Good evening. It is now 6:42 and I call to order the regular meeting of the Victoria City Council. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> The first item on our agenda this evening are announcements. Um, just a friendly reminder that the city offices will be closed on Monday, September 1st in observance of Labor Day and will resume normal business hours on Tuesday, September 2nd. The city council will v visit various city properties and amenities as part of a workshop on Monday, September 8th, beginning at 3:30 p.m. Council will leave from city hall and will post addresses and anticipated times of arrival as part of the meeting notice posted at city hall. The next item on our agenda this evening is to adopt the final agenda. Uh council, can I get a motion to adopt the final agenda? >> Motion to adopt the final agenda. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Open forum is next on the agenda. This is an opportunity for anyone to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda and not in application form that will be coming to the council at a future date. We have one individual who has registered to speak in advance this evening which is who is Dr. Aaron Radkkey this district 112 superintendent. Miss Rathky, welcome. Please step forward to the podium. Welcome. It's nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. Thank you, Mayor, for allowing me to be here. Council Dr. Aaron Rathky. I'm the superintendent in Eastern Carver County Schools. This is my second year, but I was the assistant superintendent for a handful of years before that. So, this is my sixth year in the district. So, I'm very proud of the work that's going on in Eastern Carver County. I have an opportunity today to share a little bit about what's happening in the district. Number one, we have two priorities this year. Uh always academic excellence, ensuring that we are providing the very best for our community through our schools. What is one of the things that's such a beautiful thing about Eastern Carver County Schools is it knits our four communities together, Victoria, Carver, Chaza, and Chan. And it it is that one unifying thing for our four cities. The second piece is financial stability. And and like many entities um financial stability is something we're striving for. It's it's a concern and um we know with federal funding and um state funding for education that there are some challenges in front of us. many districts across the state are facing it and so is Eastern Carver County Schools. It's not a surprise. I didn't all of a sudden say, "Oh, whoops. We need more money." This has been something we've been anticipating projecting and planning. And when I started as the superintendent in July 1, that was one of my questions that I asked during my 100 day tour, which was what should I prioritize as the budget remains a challenge because we knew that it was coming. One of the things that we do is we uh always do a survey in our community before we decide if we're going to go out for a referendum or not. And just really excited to report that 95% of our families say that their children is re receiving a well-rounded education that prepares them for our future for their future. 84% believe that their investments in local schools is wellinvested. and 87% of our our families and community say that they rate the quality of ECCS schools as excellent or good. So, we're really proud of this, excited about the commitment um and the support we have from our community for our schools. Our fi, like I said, our financial future is is a concern and we want to create some stability. And so I I want to share a little bit about how we got here. And I think that's really important because our community does want to know that we're being fiscally responsible, that we're being thoughtful, that we're investing in the right places, and that we're being we are looking at our operational efficiencies and making sure we're getting a return on our investment. But we do know that the state has not kept up with inflation. And I don't think my I don't have that graph. Um and it creates a gap. So over two decades we've had uh the state not keeping up with inflation as things have gone up. So that is one structural issue we just have at the state level. The second is is inflation is affecting all of us. So if your gas tank and your refrigerator costs more to fill to fill, so does ours at the school district. And so there's some concerns there as well. We also want the very best teachers inside of our schools in front of our students. That's what they deserve. And our industry continues to be very competitive and wanting to make sure that we have the best compensation and benefits for our teachers and our staff so that we can recruit and retain highquality talent. The only way that we can address these issues is contain cost or raise revenue. And so we cut $5 million last year and are projecting another 6.5 million over the next handful of years. Of course, those are projections. We know that we can't predict what the next bianium is going to look like from the state, but we do know it it looks like it could be a challenge. This is a dollar bill that we show our community often when we talk to them about referendums because I do know that our community does expect and want us to make sure that we are prioritizing our students and instruction. And so 80 cents on the dollar is invested in students in front uh stuff in front of our students as well as support for our students. This is really critical and important to our community. Um making sure that we're being operationally efficient as well as prioritizing students. So the school board decided that we had we had three choices. One was to do nothing um and just contain costs to manage our budget. The second was to consider what a midlevel ask would be. One of the things we hear from the community often is that you keep coming out, you keep coming out and asking for small portions. So, they were just kind of putting a band-aid and we're just saying um this will mean we don't cut anything. And what we're really saying is is we want to make some investments in our community and in our schools. And so, we're asking for the community to support us at cap. So the legislature says this is the amount of money that you can ask the community for. 742 would bring us to cap. That will be $23 a month for a home. That's $500,000. So in 2019 we went out for referendum. The one that didn't pass our median home value was about $ 350. In 21 when we went out for the referendum, our median house value was about 375. Well, in 25 our median house value is $500,000. So on a $500,000 house, it would be $23 a month. That is about in 1921 and 25, that's been about 20ish dollars that we've asked through our referendums. One of the things that I've had the just a great fortune to do is spend a 100 days listening to our community. I have talked to hundreds of students this year and wanting to know what investments our school students think that we need. And so if our referendum passes, we know that we'll be able to main the rem um sustain the high programming um that we have inside of our organization. We are able to serve students who are interested I want to do it like this are interested in the trades are interested um in woods and auto mechanics all the way to I take you know eight AP classes because I'm really excited to go to a four-year school. We have a vast range of um opportunities for our students. We want to be able to maintain that. One of the things that our community has really high value in is activities, athletics, the arts, and we have an activities director that focuses on student clubs, on art, speech, debate. That is something that makes ECCS difference. There's hardly any schools in the state that have an investment in that. And our community has a really high value of that. 94% of our students at the secondary at the high school participate in one activity outside of that bell time um outside of their classroom. That's such a high percentage of students that are engaging. And I believe it's because we are providing them high quality extracurricular activities that range not just through athletics but also through the arts and activities. And so that we know that kids that are engaged are more likely to come to school. They have a better sense of belonging. And so we want to maintain that high level programming. Here are a couple things that we also want to invest in that we heard our community talk about. One, we need to enhance our um gifted and talented programming particularly at the elementary level. We've been expanding it at the middle level and I want to be able to sustain that and again sustaining that at the high school. That is a gap that our community continues to tell us that some of our comparable districts are have a kind of a lead on us and we want to make sure that we can do some investing. Our students and our families talk to us a lot about mental health and making sure that we can support the mental health needs of our students. Um we've added and invested the legislature gave us a a line item that helped us invest in some mental health supports. Um we they pulled some of it back in 25. It was from 23 investment. They pulled a little bit back in 25 and we don't know if we're going to get it in the next bianium. We did invest in a fifth counselor at both of our high schools so that we can ensure that our students are having more access. What our kids told us is they when they need help, they want someone they can go to and they love their teachers, but they also believe a counselor is someone that can help them with that social emotional piece. And so we want to we've invested in that and we want to keep that investment. We also had our community talk a lot of to us about wanting to enhance our career and college pathways. And so we have done some investing in that and want to continue to do that. So not only do we want to sustain what we have, but we also want to do some investments for our community and make sure that we're meeting the needs of what our community is telling us they think we need to do for the schools if it's not approved. You know, this is always kind of the doom and gloom part of a referendum is that there always are things to lose. Um, you know, we have two choices. Like I said, revenue, you know, increase revenue or contained cost. And there are just some things on the line that I think really make Eastern Carver County Schools different. Um, it it meets the values that our community has, such as fifth grade band, that activities director, um, supports at the kindergarten level. Our community wants small class sizes at that kindergarten level and adding more support around our kinders. Um, media specialists. Many districts have already abandoned that position. um we have a high value of that position. It it helps our students get access to books, write levels, interest levels that they have. Um and we've created um some commitments to that that we would lose. Um also, we would have to reduce some of our gifted and talented and our community is telling us we need more of that. And so these are tough cuts in front of us um that we don't want to have to make because I do think these are some of the pieces that really um make Eastern Carver County such a a special place and we want to continue to invest. So the tax impact, and I kind of went through this already, is $23 a month. And we also know that that's the highest we'll ever be because we know our community is growing. One of the things that is happening in Eastern Carver County is we have, you know, a few of our cities are are growing quite rapidly. And so as the tax base spreads out, we know that the cost of the the vote yes for a referendum will it will decrease over the course of time. I want to make sure I get this in 10 minutes. I love to talk about this. Um this graph we often show and the blue the light blue at the bottom is our operating levy and the top is the uh capital projects levy or what we call often in eastern Carver County schools our tech technology levy and what this would allow us to do is move up one spot if we pass or when we pass the referendum we'll move ahead of Still Water. But one of the things that I want to point out to the community here is that these are often districts that are ahead of us that we get compared to quite often and these districts here have been at cap, that word that I used before for many years. And what our state has said is if we want excellent schools and great programming, our community has to invest. Um that is a structural issue, but it is the it is the realities that we have right now. And so we're excited about the opportunity to do that investment in schools in our schools. But I also want to just acknowledge anytime we ask our community members to support us to spend money to to invest their livelihoods and something that we have to take it really seriously and want to make sure that we're providing the promise that we're making through the referendum. And so trying to really map that out clearly of what the benefit is and what the um reality would be if the referendum did not pass. One of the things here that I just want to point out as well is like maybe you're wondering why does Hopkins have such a big um amount of money. They just have more industry than we do. And so the tax burden is shared in the community with industry. It's one of the beautiful things about Eastern Carver County and it's one of the hard things about Eastern Carver County when we talk about referendums because it does it does lay on our homeowners. So, uh, voting starts November 4th, and of course, as you all know, um, mail and ballots has, you know, quadrupled over the last handful of years, and so those things start September 19th. You can vote in person. Thank you. We are going to be at the Victoria Rec Center for this opportunity to vote on November 4th. uh if we wanted to make sure that the council was informed that you had information from Eastern Carver County and also want to make sure that the community knows if they have questions um they can go to our website. There's an email address. We also have a phone line so you can just leave a voicemail and we will have a full presentation two times for the community that will be lengthier than this and give a full scope of what we're planning on doing a little bit more about Eastern Carver County Schools. There'll be one in person and one virtually during the day. And so there's plenty of opportunity for us to inform the community. And I just want to acknowledge, you know, the loss of the newspaper is just a challenge to make sure that we are informing people. And one of the commitments that we've continued to make is that our cities, our communities know what's in front of them so that they're informed voters, not trying to hide. We want to make sure that we're informing our communities so that they can support us and make an informed decision. So I I can I'm stand for any questions that you have, but I just want to thank you again for the time tonight. >> Thank you, Dr. Rathky. Any quick questions for Dr. Rathky? >> All right. Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the council on an item that is not in the agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date? All right. Seeing no one, we'll move on to the next item, which is the consent agenda. Consent agenda items are routine administrative and do not require deliberation or are housekeeping items that are required by law. They're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Uh starting with Miss Hardy, does staff wish to pull any consent items for a separate discussion and vote this evening? >> None from staff. Madame Mayor, >> any members of the council wishing to pull an item from consent or any members of the audience? Seeing none, I will uh entertain a motion for the consent agenda. Please. >> Motion to adopt the consent agenda. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our regular agenda. The first item on our agenda 6.1 is to consider granting a new cable telei television franchise to Comcast. Presenting this evening is our IT manager, Eric Shy. Mr. Shy, welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Um, on April, sorry, one minute. On April 28th, Victoria Council held a public hearing to consider applications from Comcast and Midco for cable franchises to provide services in the city. The council directed staff to negotiate with both companies using the existing midco or mediacom franchise as a template to ensure consistent terms and conditions among competing vendors. Negoti negotiations focused on key aspects like build area service area buildout construction standards customer service and financial protections for the city. Comcast has submitted a financial application that we feel is substantially inferior to the city's existing agreement with Mediacom and competing proposal from Midco. Initially, Comcast Comcast proposed serving the entire community. However, Comcast reverted to a limited service model. Their current proposal includes several terms that the city finds unacceptable. Limited service area commitment to serve only two neighborhoods where they have built um infrastructure unrealistic expansion clauses and uh community support. After consideration, staff advises denying the adoption to grant a new cable television franchise agreement to Comcast. I'll stand for any questions. Um we also have our attorney, Mr. Vos, in the audio or available as well as well as Carly from Comcast. >> Okay. Uh, council member Vos or Attorney Vos, how are you this evening? >> I'm doing well, mayor. Thank you. >> Excellent. This is your area of expertise. Uh, so we are looking to you to shed some light on this for us, please. >> Yeah, Mayor. I'm happy to to weigh in on it. Maybe we can start with Carly Warner, Comcast representative, is here. Um, I have uh my my default mode is always uh it's fine to hear from applicants. I think you typically proceed that way as well. I do want to and it's in this case, mayor, it's going to be your call whether you want to hear from uh Carly or not. There isn't a legal requirement that we continue to hear from the company about this. I just want to point out, you know, for for your edification and in deciding if you want to hear from Carly and for council deciding that um you you see from the the updated report uh that I've raised this question about sort of when when is the input going to stop from Comcast, right? we got some late breaking input uh immediately prior shortly prior a couple days prior to your last council meeting where this was scheduled to be heard decided uh and it that communication raised a new legal uh issue that we hadn't previously heard about hadn't been raised before and I responded to that uh as you see in your packet I respond to that saying we're going to consider this we're going to consider this new legal issue that's been raised but this needs to be it now right we can't just have new things being raised right before each meeting where you're going to decide, you the council are going to decide what you're going to do with the application. So, I have said that to the company uh in writing in the in the letters that you see in the packet. So, I just I want I want to abide by the concept that I've laid out and whether you want to hear from Carly or not, I want to abide by the concept that we can't continue to hear about new things uh each decision on the application. So, I'd leave it to you if you do want to hear from Carly. Can we just limit it though to hearing about a summary of what what Comcast believes has been submitted to us? I don't want to hear about new issues at this point. We've said we're not going to hear about new issues. So, I guess I'd like you to have my back on that one is what I'm >> I think that's fair. Miss Warner, if you would like to address council, please step forward. >> Please state your name and for the um for the record. >> Yes. My name is Karly Wernern. I'm with Comcast Cable Communications. Uh, and thank you, mayor, council members, for hearing from me um tonight. I appreciate Bob um what or Mr. Vos, what you uh have laid out here as um the guard rails. I will say though that I do disagree with your version of events in the fact that I thought what we were doing was negotiating a franchise per the um council's instructions last time I was here um and then was told you were going to deny our application and so when I was going back and forth I thought we were in a negotiation phase so forgive me I did not understand the process that you had laid out Um, and so I don't believe it was that I was trying to throw new issues. I thought we were trying to get to a solve. Um, but regardless, we are where we are now. And, um, you know, I just want to say a couple things. Obviously, we are I'm here tonight to ask you to to reject staff and, um, outside council's recommendation that the cable franchise be denied and ask them to really negotiate a franchise with us. Um, while Comcast is obviously disappointed in the recommendation being made, we are hopeful this matter could still get resolved through further discussion, there are just two points I want to make clear and it's in the back, it's in the the letter that we submitted. It's in the packet. So, I know you've had a chance to read it. So, I just want to pull out just and highlight a couple points for this consideration that I'm asking for you tonight. and it's that we at Comcast, we're not asking the city to do anything new or novel or untested in courts. It's a bit confusing, frankly, that we're being treated like we are. Um, as you saw in our response, the FCC has said unambiguously that a city may not deny a cable franchise on the basis that the new entrant will not agree to the exact same franchise terms as the incumbent operator, including buildout. My understanding is that was the major issue here and we and I'm happy to answer questions about circumstances around that, but that is the law that is facing us right now. I think it's a well understood principle that state law cannot be applied in a way that would violate federal law. Even putting aside the fact that federal law on this issue is very clear. Outside council's memo did also not discuss the fact that there was a case in prior Lake Minnesota where the court held that Minnesota state law can be followed while also complying with federal law. And in that case, the incumbent cable operator sued a city that had awarded a franchise on different terms and conditions. Again, the buildout issue. And the court explained that the city was in complian the city's action was in compliance with state law and also federal law. I just want you to understand that because the the memo asking you to deny this does not address that. It says that this is a violation of state law. period. And the result why the FCC had passed these laws and the federal government passed these laws was to increase and encourage competition. And that is exactly what has happened. That is exactly what has happened. So, that's just the second point I want to make real quick is that all we're asking you to do is allow us to give residents in the areas that we have already constructed the opportunity to choose our cable, our traditional cable service if that's what they want. I know that there are a ton of video options. I know a lot of people are cutting the cord. that's kind of the the the trendy thing to do. But there are still a significant amount of residents, I'm sure, in Victoria as well, that prefer to have all their sports and news and movies all in one package, the traditional cable package, and use R, which I believe is a very cutting edge interface and voice remote that we have with it. They would like that option. And certainly I know um you know we've been working with the developers of Marsh Hollow Hunters Brook and they say the same that they would very much obviously prefer that their um residents would have the full option from Comcast uh when they come to our Comcast store that we're about to open in Chanhassen or folks go door to door to sell that you can't tell them sorry you live in Victoria you cannot have that particular option. Um, so I just want to say in closing that you'll you saw in the packet most of legal authority and points raised in the letter from Comcast council were not responded to. Regardless, if the city's outside council is correct and adopting a franchise like what Comcast has proposed would violate Minnesota law, then the incumbent provider could demonstrate per state law that the terms of their franchise or our franchise is more favorable or less burdensome, those are the words in state law, more favorable or less burdensome than their current franchise terms. Therefore, I urge this council to allow us to negotiate a franchise. We'll put it out for public comment per regular ordinance process and the incumbent operator can submit something saying or explaining how they are being harmed or how the terms that we are proposing are more favorable or less burdensome because right now it's just conjecture. We're making a lot of assumptions and I'm and I'll tell you a lot of the assumptions are unreasonable or illogical about how we could be harming incoming cable operators right now trying to when if we're trying to offer service. In fact, the only thing you're probably going to hear from them is they don't want another competitor. So, um I just I firmly believe that none of the issues that are laid out for you are insurmountable and further discussions and an openness to solve them will get us there. >> Thank you. >> I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Uh any questions for Miss Warner? >> You say that you right the point of this is competition, right? But really, you're only wanting competition in two neighborhoods. Like, we want competition. We want you to compete in the whole in the whole city. That's what we're asking. But you're actually not wanting to compete in the whole city. You're wanting to compete in two neighborhoods. So, I guess what would you say to that? >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that question and that that's fair. And I'm telling you, nobody wanted to build the entire city of Victoria more than we did. and we came in um as Comcast and this is in the record and asked for um the city to open the RFP process for a franchise. We discussed with staff many times that that would be our preference is to build the whole city um not knowing that Midco was going to also come. We had certainly known that Metronet had made their uh intentions clear and um could understand how we could kind of build around Metronet eventually compete of course um but the build schedule itself but then mid coach just started moving very fast and furious and I don't think Cara's here but really what happened was we were starting to have significant issues in the right of way. you heard that that was in the record when we stood in front of you in the public um hearing in April that had started to become making itself parent. uh those issues just got more amplified and so what we asked for was a slowdown and what we're proposing is a model around um and frankly we had to take some of those crews that were working because the city of Victoria asked us to slow down um and you know move them to Chan Hassan and and Wakonia and other cities that we are fully building um and and what we're asking in this application then was the slowdown right and we said if we hit these certain standards we'll come back um and uh build more. And if you see the franchise application, it's in the it's in your packet, you'll see that. Uh but frankly, the circumstances changed. The issues got very insurmountable. And um it was we we we were the ones uh I'll tell you uh who were more disappointed than anyone that that the circumstances changed so fast. >> I just have a question for staff. Did did we not have Comcast and Midco present to us in the same evening as to why they like Victoria that they want to serve the market that uh they're interested in building out? >> Yes, council member. Um on April 28th they were they both had presented to uh council about franchise and and building that out. Was that your question? >> Yes. And thank you for answering. And >> and mayor and council, if I can at this point, just weigh in. You'd asked me sort of a I want to hang on >> just a second. Miss her, you can go ahead and take a seat. If we if you're going to hang around here, we'll call you back up. >> Yeah. No, and I I appreciate you listening to me and and like I said, we have built uh we had to pivot. The question really is, you know, what we do with those residents now. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> All right. Very good. Attorney Bos. >> Yeah. Mayor and council members, I appreciate Miss Warner uh sort of doing what I had requested, which is sort of sticking to the to the things that are in front of us. Uh and I think her uh comments did that nicely. So, I was going to touch on several things, but maybe it would be most useful if I sort of use the comments she provided to you to to sort of parlay off of that rather than sort of following my own my own framework. So, I think there's sort of three things that I want to respond to uh fairly quickly. first is uh that the negotiate uh issue. Um and you see from the staff report and from my memo that there's sort of two things that cities are asked to look at when they consider granting a franchise to a a cable operator uh and in particular a competitive franchise like Comcast is looking for. The two things are um the company's qualifications. There isn't an issue about that. Comcast is obviously qualified to provide cable TV services. They do it all over the country. Uh they're the biggest I think in the country. Uh and so there's there's no issue about that. The other question though that cities need to look at is does in Minnesota in particular uh is does the competitor's uh franchise proposal do the terms that they're willing to accept comply with state law and do they make sense? I mean it's both a does it make sense? you have to make a policy decision about whether it makes sense to you and you also have to make a decision about um do the terms they're willing to accept comply with state law and so Carly makes the right point about well uh we wanted to negotiate about that and I I want to respond to that and this is a little bit down in the weeds about that but I I think that's where that takes us a little bit uh and that is that um you know Comcast made their initial application saying they were going to build out the whole city they then made a choice. I mean, Miss Warner makes it sound like they were forced by the fact that another company uh applied. That's of course not correct. They just made a choice to not uh elect to go forward with competing everywhere. They don't want to do that because they don't think it serves their economic interests. Uh and so, um uh when that happened, they made a proposal to us that was different, materially different than what their application suggested, building out the whole city. And we the staff and I found their proposal to not comply with state law. U state law again prohibits statutoily prohibits this city from granting a franchise to a competitor in the cable TV market if the fran if the franchise that competitor wants would be more beneficial or less burdensome to that competitor than the city's franchise with Mediacom and now with Midco. state law pro prohibits us from granting that franchise flatly prohibits it. Okay. And so we saw that the proposal that the company was willing to accept would not meet that standard. Uh it it is clear and I spill out the reasons why in the report. I would say Miss Warner says I didn't respond to certain things they've raised. I'm not going to argue about that. I I've said several times now in writing to you in documents that the company has that their proposal clearly does not comply with the state level playing field requirement. There is no response to that at all. I don't think that's actually debatable. The idea that a company would only build out two neighborhoods in the face of an existing franchise or in this case two franchises that require buildout everywhere effectively everywhere. I mean that clearly not equally burdensome or beneficial. It's not. Uh, and so there isn't really a debate about that. Um, but Miss Warner's point is, well, we we wanted to negotiate some more about that. The reality is this. I just said to her, this is informal. I hate to get down into the weeds, but that's what this calls for. I just said back, I don't have any direction to come back with anything in particular. If you company Comcast would like to propose something else that gets us closer to compliance with state law, something closer in terms of burdensomeness or benefits, feel free to go ahead and that didn't happen. There was not, you know, the proposal is what it is. In other words, um so it's fair to say we didn't negotiate, but it's because the city just said, "Well, you're very, very far away from compliance with state law here. We're not going to start from that standpoint, right? We're not going to start from something that's clearly not acceptable under state law. Give us something else. And and there isn't anything else. And I I will tell you my view is um the the Comcast is not in a position to commit to building out your whole city and and is not in a position to commit to a different arrangement that would cause them to build out your whole city. What they proposed is serving two neighborhoods and then potentially building out only if they're very very successful in those two neighborhoods. I think that's the end of the story on that issue. So that's the negotiate issue. It's a fair fair point to say we thought we were going to negotiate, but that's that's the inside baseball about what actually happened on the issues that were presented uh to the city to the city staff. Um so that's one point. The second point is um what I've already said, the suggestion here is that because neither Midco or Mediacom have objected to the franchise proposal, a franchise proposal, by the way, that was just emailed to us. I mean, it's not like it was made public in some sense, but that because they haven't objected to that franchise proposal that that's the test somehow under state law. If nobody objects, then the city can do it. That again is just legally incorrect. That is not what state law says. The fact that an incumbent may not be aware of the terms that are being proposed or may not have objected to those terms doesn't change what the statute says, which is that cities can't grant more beneficial terms to a competitor than the incumbent has. It's a flat statutory prohibition against the city doing that. So it it's not relevant what who has said what from Midco or from Mediacom. what matters is what the statute says. Uh and then um uh last point is and I guess to be fair Miss Warner didn't raise this but I think you understand from the documents that are in front of you that this is a core issue that's been uh in play is that uh well she did make the point the the point being that other cities have found ways to grant franchises that provide a competitor with a somewhat different service area buildout obligation than the incumbent has. They've provided a case to us that they think reflects an example of that. But what that they've told us all along is with the the proposal they've made mirrors what Century Link, a big incumbent phone company around the state of Minnesota. What Century Link did in Minneapolis and St. Paul and Bloomington and Burnsville, which is Century Link made a proposal for a buildout in those communities that was somewhat different than Comcast. Comcast was the incumbent provider in those cities. They made a proposal for a franchise buildout obligation that was somewhat different than Comcast and a number of cities approved that granted that. I have said in the report all of the ways in which the Century Link buildout proposal and the Century Link ultimate obligations are entirely different than what's being proposed here. And I'm not going to go through all of those, but the most obvious is just what has already been brought out. Comcast is prepared to commit to serving two neighborhoods out of all of the neighborhoods in your community. What Century Link was proposing to do and was approved to do was serve a very very large percentage of those communities where it was looking for a competitive franchise. Not 100%. Comcast I think is correct and was correct in saying in those communities we effectively serve 100% of Minneapolis or just about 100% of Minneapolis. Century Link's proposal wasn't to serve 100% initially, but it was to serve a very, very large percentage of Minneapolis. That's apples and oranges to what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is again, council member, two neighborhoods with no meaningful commitment to build beyond that. That's just not the same thing as what Century Link was proposing. And I'll just say it again um because it's said in my initial report, my letter back to to Carly and to Comcast and in my follow-up report, but it's never been responded to. The proposal that's been made to us does not comply with state law. Uh or it's extraordinarily likely that a court would find if we ever got there that it doesn't comply with state law for the reason I just said again. It's just too different and too much less ownorous than the obligation to build out the entirety of the city. So, I'll stop there. I think I've covered what I wanted to cover and I think that's responsive to Miss Warner's comments. >> I have a question for you. If we don't deny this, what does uh if we deny this current proposal or agreement, do c is it uh can they can you continue can we continue negotiating? >> Yeah. And and mayor and council that's actually happened um that that situation has occurred. There are there are precious few there are a few but there are a precious few cities that have had have been put in a position where they've denied a competitive cable franchise. Again, there have been a few, but but what you're describing, Mayor, has occurred where initially um a competitor has come in and made proposals that would not fly, would not comply with state law or were objectionable for other reasons and have ultimately gone back to the drawing board and come back with different proposals. That can be done. I think I I don't want to sort of go on record about exactly procedurally how we would do that, but certainly there is nothing in state law nor in your in your local law that would now prevent Comcast from making a different proposal. whether it needs to be a whole new application process or we can somehow sort of wave a new fee or you know there are procedural things that maybe we need to work through but theoretically the company if you deny tonight can still make a different proposal later and is not prohibited from doing that by a denial. >> Okay, very good. Thank you. >> Um council questions for Bob the Warner on this item. I mean, it's not a question, I guess, but it just it feels so, you know, we've talked about how they had their application that was original application that was going to be the whole city. Um, but before that, my understanding is is that they talked to city staff and asked about initially just doing two neighborhoods. Um, and we said, "No, that you that doesn't comply with state law. We need to build out the whole thing." So, that's when they came back and said, "Okay, we'll do it. We'll file the application for the whole city, but now we're back to two neighborhoods. It just feels might not been in the intent, but what it looks like is a work trying to work around the system, right? Like we couldn't get our two. We'll say we're going to do this and now we're going to try and backtrack and get just our two neighborhoods. Um, you know, and then, you know, un Comcast is a a billion-dollar company and it just it feels a little big company trying to bully the city type thing in my opinion. So, uh, it it, you know, and and to be honest, it, you know, we've had lots of issues with them. We we constantly got calls, right? So, about issues in neighborhoods of, you know, other lines being broken. um uh driveways being ruined. Um it and we haven't really had those issues since Comcast has had to stop. So I think there's a lot of reasons for denying this. So the one thing that I want to say is I would um on the level playing field um you know mediacom and midco have committed to building out our whole city um and I feel like from a from a standpoint they're making the investment. I love to see Comcast do the very same thing just so our uh to level the playing field on the market for our residents. It would be great if all of our residents had all the choices to um for cable services. So, um, so I I'm leaning towards denying this based on that on on that level. Other comments? >> I I just have a question for Bob. Um, the the the question of the um the FCC arguments >> cited. >> My read of that seems to view that the locust of that is not necessarily that federal law supersedes state law on this. It was a question about what is a reasonable um viewpoint of a city to take about how the buildout takes place and that it would be unreasonable to say do a buildout so that you're ready in four months. Do a buildout so that you're ready in um 12 months. reasonableness feels like that that was the nexus of why those decisions were made and that if there was a full commitment to the entire existing area that it would be unreasonable to say deliver that tomorrow to anybody who calls is that the correct view of what the FCC was trying to get to in that space? Yeah, and mayor and council, I actually had that written down. That was my fourth point, but I failed to to bring it up. So, I apologize. I'm glad you you you steered me back to the the other point because uh obviously that was the focus of Miss Warner's original uh communication and then the follow-up from corporate council. So, uh, the the, uh, the very very short summary before I get to your point, council member, the very very short summary is that, um, you know, the argument raised was that if you don't if you deny this franchise, that is contrary to the FCC's order. And of course, I responded saying, I mean, the way lawyers do in two pages. In effect, what I said was, "Show me where in the FCC order it says that Minnesota's state law is preempted. Where is it that Minnesota law no longer applies to Victoria?" And the answer back was, "Yeah, it still applies." So, I mean, that that's obviously a summary of the back and forth, but that's the back and forth. The six the FCC order does not preempt, does not invalidate the state law that we're talking about here, the state law still applies to us. We still have to comply with them. Period. So, uh, to your point, council member, yes. Um, if you go past that, the fact that the FCC orders don't dictate anything here, if you go past that and you dive into the details of the FCC orders, um, what they say is exactly what you said. Cities should not, uh, cause buildouts to have to occur instantly. Cities should not be unreasonable in the way they impose those buildouts. And one of the examples given in the FCC order is don't be unreasonable cities and say to a new competitor, sorry I'm lost my voice. Um don't say to a new competitor you must build out our city much much faster than the incumbent was required to do it. Don't say to a competitor you must build out more of the city than the com than the incumbent does. And if you do have a buildout in the incumbent's franchise, uh, don't make the buildout obligation be more strenuous on the competitor than the incumbent. And of course, we're doing none of that, right? I mean, Minnesota state law doesn't require to do us to do any of that. And the staff and I have not attempted to do any of that. We are literally attempting to say to Comcast, we want you to build out in the same way over time and only in neighborhoods where there are sufficient homes to justify it. We want you to build out the way Midco is now going to build out and the way Mediacom has in the past. So, putting aside the fact that the FCC order doesn't dictate anything here, what we're doing isn't out of compliance with the FCC order. So, um you know, it's sort of it's bumps at spike kind of thing. It it it's not it doesn't it doesn't cause you to have to rethink your your direction uh here. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you, J. >> Yeah. Anything else? >> No, go ahead. >> That that's the biggest thing for me is just the build out in the two neighborhoods and so different from the co and mediacom and um that's the difficult part for me. Definitely. >> All right. Very good. All right. Council, at this point, I will entertain a motion. I make a motion to deny adoption granting a new cable television franchise to Comcast of Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi LLC. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. >> Next item on our agenda 6.2 is the Victoria Condos mixeduse development sketch plat. Presenting this evening is city planner Brian McCann. Mr. McCann, have a seat and welcome. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh, give me just a moment here to boot up my presentation for everyone. Great. Yes, we have a sketch plat uh prepared by Monarch Development and submitted to the city for consideration for a mixeduse development proposal. So uh no approvals or actions are to be taken during this meeting. Uh it's just pro to provide guidance to the applicant as they work for uh preliminary plat and other future potential land use applications. So looking at the location and area, there are three parcels totaling 0.63 acres. There is the city parking lot as well as another portion of city parking lot in a L-shaped piece here which is also owned by the city. And then the uh private garage building located at 7942 Quamlit. Uh really the project area is going to be limited to 32 acres centered around this building. Um that information will come into play later when we talk about density, but locationwise it is located right in the heart of our downtown. So it's west of Clam, east of Ry's Way, south of Vixs and Stiger Lake Lane, and then north of the Burrow and Tower Boulevard. With this mixeduse building, they are proposing 10 condo units as well as two groundf flooror commercial units and one groundf flooror uh private storage or use for uh collector vehicles. So the existing conditions as I mentioned there is an existing private garage storage building uh with access towl currently. Uh there's the existing city parking lot which has a total of 43 stalls in it right now. Uh there are utilities available along Quamlit and Tower Boulevard and it is also within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake. So the shoreline district comes into play. This was previously reviewed by the plan commission and city council in 2022. with their previous concept included 63 apartment units with the same groundf flooror commercial uh storage shore showroom concept. Uh just a note about that. There was some misinformation that spread in the community regarding the parking generated and uh resulting impacts to residents and businesses as well as a distortion of the maximum building height or the number of stories that were presented with that concept. So, uh, the applicant has worked with members of the community and has come back with a revised concept for consideration by the plane commission and city council. On the left is what was proposed in 2022 with those uh with the balconies as you can see. And then here on the image on the right is the proposed uh condo concept uh with just a few balconies but still retaining that ground floor commercial space. So if we break this down floor by floor uh under the building is a proposed private parking garage consisting of 20 parking spaces. Then moving up to the ground floor is where those commercial units come into play here. Each of them are just over 2,000 square feet in size. Uh as well as some modifications to the existing city parking lot. What they would do is close off the entrances onto Quamlit Street and then it would be one way in and back out onto Ry's way for the development. Then moving up to the second and third levels, that would be for the condo units. Four units per floor. So, eight of the 10 units between levels two and three, they're all two-bedroom concepts. Uh, the smallest is about 1,400 square ft in size, moving up to 2,200 square ft. And then the final top floor would be those final two condo units as well as an amenity and roof deck for the residents. They did provide some renderings from various elevations as well for consideration. So, here is the view from the south. Here's Tower Boulevard for reference with a few parallel parking spaces in front. The ground floor commercial, that amenity deck that was presented on the last slide. Um, and then how the residents would access the building is for this entrance off of Ry's way. And then the parking garage entrance would also be located here. Also shown in the image in the bottom right going underneath the building for the residents. So our comprehensive plan guides this property as downtown mixed use which allows 24 to 75 units per acre. It also envisions this type of development with mixeduse retail office on the ground floor and highdensity residential up above. the proposed density uh comes out to 31 and a quarter units per acre which is within that range. So those 10 units on that 32 uh acres that I mentioned earlier and so a comprehensive plan amendment is not anticipated at this time because it does fall within the allowed density range. For the zoning, it is zoned central business district which allows mixeduse buildings um at with a conditional use permit. Our district also allows various commercial uses with a conditional use permit. So depending on what moves into those uh commercial spaces, additional cups may be required. Uh we expect to review the mixeduse building specifically with a cup approval consideration at preliminary plat. Uh for the amenity deck on the top floor if they have like a swimming pool for instance that's an accessory conditional use in our code. So that would require an additional cup. Uh but really we don't have any bulk standards. So no setbacks, no minimum sizes, uh things like that in our CBD. So the only thing we'd be looking at is height. We have a maximum height requirement of 50 ft. They are proposing 49 ft. And then what that looks like in terms of scale with our existing downtown buildings, uh it's just slightly smaller than the Victoria Flats building currently is in relation to grade and comparison. So for the streets and pedestrian connections, as I mentioned, they would be closing two of those access points on Quamocllet for the modifications to the city parking lot. Uh the two accesses on Ry's Way would remain. Uh just one would be in and the other would be out. Uh the underground parking would come from Ry's Way. And then they are proposing concrete sidewalks outlined in red throughout the entire site. Uh there's not a sidewalk on this side of Quamlit right now. As you may have seen, we have people walk in the street or in parking spaces to get down to VIX. So that's um a much needed amenity that is proposed with this concept. >> Can you back up one quick second? >> Yes, absolutely. Do we lose those parking spaces? Those with those extra. Yeah, that little bumpout. We lose those parking spaces with this. >> Correct. Uh, mayor, they are proposing to make some adjustments to our city parking lot, resulting in a loss of these five spaces here. They are proposing on taking out the existing uh evergreen trees that are located here and adding some additional stalls to account for that. I'll cover parking in a later slide uh to talk about overall net increase to parking for this development. Uh continuing with the streets and pedestrian connections, the fire department has requested in the review memo that was attached to the case that we do have one more uh access retained on quamoclit for the parking lot which may impact some of the parking counts proposed by the applicant. Uh, additionally, engineering requested clarification on parking stall layout with size functionality. So, uh, that's something that will have to be analyzed later, as well as, uh, the dimensions and the curb adjustments on Tower Boulevard to make this parallel parking work. Uh, we expect those to be addressed in preliminary plat with future conversations with staff. So, looking at parking, um I'm going to break this down in two ways because I know parking is a very um controversial topic in our downtown. So, starting with what we have right now, uh as I mentioned, the city parking lot has 43 stalls currently. The total parking proposed with this is 86 stalls. So that includes those 20 underground stalls, all of the parking modifications in the city lot, uh new parking along Quamlit and Tower Boulevard, 86 stalls. Um what that means is there is a net increase of 23 public parking stalls in total. So we take that 86 the new minus what we have 43 minus the 20 underground inaccessible public or private parking stalls that's how we end up with 23. Then separately looking at that total parking again going back to 86 stalls taking away those 20 private stalls that leaves 66 public available stalls. Um when we calculate the required retail uses uh which are anticipated for these two commercial spaces they need 15 stalls per our code. So 66 - 15 we still have 51 public parking stalls available. The private showroom or garage use here only needs one parking stall per our code. So we get a net increase of 23 parking stalls. But actually we have 50 stalls available for public parking with all uses accounted for with this proposed development. >> Can we pause it for just a moment there? >> Yes. >> So if the what we'll just affectionately at this point call the showroom which pursuant to what we have here requires one stall. >> Mhm. If that changes to essentially the same retail space in the future, there's still enough net addition to park that space for that use. Is that is that a fair statement, >> mayor and council member? That's correct. What that would result in is another seven stalls for consideration. Seven or eight. Uh so that would bring those 50 public stalls uh down to 43 or 42 >> which is essentially what we have today. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> So net net just make the presumption that the showroom is no longer the showroom that it you know becomes a retail space. By the time this is all said and done we lose zero parking spaces of what we have currently today. Is that a fair statement, >> Mayor and council members? That's correct. >> Okay. >> Any other questions on parking? >> Yeah, just one on the um underground parking 20 stalls. I you know, let's average out two per unit, right? How about for like visitors with it? You know, are they required to park outside in a visitor lot or what are you thinking for that or or even along those lines like um liveries and that kind of thing? What's your plan with that? >> Mr. >> Rank, welcome members of the council. Carl Rock with Monarch. I just want to state that my co-developer on this pursuit is Gier Homes. They're active in Victoria and so they're not involved in Downtown West, but here only. But you're regarding your question on on visitor parking. Um, we believe some of these units will not always use two stalls and so they're they're likely in reality be one or two stalls available uh for that purpose. has a guest and so we're we're so early on but that's something we're certainly looking at as far as in the garage is preferable if someone's a guest there overnight instead of being outside. >> Okay. Okay. >> Mr. Runker, are these proposed to be condos for owner owner rental? Do you have that level of detail yet? >> Yes, these are uh designed as owner occupied residences because there's been since this proposed in 2022, of course, a lot of new rental apartments that have been built or under construction now in downtown Victoria. These are just 10. So two-bedroom of different size owner occupied condos. >> That was one of my questions too, Carl. So um 10 twobedroom just different size twobedroom is the difference between the 1400 and 2200. >> Yeah, we were thinking that people facing north stiger lake looking down at views would pay a premium and therefore want larger units at 2200 ft and still have a nice view with sunlight facing south and the the community that way. Those are slightly smaller, 1400 square feet. >> Thank you. >> Just to muddy the waters, the the the public parking that we have in what I'll call inside the flats, which is right outside. We have public spaces there. Do we allow overnight parking in those spaces? Mayor and council members, yes, I believe we do. Um, getting nods from city manager. Um, yes. So, that is a private parking lot with a public agreement, I believe, to allow guests or users of the downtown business area to park there, including overnight guests for the Victoria Flats. >> Okay. And as such, those are public spaces. I'm maybe I'm going to go out on a ledge, but some of that has been financed by KIF. Correct. >> Would those be available to overnight guests of this new development or would that be off limits? >> It's mayor and council member. I'm not quite sure I have an answer to that >> and we don't have to have an answer today and we're at Sketchblat. We can >> ruminate about parking. >> So it could be overnight because we don't prohibit overnight parking. I'm not sure how they would determine residents and guests and ownership of vehicles. So, I would assume it's all public and available to use for any >> Thank you. I I mayor, members of the council, I agree with Mr. McCann um and his comments, but just to be safe, we would probably just want to look at that use agreement just to make sure that there isn't any restrictions related to that. >> Very good. Um I I am curious um about these parking spaces on Quamoclit. Does that turn Quamlit into a oneway? That feels like there's not enough room there. >> Mayor and council member, our engineering staff did look at the parking and the width of Quamlit Street and they didn't seem to have any concerns about making that a oneway. I think they believe they can make it work with a two-way still. >> Okay. >> I think it's hard to visualize. mayor >> because >> we've just been so used to this scene the way it is for so long. >> Um, but there is a very large apron of concrete that sits between the front of the existing building now and the street and then the island what I'll call islands at the end of the existing parking lot >> seem pretty sizable. So the I get what you're saying but I think the math The math works. >> The math feels like that works. But um can we query the developer at this point or do you still want to finish your presentation? >> That's fine if we want to keep asking questions. Now >> I mean I think I have. Let's let's let's finish and then we can go into >> Carl take a seat here for a couple minutes and we'll get you back. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Uh continuing on looking at landscaping and tree preservation. So they'll need to supply boulevard trees every 35 ft uh place 20 ft away from intersections for vision clearance. They'll have to place foundation plantings where practical. Uh side note that our CBD is exempt from open space and minimum planting requirements. So we will not be evaluating those with further submitts. And then we will look at tree preservation here for those evergreens that I mentioned earlier that will be replaced with uh proposed parking. So we expect that over 20% will be removed. So those additional landscaping um will have to be considered for incorporation with future submittals. Then looking at the shoreland overlay district. This property is entirely within 1,000 ft of Stiger Lake, which is a recreational development lake that requires a 150 ft ordinary high water line setback. They're about 400 ft away from the lake, so they're completely fine there. And then our shoreland requires a maximum 80% impervious in our central business district. So what is existing out there for the site uh currently exceeds that 80%. So it's a non-conforming use. But when you change a non-conforming use like the applicant is proposing with a new uh structure that nonconformity goes away. So how do we resolve this 80% maximum impervious? A variance could be considered since that's what's existing out there today. Um what we would want to see basically is no net increase in storm water use because that's what the impervious standard is trying to control. So that's something we'll have to evaluate further with a potential variance application in the future. Then residential shoreland planned unit developments or RSPUDs are required for buildings more than four units per acre or four just four units. my apologies. Within the shoreland area, that requires a density tier analysis and a minimum open space requirement, but we did have an exemption built into our code a few years ago. If you remember the shoreland ordinance that came in for the central business district, um a development in our central business district is exempt from RSPUDs if they're not providing riparian access. um if they're consistent with the density range in the comp plan and they're consistent with the other requirements in the shoreland district. So, uh if that variance, for example, is approved, they would be compliant with all three of these standards and they they would be exempt from that tier analysis and open space requirement. If they did have to go through a tier analysis, I don't think 10 units would be larger than their allowable unit count just for reference, but the open space requirement of 50% would be uh difficult to meet for this development. So for signage, lighting and architecture, signage and lighting will be evaluated at preliminary plat. They have some uh wall signage shown and then uh lighting will probably be pretty similar to what we have existing in our downtown currently, but something we'll have to evaluate further. They also did provide uh some renderings which seem to meet all of our design standards of our central business district, including those building brakes to provide some fair v variation. uh the altered roof designs, enhanced entries, and some high quality exterior materials for parkland dedication. This would generate a fifth of an acre required or a cash fee of $21,000. Um I provide the ratio here based on our code requirements. And for mixeduse buildings, we have to consider the residential component and the commercial component component and combine them. Uh but commercial projects less than an acre are exempt. So take that out of the calculation here. Um they are not proposing any parks or trails based on the submittals provided. Part of that being because we have great amenities in our downtown already. So uh any additional parkland here is not necessary. Looking at grading and storm water management, they have to meet the MCWD rules. There aren't any existing wetlands on the site, so we don't expect that to be an issue here. And then the storm water facilities rely on that downtown regional storm water that we have. So, the city engineer in the review memo did request some further details and evaluation on the drainage and storm sewer allocations for this site. And then I mentioned earlier that utilities are available. So water is available on Quamoclit. Um and our fire department I believe requested an additional hydrant near the building for this and our engineering just wants to look at potential uses for the water usage of the building and that sewer is available on Quamoclit and Tower Boulevard. So they have two uh potential options for connection, but they are proposing a connection to Tower Boulevard. This was brought to the plan commission for feedback last week. They were generally supportive of the concept. Some of the discussion revolved around surprisingly parking. Um and then a lot about the architecture and historical elements. And I believe in my staff report I had noted that this was a prior firehouse. It actually was not. I was informed by assistant city manager uh Alyssa this morning that that was not the case. It was actually a beverage bottling facility and distribution facility. So, my apologies for that error in the report. Um, they also had a lot of discussion about traffic flow and how that would affect our existing downtown public streets as well as the reorientation of the city parking lot, the private store room or showroom storage use and how snow removal would work with this development. With that, uh, just a reminder that there is no action required this evening. I have a few questions on the screen to guide discussion. I can uh answer any questions you may have as well as uh the representative from Monarch Development. >> Okay. I have a I have a couple of questions. So, the um fire department said they still wanted access to that parking lot off of Kamoclquit. So, does that impact the parking numbers then? >> Mayor and council members, that's correct. Uh going back to our parking slide here, they noted they wanted an additional access towamlit here. Uh for example, if it comes through here, that could impact two maybe three, four stalls at the most on quamlit. And they only want one. So I would expect at the most a maximum parking impact of what they're showing here to be four stalls >> with that. So in the on the other side on the Ry's way side, right? One way is an in and the other way is an out. So would that be an So you're going around. If we added the one, would that be an either? Would it be wide enough for an eitheror type thing? Like you could get out, but you could also go in there. That's something we'd have to look at. Uh in that situation I just mentioned with an impact to four stalls. That would probably be a entrance and exit situation. uh if it's just exit that would probably only impact two to three stalls at the most but that's something the developer and staff will have to look at closer >> and we'll look at that and I do want to mention I've met with the neighboring owners Terry Harbin and Mayor Davis and Tom Colmpus today and three other times in the last year and a half and as of today you know Terry Harman has requested that we look at Quamoclip further south between Burrow and Old National Bank and so I I think that is something we could explore if there's additional stalls to be gained on quantit that direction. And I also want to state that uh we are going to be working with them on a joint application uh for expanding the downtown tiffs district for public parking purposes or other infrastructure that they're proposing. >> And my other question is this is actually a four-story building, but you're saying because of the way the grade is that it actually won't stick up any further than the flats. Correct. Yeah. And it's actually, if you see in this diagram, it's shorter, three stories on the Winchester Ry side in Ry's way to make it feel more relatable to the Clock Tar building at Winchester Ry. It also serves a purpose, as you see, for a a deck for the residents to have great views and a little club space. And then two condos um on the east side facing Victoria Flats, but just slightly shorter than Victoria Flats in height. So, the tallest point there is 49 feet >> towards the flats on the east side. Yep. Y >> that's good to hear that you're talking with other business owners and things on parking and being creative on that side of it. Um I think the question was asked, does this fit? And personally, I think this fits this fits pretty good into this spot. it. Uh uh we looked at 2022 versus this and it's night and day. So um I like the looks of this. Um the one question I had too is on the uh amenity deck. I assume that's kind of an outdoor indoor type half and half you're thinking of like a club. Yeah. >> With with they can sit out and look at the great views but yet maybe a club room like you said or something. >> Exactly. Okay. >> Getting to know the owners and manager of Victoria Flats. That's the most popular in that building is the rooftop deck >> and the indoor space. They wish they would have made it bigger. And I So, we're trying to make this in a smaller way. What that is on Victoria Flats. >> Great. Thank you. Uh I just have a couple questions. Um uh one of the things in previous the previous iterations of this that uh we've heard from some of the downtown business owners and I know like you said that you've been in contact with them. uh is you know they would love to see a parking deck at some point on the public spot. Is that feasible with the way you are designing and building this current if if Okay, perfect. >> Yeah. So the the outline we have now does accommodate what they that group came up with with Walker Parking Consultants as a as a proposed design for a one-story deck with an entrance offic at the top and then an entrance off Ry's way. So it does accommodate that. Okay. >> So, if there is a a tiff scenario here where we're joined to applicants, we're open to building that at the same time. If that works out, if call it's a million half, we don't know what it cost today, but if it's a million half dollar single level parking deck and the city would support that use, it could make sense to do dig a hole at one time and build the parking at one time like that. >> What's what's your plan for construction if all this goes on according to plan? When do you expect to be? >> Um, we we are um it's dependent really on the lender we select with GE. Again, their relationship is who I'm leaning on for this one, this version of it in terms of how many pre-sales they'll need. Um, their realtors have already been talking to, they know a lot of homeowners in the community already that are interested. Um, and Mr. Gan himself might be interested as well. So, we're if we have some pre-sales, we might be already end this year that we would want to start. If not, it push in the spring most likely. >> Um, your entry into the underground, is that a two-way? Like they can get in and out? Is it a oneway and you kind of have to is is how how big is that entry? >> It's wide enough to be a two-way. I don't you know if you can see the dimension, Brian, but it's it's meant to be wide enough for two vehicles to go across each other in and out. I mean, with only 20 vehicles, it's unlikely to happen very often, but it's meant to be wide enough. Sure. >> Um and then my only other question is um I know again in the last iteration of this there was concern about if the residential spa or sorry not the residential the commercial space um you know what if all of a sudden they decide to put a a restaurant in there and I know I think previously you're like we don't really want to do that because of smells for our residents and stuff like that but um you know I guess you know because you need obviously more parking if it was a restaurant. Um, is there, you know, any way we can work that into like whatever like that this won't have, >> you know, a restaurant concept we have on this project is we're selling out the condos levels two through four. Gandhi and I would sell those out and the HOA takes over. Rich Ganon would own the first floor. So upon completion, he owns the first floor and would find two tenants for the spaces. And so up until, you know, the last iteration, he was open to having restriction on that because we haven't, for example, put in a a duct through the building for restaurant ventilation. >> So, we've not designed it for that. It's really designed for just, you know, retail uses that would not be restaurants. >> Driving more traffic, of course, like a restaurant would >> Well, whatever those uses are, you're going to have to be able to park it within the requirements that you've given us here. So, >> so if you come up with a restaurant that you can't park, we have to say we have to find a different spot for that. >> When my moral is like in the future, right? like you know you know if you know if the no right but >> we've seen in other instances around you know in the community where that doesn't always happen right so we've given previous whether it's previous councils right like they've allowed you know other buildings to get away with not having adequate parking so I it I it was a cons it's it's just a concern that was brought up so I wanted to talk about it at least and I I think open to that again as we move ahead on this further like >> it's been three years since he's talked to tenants at that time and I don't know if those tenants are still available they were not restaurants they were >> complimentary to what's downtown that case >> other questions >> yeah I mean I just kind of like maybe want to kick some maybe some ideas um and it's sort of like throwing the baby root bar in the pool which Carl's a big catty shack fan so he reference Um, so the ramp going into this the side of the building, is that still going to be on the city's parcel? >> Yes. Um Rich again I wanted me to remind everyone on this uh this version of the proposal that he sold the flagshaped parcel which is really small parcel to the city uh for parking I think 10 years ago or so and the city would be staffing know is that our proposal to make this fit would be to uh replat it. So the project is including that to make room here for the the garage go down. Um, if there was a scenario where there was a onele park deck the city supported, we could reorient that entrance ramp to be within the garage. If you've seen my excelsier project, you could you go through the public garage to get into a separate door for the resident. So that could be the case if that were to come to fruition before plantary plant. So that could change the orientation of that ramp if that were the case. Well, I'm kind of thinking about like somewhat distant future and I I'm I think that it's pretty been pretty well established that certainly this council um wants additional parking to come from development. And if we were do going to you know for lack of a better expression give up the parking lot we would want development there and not a parking ramp. So towards that concept um one thought that looking at this that came into my mind and I don't know if it's feasible but would we be able to um establish an alley that goes from Quamoc clip to Ry's way and that is all more or less level and then do you I don't have a lot of heartburn about Maybe having what is now been lowered in the front come up a a little bit so that the entrance into the parking for the building can come at alley level rather than being scooped out and then still put the parking spaces for now in the alleyway. But you would then have essentially the alley coming into the building and then later if there comes a project that can say we'll develop this parking lot into some sort of you know uh developed parking lot that then that alley could serve coming into the backside of whatever goes there. and the alley would then be the way that both buildings would be served by an entrance. So we um do away with this scooping out and locking the use to that exclusive ramp into perpetuity. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. I think the the challenge of that might be the grades or how do you park the condo residents with the grades of the retail showing up on tower >> that might be a little bit of challenge to park you know in terms of elevations that way that's an area you're suggesting a alley behind >> yeah I'm suggesting an alley but for the time being those six parking spots where the trees are >> they they live in the alley like we don't today build it as an alley but we plot for an alley that when future development comes, then that can be that alley could be like reconstituted into a full alley that would serve both of these buildings. And and I I hear what you're saying with the grades, but you like I don't have a lot of heartburn about, you know, the front of this building becoming a little bit taller. So that even though the alley might be sloped, that the entrance to the garage comes in off of the alley. >> Yeah. The retail be up a bit. Yeah. The alley comes down a bit and they're able to come off an alley condition that way. >> Yeah. And then so and then later in because we would in that future development look to add parking spaces that would restore the spaces that would be lost by the entry into the alley from >> quamlet. kind of see where I'm going with >> So, a future You're saying the future building potentially, >> the future building and this building would both be served by an alley. Granted, the alley might be sloped, but you would essentially raise the front height of this building so that you could come in at almost street level alley-wise into your parking garage. Then the future building would, you know, have the back of it there and it could be served by the same alley to however it would need to take into consideration. Would it be directly across from that door? Maybe. Would it be from the door would be closer towlet? Possibly. But I think if we scoop this out, fill it with concrete and make a ramp, that's it. There's nothing else that's going to go there for time eternal. And I again I have less heartburn about the front of this building being lower. I could, you know, see it coming up a bit. And you I would even be comfortable with a rooftop deck that, you know, sits up top of this and has, you know, an even better view out into Stiger Lake from up there. And maybe that gives you a little bit room to maybe add one more unit into the condo complex, but that means that you're going to have uh two more parking spaces that you'll need underground. These are just kind of some food for thought ideas that um it's like pulling on a sweater, right? You pull on the string and you have to rethink a whole bunch of things. But >> yeah, >> um >> including in our case selling condos that the future the buyers are sophisticated. They're gonna ask, okay, what's the city going to do with this lot someday or ramp, right? >> And they're gonna ask that question. So, we just want to, you know, we'll consider that, too. I think what you're saying makes sense from an urban building perspective, >> maybe to think about how do we sell the first units if they're, you know, they're for sale in that case. Looking at views are really important much as we can. >> Understood. >> Okay. Other questions, comments? >> Brian, you want to go to your list of questions? Make sure we got them all answered for you guys. >> Yeah. Council member Roberts, >> the reasoning for the extra entrance uh on Qualit um is that just flow is it before emergency like in case there's an emergency is what what is the reasoning I guess that the >> mayor and council member Roberts my understanding is that it's the ladder there that in case of an emergency they just would like an additional access point. And part of me is like I mean obviously >> you want to trust but I'm like you know I feel like you see that a lot right in parking lots where you have one entry right you have to go around and you go out the one way and so you know if there's an emergency where there's emergency vehicles needed they're going to park wherever they have to right >> I mean I share your kind of like do we need to have that extra entry >> I I understand the ask but the loss lo of parking spaces for an event that is seemingly unlikely. And then as you point out when there there seems like there's plenty of room on the street, parking spaces across the way. Um, even within the interior of the parking lot, um, it will be just as difficult to get in there from Ry's way as it would be for I I don't feel like the sacrificing of the parking spaces is is worthy. >> The juice isn't worth >> Yeah, I get it. We can talk about it. >> All right. Where's our list of questions? Sorry you guys. >> I know feed through the will be very mad. >> Um I I do you have what you need? I mean >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And Carl, do you have what you need for >> I do. Yeah. Just this feedback from what you has been helpful as we continue to evolve the plans for Plat and wanting to execute on what's a dormant building and Rich has been very patient on this as well. >> Yeah, >> we appreciate that patience. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Council, there's no more items on our regular agenda. So, moving on to reports and emerging issues. Attorney Vos, you're up first. >> I do not, mayor. Thank you. >> Miss Hardy, anything from staff? >> None from staff this evening, mayor. >> How about the council? Anything from the council? >> I just uh I just wondered if um Well, kind of meant >> Do you need to talk to >> It's hardy. >> Oh, yeah. Um, so I guess I just, you know, we've had lots of discussions, uh, heard from people about the ebikes. >> Oh, >> and I'm just wondering with school starting, um, I've heard of kids riding their ebikes to the middle school, I'm sure even some at ages might be riding it to the elementary school. I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to talk with the school district even, right? Like Victoria Elementary and see if like they can help curb some of that stuff, right? Like we don't want them here type thing. Um so don't ride your ebikes to school. I I don't know. I just or an opportunity for our cso to go in and and uh because uh I'm not sure it's getting any better. But >> yeah, sorry, you got any thoughts on that? >> Um thank you. Yeah, a couple brief thoughts here. Um, so I this is a a challenge that many communities are struggling. So again, we know it's not just Victoria. So, uh, kind of a an evolving emerging um, as they become issue for all of us as these ebikes become more popular. Um, we've had some success, I would say, in educating uh, parents. the what we found initially and early on is that a lot of times parents didn't really understand that there's an age limit with some of these um ebikes. And so as we start to push more information out there and educate the public um on that, I think I think we're starting to see some relief, although it's not anywhere near um a problem being solved. So we've put some signage along the trails. You may have seen that if you've been on some of our trails lately. Um, we've also done some social media campaigns. Uh, during our truck rodeo, we got out there and did um some engagement and we've been doing some engagement in the community events that were at um classic car show, the um farmers market um talking about things at the park popup events that we're having. So, we are trying to get the word out there. We'll be bringing to you September 22nd um an ebike ordinance to to we've been working with language doing some research talking to other communities and talking to our um the sheriff's office our law enforcement partners on this and seeing what they're hearing and seeing um in kind of their channels. So, um I one thing that we hadn't discussed though was having our cso go into the elementary school uh and have those conversation with students and we can um look at doing that and coupling that with just regular bike safety because we know students are driving riding their bikes to school. So, if we kind of um did some engagement around bike safety, bike etiquette, um we could certainly look at doing that. So, that's a great suggestion and uh we'll do that. So, sorry for the long-winded answer. >> Yeah, we did I did get a um was visiting with a resident recently and got some great compliments on our bike safety her bike handout that we had. So, pass that along to staff. Thank you very much. >> We'll do that. Thank you. >> One other thing. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Cara's not here tonight, so I'm going to put you on the spot. I don't know if it's um so, uh Marsh Lake, the roundabout, Marsh Lake Road and Highway 11, right? It's been delayed a couple times. I have we heard any uh revised opening date yet, >> mayor, council member Roberts, members of the council, we have not. That Cara and I did meet this afternoon uh um and that was one of the questions that I had asked. We have been getting a number of phone calls uh late last week and we did get a number of phone calls today at city hall with people asking that question. Unfortunately, the county's web page has is not helpful in providing any new information. Um, so at this point in time, we do not have anything new to share. Fingers crossed. We're all hopeful that um that we will be that road will reopen soon. Uh but I will um certainly share as soon as that becomes available and then we'll make sure that we're sharing out whatever the county communicates through our channels. >> And again, >> you'll be happy just as much as anyone else. Yeah. Yes. >> And again, that that closure, continued closure is just for the safety. It's not ready to open, right? I mean, with all the water and the rain and everything we've had, it's just not safe to open up the not complete and it's not safe, right, >> Council Member Rif. Yes. That and mayor, members of the council, essentially that's correct. It's a safety issue at this point. So, what we do know and what has been shared publicly is that um there was some water that was seeping through the pavement and the pavement had failed and so a portion of the road had to be um taken out and then it had to be redone and so that's what we're um what we're working through right now. So, it's not the entire thing. It's just a portion of the road. Um, so they're hopeful. They were hopeful at the time when they began that process that it would be a quick uh turnaround and so fingers continue to be crossed. >> Dry weather. >> Yes, exactly. >> Fingers crossed. All right. Anything else from councel? All right. There are no more items to come before the body this evening. So I am looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourn.