us because
my recollection of the conversation with
him about is that this was a disparity
between how commercial
developments were being assessed
Parkland dedication fees versus a
multi-family or a duplex because the I
think the
underlying crux of the argument is that
well, I mean people are going to be
here. They're not going to be using
parks and trails and things like that
cuz they're going to be working. They
leave and they go home. So, it's not
necessarily fair to a commercial
property to be
assessed an outrageously large Parkland
dedication fee.
Where we're going with this is we are
tying the the use of those funds with
the source of the funds better in a
residential setting versus a commercial
setting. So, if we could get if we could
get that clarity so that we're you know,
making value-based decisions on the
right basis would be helpful.
>> I guess I would just say I mean, I
completely agree with everything
Councilmember Urbanski has said.
Um
I wonder where and this is obviously
what staff is probably going to have to
look into is that like where's that
right line, right? Because we don't want
to get to a point where it's so high,
you know, that yes, they're just giving
you know, the minimum amount of land
that's just going to be like they're not
going to really do anything with it, but
now it's you know, our like we're going
to have to take care of it. We're going
to have to right? So, we don't want just
there's got to be some
I don't want to say negative, but like
there's like a give like a push and pull
here with this. So, I I completely agree
with you that we want to get uh
as much as we can, right? And we want
I'd rather have them, you know, build
nice big beautiful
park, but
um you know, what like you said, right?
Like right now we're just it's, you
know, we're not going to do it because
the fee is low enough where they're
just, you know, we'd rather put another
house on a lot and do it, but um, I
guess I'm just curious if
whether it's uh, you guys or Ms. Hardy,
like if there's any
if we've looked at this enough to know
if like what would be the downside of I
guess raising this to a point where
you know, it
like what would be the downside?
>> Mayor Council Member Roberts, members of
the council, no, we've not done a deep
dive analysis on that, but just from the
things that you're saying are are
exactly the things that we would likely
be flagging. So, if the council would
like us to do a deeper dive in this and
do some additional analysis, we can
certainly do that and bring this back
for um, your budget discussion this
fall.
>> Yeah, I think
>> And I think it's similar to like look at
a couple spotlight cities. I think you
brought up some Council Member Wanski to
add
I think the other thing is
Delano, Buffalo.
Some of these areas that are a little
farther away, but they're growth
communities.
>> Right.
>> And and look at it from that
perspective. I mean, I'm I'm looking at
multi-family. I think we're not we're
the lowest.
Yep, maybe Chaska's just one slot below.
And then duplex we're pretty far we're
as you said, we're pretty
um, close to average or above average on
the single family. I'm just wondering I
just was surprised at the discrepancy.
>> Yeah.
>> Sorry.
I was just curious and you probably
don't look into it um, you know, most of
these
the single family is either the highest
or
you know, even with the other ones. I'm
curious
why Burnsville and Elk River are
basically the exact opposite of the like
what I mean, I know like Burnsville's a
much bigger city, right? So,
um, but I'm just curious as to why that
would
be.
>> You know, I think things also like we
perspective again is like utilization.
Um, I I think that
we're probably
at least in sort of our current vision
and alignment on the balance of
multi-family and duplexes vis-a-vis
residential in the city of Victoria.
We've heard from our residents on, you
know, their um desires on the the mix
that we have. I think we re- I have a
There's
little daylight between us on we feel
like we have the right balance. So,
while the the bars tell a story that
we're below,
will we actually have that utilized?
Possibly not, right? So, we don't
necessarily need to get that as right as
where the next development is going to
come from and that next development is
leaning its way towards single-family.
And we should like Councilmember Roberts
is alluding to, what's what's the choke
point? Where does a developer say, "Hey,
I want to give you land because you
charged me too much to buy it from you."
Um,
it would be I think instructive for us
to look at the last 2 years of developments that
have taken place in the city of Victoria
and say, "What percentage of those
projects have these developers come to
the city and said, 'I want to buy land
instead of giving you
Um, so and you guys have heard me with
my smart-ass clique, "We all I want to
be known as the city of lakes and parks,
not the city of lakes and parkland
dedication fees." So, um
I think that we we can't we can't build
parcels of land. We can
really shape what we do with the parcel
of lands
to the best of our abilities and part of
that ability has to deal with how much
we have in terms of financial resources
to do it. If we don't ask for the
resources, we won't get them and we'll
just be saying, I I would have loved to
do this, but I can't. I mean, I
>> Any other comments for staff?
>> I would just say what what's the
negative of of doubling the duplex and
the multi-family park dedication fees? I
mean, it to me that looks like that's
going to get us
in line with a lot of the other cities
that we're comparing ourselves to here.
Um
I guess I can't figure out what the
downside would be other than they choose
not to develop here, but they're not
getting any better deal anywhere else
for it. So, why not be even with
everybody else?
>> I I'm I'm aligned with you. There
There's we can certainly
you know, bring us in line with other
communities there. Again, I think that
utilization as we've all pointed to may
not be there, but yeah, the the
consistency would I think it'd be a very
noble cause in this.
>> All right, staff, I'm seeing consensus
around let's take a look at a couple
more market rate or market
cities.
Um
give us some ideas about where we can
where that inflection point is and then
we also want to hear from Bob about
what
We don't want to see ourselves in court
over this either. So,
um
everybody staff clear on that? Great.
Okay. Any final thoughts?
We're moving on. Excellent. Thank you.
>> Okay, so while this slide is for
residential fees,
slide is the same Parkland dedication
fees. It's a market comparison, but it's
for industrial and commercial fees.
Um
Victoria, as you can see here, is the
second lowest,
higher only
higher more only than Carver. So, I've
included Burnsville here, also way at
the end. Um Burnsville is not considered
one of our market cities.
Um and so, it's not included in the
average in the table below there,
either.
But, I just wanted to include it because
of the discussion around it.
Um looking at the table, Victoria is
well below the average and mean for
Parkland dedication fees for our market
cities
on the industrial and commercial uses,
too.
>> Okay, so this was the These were the
fees that we just said we we can collect
Parkland dedication fees from these
folks, but these are people who are here
for work and not
I mean, we certainly could we use these for to create a plaza
where people can have lunch, those kinds
of things? Is that considered Parkland?
>> I think so. I
>> You know, if we had a market
>> or
>> Yeah, if we had a, you know, an office
park
to create a plaza or an area where
people could you know, with benches or
picnic tables, those kinds of things.
>> Mayor and Council, I do think if you're
calling it a park and actually naming it
and you accept it as a park, you could
certainly use Parkland dedication for
that. The only restriction on Parkland
dedication fees is that you can't use it
for ongoing maintenance or to do
replacement of existing amenities.
» Obviously, I think it's like a good spot
where we can get ahead of this by
bringing us up the average to the place
that I think we're going to see
this kind of activity. Downtown West is
largely done, so
um certainly, we're probably not going
to
be able to
garner much in that space.
Um but, the South growth area is a place
where
these
where we where we one would expect we're
going to see this
kind of um
commercial development and
we we would be well served with
having those areas develop and
um
get in line with other communities on
this uh
again cuz
we we we know that this stuff is
expensive. We know that it's needed and
this is our place to get it if we're not
going to get land.
>> The only thing I would say, I mean we
definitely have obviously room to grow
here based off of
these numbers.
Um
I do think we need to be careful in this
area of getting too high. I I think we
want to
you know, residential I think is a
different beast. We have plenty of
people that want to build houses here.
We keep searching for the right
commercial developments and I'm I do
think we want to be careful and be more
cognizant of trying to entice commercial
development here. So um you know, that
could be a factor in yes yes we're still
lower than most these, but our land
prices are also probably higher than a
lot of these places as well. So we know
our land prices tend to be high in
Victoria. So
um
you know,
we've wanted to get more commercial
development to help take the burden off
our taxpayers. So um I would just say
although we want
I think we have room to maybe raise this
a little bit. I also want to be careful
and not uh dissuade commercial
development or industrial development
from coming because of these additional
fees here.
>> It's a good point.
» Any other comments on this?
Okay.
I think we see some room for growth
here.
>> Excellent. Thank you.
>> I'm going to pass it back to Trish.
>> Okay.
so next up um this slide is
looking at our utility franchise fee
fund. Um it's a 10-year projection.
We currently are building about 100,000
annually in fund balance. The original
undergrounding debt will be paid off in
year 2031.
And then the Wasserman Park bonds will
be paid off in 2036.
So, staff are not recommending an
increase in utility franchise fees at
this time.
Um, and just for added information, the
franchise fee agreement does sunset
after 20 years. So, it would be at year
end 2036 when it would need to be
renegotiated.
» And so, currently those are the only two
obligations we have to
the franchise fees.
>> That's correct, Mayor.
» Council, thoughts, comments, questions?
» Okay.
» I'm a little uncomfortable collecting
fees if we don't have a purpose for
them.
Um,
I'm feeling like this is something we
might want to revisit once we've been able to service our debt
that we owe.
Um, unless we have another purpose for
using these franchise fees, we could
um, pause them. We could set them early.
Um,
Council, any thoughts on that?
» The fee's for burying cables, right? And
then we used it for Wasserman Park or
Wasserman Preserve,
which
could be considered outside of the
original purpose of those fees.
Um,
I'm with you. I think it should be
sunset once we paid off our debt for
these two things.
I know that's not what staff wants to
hear, but
>> [laughter]
>> I mean, just to be just to be clear
though, the the 20 years will align with
the bonds ending for Washington Park, so
that
but once that when that sunsets, we're
going to have a fund balance of $2.6
million.
Um, that's correct, Mayor. That's the
projection. I mean, we are projecting
what revenues will be, so I can't say
that that's going to be exactly what the
fund balance will be, but approximately
according to projections and continued
growth in the city.
>> Right.
>> Um, that's what we would anticipate.
Um,
I did have a conversation with Cara
asking about additional undergrounding
projects and
at this time, unless we want to bury
lines that are already above ground,
um, we wouldn't have any
additional projects that
is on their radar,
um, from an engineering standpoint, so.
>> Let me ask this question. So, we are
currently
collecting a franchise fee and that's a
fee that we have set.
So, we have the ability to either raise
or lower that fee and that fee is
um, spent based on council direction or
council policy.
I'm seeing a nod from our city manager
that that is true. So, we could, um,
we could reduce that fee, so we're not
with a, you know, we don't have that
fund balance that high that has no
assignment to it.
Um,
we could sun-
we could carry on with it and then
sunset it, let it automatically sunset
in 2036. One of the things I think
that's in is
interesting about franchise fees is
every member
every community member pays them.
So, if we have projects that we feel
like everybody should have a part in,
this is a good way to pay for some of
those kinds of things.
So, every, you know, nonprofit that
isn't paying property taxes does pay
franchise fees.
Um
so, that's that's something to consider,
but
this is a policy conversation for sure.
So, I would encourage
I don't know that we want to make any
changes at this point, but I'd encourage
Council to give this some thought.
>> Yeah, Mayor, I mean, I I share with you
on your thoughts on that. The
um
there is certainly a great benefit to
have something where,
you know,
effectively, what you've said is it's a
head tax. Every head that walks around.
They breathe the same amount of oxygen
regardless of whether or not their house
is worth 500,000 or whether it's worth 5
million. So, that there is a certain
fairness to it. Um
we don't really start to accelerate on
this till we get to 2032. And so, that's
5 years forward in the future. Future.
We do like run up against a little bit
of like we don't have a crystal ball
here.
>> Mhm.
>> Um
we we don't know what potentially could
be
around the corner. Certainly, uh if we
pay attention to the headlines, those of
late are things like
where is this enormous amount of
electricity going to come from to power
the latest and greatest AI boom that's
just right around the corner that's
going to make us all very productive and
we'll be able to sit and do nothing and
just earn
passive income. Um Um
somehow or another those those projects
are going to make their way into an
infrastructure need that we might have
to face that we we can't foresee today.
So, I agree that um a policy perspective
is good. Uh
it's a tool in our toolkit that we just
uh
need to be judicious about, but we've
certainly have uh made
a good amount of benefit to the citizens
of Victoria
over the years by having interfund
loans as well that have, you know,
really made the burden of
uh
other large projects that more uh
that that that, you know, bringing
benefit. So, let's I mean, I
Again, you make a great point, but we
don't want to
necessarily artificially hamstring
ourselves or
uh
take away from some of our tools.
» Okay. Other comments? Thoughts?
>> I think Ms. Hardy has one.
>> Thank you, Mayor, and
members of the council. I just want to
say from a staff perspective, we 100%
understand and know that this is a
policy decision. So, whatever the
council decides that we are 100%
comfortable with that. So, when you're
ready to have that policy conversation,
we'd be happy to do whatever research
that you would like and bring that
information back for you to consider. Um
I think all the things that you have
said here are all very good things to
consider. I will note that um the
franchise fees are allowed for any
public purpose. So, as you look for
alternative funding sources, you heard
earlier 83% of our property taxes or our
revenues are property taxes. So, um if
you're looking at um having um this is
essentially a tax, a tax that is
collected not only by property owners,
but everybody even those who don't pay
property taxes would be subject to
paying these fees.
Um cities, for example, will use these
types of utility franchise fees for
things like sidewalks and trail
maintenance replacements, trail gap uh
construction,
um some of the road so mill and overlay
projects, things like that.
Um it could be for the recreation
centers we're looking at to have
property tax support for those. So,
there there could be some policy
decisions where you're looking for
uh property tax relief um where this
could come into a policy decision, but
um
noted that that's in the future. So, as
you're thinking about those things, I
just wanted um
wanted you to have some additional
context to think about.
>> And those are good alternate uses, what
you're discussing. Um what would be a
good next step? Would it Is it a Is it a
workshop type item, do you think?
Would that be a benefit?
I I think it would be a benefit to me
personally.
>> Yeah.
>> Mayor members of the council, I think
this would be a really good all-day
workshop discussion cuz then you could
align it with your strategic priorities
and really take that deep dive.
>> I I I tend to agree with you. I mean, I hesitate to just stockpile money
because we can
without a purpose to it. And I feel like
we with the changes coming up with the
rec center and all of those kinds of
things, that that would be really a good
and useful exercise for us.
>> I I would just add
I mean, I I agree with Council member
Vanski, right? Like this is
you know, we should be looking at it
now, right? And and and and figuring
these things out, but you know, we're
2036, 2032, whatever is
aways out and you know, a lot can change
in that time. We've also got
being that they can be used for pretty
much anything it sounds like or most
things that, you know, we've got the uh
cold storage unit that's down here
that's going to have to be replaced at
some point, right? We're going to need
funds for that. We have um you know,
what what might we have to do to the old
fire station to um
you know, make it usable for whatever is
determined that we need to use uh
the rec center.
We've heard parking a lot, right? It
could be used for you know, whatever is
determined with parking. So, um I I just
I hesitate to say like, "Yeah, we
shouldn't
we should just stop doing these because
they're
it's not
these aren't dream things that we're
thinking about. There are real things
that in the near very near future we're
going to have to start figuring out how
to pay. So.
And it's another option where you're
like, "We don't have to take out a loan.
We have the money, right?" So, we're not
paying interest. We're not you know, so.
» We don't have the money right now. We
have $677,000
right now.
>> but I'm saying in
by 2032 we will, right? Right? So.
>> I mean, it's we're looking at 10 years
down the road and I'm just saying
as a tax, which is what it is,
if we don't have something or an area to
put it, there's no reason to continue to
charge for it. That's my point.
» All right. More to come on this
discussion.
All right. Trish, carry on.
>> All right.
Okay, now we're going to look at the
updated 2027 general fund budget and
levy.
So, in June the preliminary budget levy
projection was 3.31%
increase.
After considering the guidance given
from council at that June workshop and
additional budget reviews, we are
proposing a max tax levy increase of
4.85%.
This doesn't mean that property taxes
will increase that much. Um that is the
amount that it will increase over the
2026
um levy.
And the changes that have been made
since June
are um per council direction, an
additional parks and rec full-time
employee was added back into the budget
at $91,000 annually.
Um this position will manage open space corridors and capital assets.
This position was included in the
current year's adopted budget, but had
been removed from the proposed 2027
budget presented in June.
And then the next item, even though
um
this request won't have a general fund
budget impact, we wanted to present the
utility department full-time employee
request.
Um one water operator is going to be
reducing their hours to 32 hours a week
beginning in January,
which will be creating a staffing gap
for water on-call coverage and snow
plowing responsibilities.
Um so by requesting one additional FTE,
um the position will additionally
support a planned reorganization of
public works duties,
um as the operational and technical
responsibilities are continuing to
expand.
And this will allow um some existing
staff to absorb higher-level technical
work, which will then provide a greater
support to our public works director and
our public works superintendent.
And in addition, streets and stormwater
duties are going to be um
aligned to improve efficiencies on
shared activities,
uh such as street sweeping,
blacktopping, milling, and pond
maintenance where um, a larger crew is
needed to perform those duties.
And this position allows us to maintain
our service levels, improve operational
flexibility,
and supports uh, growing public works
demands um, with a single additional
FTE.
Again, no increase to the general fund
budget, and we will discuss the further
impact um, that this will have to the
enterprise funds at our November
discussion.
Um, the next is the fire department
wages for paid on-call and duty crew.
They have fallen below our market
cities. So, we are planning a 7.7%
increase versus the normal 3% increase
um, to begin uh, plan to get the wages
closer to market over the next few
years.
And then, in addition, one paid on-call
or duty crew firefighter will be added
to the team.
And then, in 2027
elections, um,
which we normally don't have, we may
have to hold a special election um, at a
estimated cost of $17,000 if Senator
Klobuchar wins the governor's race.
Um, and then, per council direction at
our last workshop, we added in
wayfinding signs for a total of 75,000.
35,000 will be coming from the general
fund, and the um, remaining 40,000 is
going to come from the shared parking
fund.
Um, we're removing 15,000 for a um,
laser fiche upgrade project.
Um,
and then, finally, Southwest Transit
will be removed from the 2027 budget.
Um there have been some discussions at
the county level of possibly subsidizing
this service to Victoria residents.
And in the next slide, Abby's going to
take over um and will give you more
context into who is currently using um
the service and other options available
for um transit services in Victoria.
» So, just a quick question on the
election thing.
>> Yes.
>> Is there a decision
somebody makes the decision about
whether to appoint
a a replacement for Senator Klobuchar or
to hold a special election?
>> So, apparently in state statute, which I
recently learned is that this is a
position that they are not allowed to
appoint.
>> Oh, okay. I just learned that too. I did
not know that.
Okay, thank you.
>> The county I had a meeting with the
county and that's what they said. So,
there will be
is what they're telling us, an election
if um governor if she does win the
governor's race.
Um there's still some talk about the
state maybe providing cities funding,
but they're not going to make that
decision, I guess, until probably they
know for sure if she if there actually
is going to be an election. So, we're
just
all the cities are just planning on that
there's going to be an election just in
case for budgetary purposes.
>> Okay. Thanks.
All right, Abby.
>> All right. So, about a year ago, we
completed a large analysis to find
trends in the ridership data.
We looked at all the rides for the 12
months between August 2024 and August
2025.
In that time, there were 1,391
total rides picked up in Victoria.
What we found is that a lot of those
rides are repeat individuals. In fact,
the top 30 riders made up 80% of the
rides.
Uh in total, we saw 147 individual
riders, which is about 1.2% of the
population of Victoria.
How are these riders utilizing the
service? Um looking at the trends in the
pickup and drop-off addresses, we can
surmise that people are coming in to
work.
We can see in the data that the same
individual riders are being picked up at
the elementary school, downtown
restaurants, downtown businesses, and
being dropped off at apartment buildings
in neighboring towns.
Um Southwest charges the city based on
the pickup location.
So, neighboring cities are billed for
transportation into Victoria, and
Victoria is charged for transportation
back home.
And we also saw riders being picked up
at homes in Victoria and being dropped
off at retail, grocery stores, and
medical facilities in the area.
10% of the pickups for the year were
picked up at Able Light.
There is an alternative to Southwest
Transit that is currently operating in
Victoria. It's called Transit Link. And
it has a similar cost to the rider,
similar coverage area, and there is no
cost to the city for residents to use
this.
In summary, a small percentage of
Victoria's population use Southwest
Transit, and the people who use it use
it for necessary travel.
There are current alternatives that will
not impact the tax levy, and depending
on where the county lands for funding
may continue to be a service available
to residents.
>> Okay, so I have a question on So,
currently we are subsidizing the
Southwest Transit
rides.
Will those rides still be available, but
without a subsidy if we choose not to
fund it.
Do we know that answer?
>> So, Mayor and members of the council,
I'll jump in here. So,
Transit Link, so we'll start with that,
the Met Council service will continue to
operate um as far as we know.
Um and that will not have a property tax
contribution. So, that the rider
calls or schedules their appointment,
they get picked up, they pay their fee
directly to the bus driver um when they
get on, and we just get ridership data,
we don't get a bill. On Southwest
Transit,
if the county decides that they will
continue to fund the service for
Victoria,
um and pick up our share of the cost, so
what we've been contributing now with
property tax levy, um is the ask on the
table.
Um and so, if the county makes that
decision, which it sounds like they're
going to make that decision by the end
of the year, just not before max tax,
then
that service would continue in the
similar fashion as Transit Link, so the
Met Council Transit, where the rider
would pay their fee,
we would get a report, but we would not
be paying that subsidy. In place of that
would be
the county paying that subsidy for us.
And so, if the county decides not to do
that, it is my understanding that
Southwest Transit will cease their
on-demand
service here in Victoria.
So, that doesn't mean that those transit
services go away, cuz the Met Council,
the Transit Link services will continue.
>> Does Does the Transit Link, I mean, when
you say it's similar or just like Salt
Lake. I mean, they're all able to take
wheelchairs cuz my biggest concern is
you know, yes, it's only 1.2% of
Victoria's population, but
as we see, 10% are from AbleLight. I'm
sure a lot of them are people who can't
drive, who can't especially right,
whatever.
I'm just concerned about
the ability for
our
more vulnerable
residents to be able to get to the
places they need to get to.
>> Mayor members of the council, my
understanding is that it's it's similar
buses and similar services.
The only thing that would change would
the biggest difference is Southwest says
you can go on an app and literally do I
need to to be picked up in 2 hours and
they will try to accommodate that as
best as possible. The difference with
Met Council service is that they request
24-hour notice.
They will try to accommodate any if I
need to be picked up in 2 hours, it
might be we can't get there for 3 hours,
but to guarantee
the ride, 24 hours is requested. So,
with some of the
um
the the data that we've collected and
how people are using it, a lot of it is
to get to and from work. Those are
fairly predictable jobs. You know your
schedule probably 24 hours in advance,
so we feel like with some education um
and some direct, I'll call it marketing
or outreach to those individuals, we can
help them make that transition if
Southwest
is no longer funded. Part of what's
driving this change is at the Southwest
board level,
they have said that they really want to
focus on recouping their costs for um
for operating, and um to operate
uh per ride, they're telling us it's
close to $40. Um so, we're paying $12 a
ride. I think the rider's paying four or
five dollars, so
um there's a significant gap there. Um
and so, it would be very challenging for
us um
to continue to to pay $40 a ride or $35
a ride.
>> Two two things. Uh I'm not seeing a lot
of downside in Transit Link as an
option. Number one. And then, you said
the county if
decision by the end of the calendar
year, roughly?
>> my understanding.
>> Okay.
>> Not before Max Tax.
>> Got it.
>> Do we have individual rider data? Like,
do we get that data at all? So, like we
could try and, like you said, reach out
and
you know,
see provide that data and then I'll
obviously also our Kendra and her team
is are great at social media, so we can
pump out as much information as possible
to the public about this change, you
know?
>> Yeah.
Okay. Other questions? Thoughts?
>> I would just add that part of that I
would like maybe just because not some
of these, you know, this our seniors and
stuff might not be on social media, so
like visiting whether it's visiting
AbleLight or um you know, getting a
pamphlet to AbleLight, like just making
sure we're uh doing our best to reach
out to those. Seems maybe it's even one
of those uh donuts, you know, in
Victoria type thing where we're doing
something.
>> Mayor members of the council, just a
quick note. Um I know that we're short
on time, but I just want to say that we
have met staff have met with um the
Transit Link people,
um and they are very much in support of
coming out. They actually donuts was one
of the things that um they said that
they would be interested or even going
um and come like if, for example if we
have a lot of right writers at Ablelight
that they would be willing to go to
Ablelight and share who they are and how
and help people get connected.
So they've been really good partners.
>> And this all could be moot if the county decides to fund it this so.
» All right, go ahead.
>> Okay, so
um
back to the levy. So the breakdown of
the projected levy
um is as shown the overall increase in
the levy is about $475,000
or 4.85%.
And as you can see here we're looking at
a fairly steady levy over the next
couple of years after returning to a
level similar um to 2022
after having a few recent years that
included investments in higher cost
infrastructure.
And what does this 4.85%
increase in the city's levy mean for
your property tax bill?
Um this chart shows a projected tax rate
with the updated market values I
received from the county last week.
Um the adjusted net tax capacity
um increased by 7.9%
um which does include new construction
values. So as you can see the projected
tax rate
um will decrease resulting in a decrease
in taxes if your home value remained
stable year over year.
Now if your home value increased by 3
and 1/2% which reflects the overall
market value increase
um your taxes should stay close to the
same um because of the lower tax rate.
Any questions on the levy numbers?
>> And this is based on the 4.85%?
>> It is, yes.
That's great news.
>> [snorts]
>> Okay.
Any other questions, comments on this?
No.
Then um as stated earlier, our September
14th meeting will have to set our max
tax levy,
um
which needs to be certified to the
county by September 30th.
Um we will continue to review and refine
the tax levy throughout the fall.
And then just a few questions. I know I
think the first question we already
answered with the parkland dedication
fees. Um I think we're all pretty clear
on what you are asking about that.
Um but the next question is asking
council if they wish to proceed with a
max tax levy of 4.85%.
And then if there's any additional
information that you would um like to
see um before that's approved on the
September 14th meeting.
Council, anything more than what we've
already directed for staff?
>> Not for me.
>> I think we're all set then.
All right, that's the end of my
presentation. Thank you. All right, any
final thoughts for
Trish and team before we adjourn the
workshop.
» Okay, there are no further items on our
workshop agenda this evening, so I will
entertain a motion to adjourn.
>> I make a motion to adjourn.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. All in
favor signify by saying I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand
adjourned.