[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.