Good evening. It's 5:00 and I call to order the workshop of the Victoria City Council. Our workshops are informal. So with that, we're going to get we're going to dive right into our agenda. There's two items on the workshop agenda this evening. And the first is to discuss proposed 2026 fees and charges and our preliminary 2026 general fund budget and levy projections. So kicking us off on that topic this evening is our assistant city manager and finance director, Miss Trish Pollock. Miss Pollock, the floor is yours. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor, members of the council. This evening is our third workshop and the final workshop before we um certify our max tax levy in September. The first topic is fees and charges for services. Sources of revenue are primarily property taxes. As you can see 82% of our revenues. The charges and services include permit revenues, facility rentals, and intergovernmental revenues such as police aid and grants. And the other 2% is interest earnings and other miscellaneous refunds and reimbursements. Criteria for adjusting fees includes market comparison which are set at the mid to upper cortile of the market cities. Um, some fees are also set by legislation such as the international building code for our building permits. And many of our fees are cost recovery and self-supporting where possible. How do we project revenues for that 18% that's not the levy or the franchise fees? We begin by looking at the three-year average. So in this case, our three-year average includes 2022 through 2024. Then we look at our year-to- date for 2025 to determine whether or not there are any trends that have been changing. Our largest revenue for services is building permits, which can be pretty difficult to predict. However, we look at both the available lots in the city and weigh in projections from the build building department and planning staff to come up with an estimated number of building permits to project. So, for 2026, we're budgeting 144 new homes, which is the same as 2025. The reason that that amount was increased um for dollar-wise is because our average permit amount has been trending higher than previous years budgeted. Additional factors include department head recommendations for changing fees or for added services such as the park facilities line and park donations. uh the park and recck directors plan to add some programming for 26 and also outreach for donations so that those line items have been increased. Do you have any questions about any specific revenues for >> I just have a comment. I would uh handicap what we think our interest on investments is going to be in 2026. I think the trend is clear that there's going to be a push for lower interest rates for short term and there's the market seems to be um reflecting pretty strongly that the Fed will cut rates this year and then continue to do so throughout 2026 and if we're exposed to short-term interest rates we probably will see a revenue decline in that. So I think have an abundance of caution. uh I wouldn't be increasing it but uh at best to flatten maybe we take some off just to uh forecast that that could be an impact to us. >> Okay, I'll take another look at that. I know um I normally budget the interest pretty conservatively just because of the >> okay >> the changing of the market. Um but I'll take another look at that. >> Right. Nobody has a crystal ball, but I >> right >> there are there are bets for a decrease at least to 25 basis points in the next couple in in the next month in September. Maybe another 25 in December and then conservatively figure on maybe three more of 25 basis points by all through 2026. So stepping down. So we could be 125 basis points lower. >> Yeah. >> If if the tugof-war forces, you know, went out in that direction. So, >> yep. I'll take a look at that. Any other questions about revenues? >> I'm I go let's go back there for a second. I'm just looking at at these things where we have our three-year average and our preliminary budget. And there's a couple of places that kind of stand out as maybe some places we could shave a little if we needed to. And one of those is building permit fees. The other one is mechanical water and sewer permits. I know we want to be conservative on those because we feel like it's slowing down and I'm wondering if if that's what you're taking into account here. The other one is these plan check fees which um you know consistently we we generate more money than we budget. So I'm trying to accommodate that a little bit. Um yeah, that's that's definitely always a consideration and it is difficult um to predict what those are. The plan check fees can vary quite a bit depending on the development that they're working on. If there are homes that are like model homes that are like repeated, then they get a discount on the PL the plan check fees because they're they don't have to review the same plan over and over and over again. So, it's really hard to know um in the year ahead how many of those there's going to be. And um sometimes we estimate a little bit too low and sometimes we've estimate a little bit too high. So, um, yeah, it's it seems that if we if we go with the 144 homes, which is what our building department feels comfortable with and our planning department feels comfortable with, that these are the numbers where um we should be landing because we did increase them per per building permit as well. Um, but are you thinking that they should be higher or lower? >> I'm I'm thinking um they should be lower, which would lower our overall levy and you know, just kind of in the interest of trying to find some places to maybe give give ourselves a little bit of a haircut, this might be an option. So, if we lower them, then we'll actually have to increase the levy because we'll have less out other revenues. So, in order to in order to get more money and less on the levy, we're gonna have to increase some. >> Understood. Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. We were looking at a different part of the pie. >> Yep. So, if we're looking at expenditures, I would agree with that, but this is a little bit Yeah. Where we did actually increase, as you can see, over the 25 budget because we did end up with a surplus revenue on the billing permits last year. So, we did increase it knowing that as well if we did come up short, we do have the revenue stabilization fund that we could supplement that >> that shortfall with. Um, so that was kind of the thinking on where why we landed where we landed. Very good. Thank you, >> mayor. Members of the council, if I could just make an additional comment on the plan check fees. Thanks. Um, and and Trish said this, but I think it's important just to pause and say this out loud, too. Um, a couple of years ago, we did actually make uh an intentional decision to actually reduce uh that fee. So, those fees used to be a lot higher and we did this because of the efficiencies that we gain operational. So, um, as Trish talked about initially when we're setting fees, one of the things that we look at is cost recovery. And so, we want to make sure, um, as especially as it relates to housing affordability, um, and the new homes, we want to, of course, make sure growth pays for growth. And so, we're recovering our fees, but we're not looking to make money on them. And so, um, when we have efficiencies operationally, we do look at how we can pass those savings on. And uh the plan check fees is one of those areas where as we were uh as we became more efficient and Trish had shared with you that um with the plan check when you have um the same model we're not charging the same amount because we're looking at as long as everything on that plan is the same um then that those savings are passed on. It's a basically a bulk discount that is passed on to the developer and we hope that they are passing that on um to whoever purchased the home in that savings. We don't know um of course that's the private market. We don't know if that's the case, but we feel that we're doing our part um to ensure that we're um not adding to the housing affordability um challenge. >> Thank you. All right. Any other questions on this? All right, carry on. >> Okay, so then sorry. So these next few slides are going to detail out the changes to the 2026 fee schedule. Um this is not including water, sewer, and storm water. We're going to talk about those enterprise funds in November. Um, so this first slide is community development changes. So the business subsidy application fee is increasing $1,000 um as is the escrow. that escrow um is going up um significantly and that is to cover the payment that we pay to Northland, our municipal advisor, for conducting analysis for TIF and other business subsidies that um people are asking for. Um that way then we have the money up front and we don't have to collect it through an invoice later. Um and then a new outdoor dining public parking rental. Um there was a rental fee per ordinance for use of public parking spaces for this season. Um zoning compliance, fences, sheds, and retaining walls are all existing permits that are being increased due to staff time and cost recovery. The encroachment agreement was previously listed in the fee schedule but didn't have a charge. So, this is just to correct that and make that update. And then the early grading agreement is a new fee this year as well. Any questions on community development fees? >> Well, and just just a comment, some of these fees haven't been increased for quite some time. Correct. >> That's correct. Yes. like can you give us a >> um I would say many years probably >> since I can remember and I've been here 13 years so >> Okay. >> Um yeah it it's been quite some time. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And this slide is the Victoria Recreation Center changes. Um there's an increase in fees to the gymnasium rental. Um, the advertising kiosk is being restructured to allow for more options. Dropin pass for youth under 11, skate rentals, ice arena party rentals, and open skate are all new fees this year. Um, new offerings. And then the multi-purpose room is increasing its fees to align with our market cities as well. Any specific questions on Victoria Recreation Center? >> Yeah, Miss Hardy, please. >> Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I just want to um I I know we had some discussion last year because we did increase the um our fees for the recreation center last year. Um, and so we we had heard from you that there really wasn't an appetite um to consider increasing fees for recreation center memberships for this year. That being said, you do see a new drop in pass for residents and non-residents for children under 11. Um, and the reason that that is um is because they will not have access to the gymnasium. So, we're slightly reducing that fee, creating a new fee. Um, so they're not paying for something that they're not having access to. So, I just want to uh clarify that that piece of it. And the skate rentals are would be new. We're not currently doing that. So, that would be a new re revenue stream uh for for the city. It's not a that we're currently offering. >> So, can I just had a So, we don't offer skate rentals currently. >> That is correct. >> We're going to bring skate rentals in and then charge $5 for it. >> That would be the plan. So the fee it would be proposed but that there would be further discussion about that because that would be an increase to the service level and the amenities that are offered. So you still have to make that decision but we wanted to pull that out here um as a potential fee. So you could see that there is a revenue stream that goes with that. >> Um >> is that something that we would do or would we bring someone in to manage that function? So our from what I understand our park staff particularly our front desk staff would be managing that on our behalf. Um so we would not require additional staffing beyond what we have just for that service. >> Okay. So but to be clear we don't have skates today. >> That is correct. >> And then >> so we got to purchase. >> So we need to acquire skates. >> We need to staff skates. We need to disinfect skates. Do we have a sense as to whether or not that's really a $5 per pair revenue or are we going to break even at best? Um, do we have a a sense of this projection like or put another way does it if we're not going to have revenue from it, are we going to break even? um if we're going to lose, is it something that's a service that the citizens of Victoria really would find attractive to enough that we would be subsidizing it through the general fund budget and for, you know, through the park and rec budget. >> Um >> I'm okay with skate rentals as long as it covers our cost of acquiring, maintaining, replacing, disinfecting. you know what there will be they will wear out they will need to be replaced they'll need to be sharpened is that a is that a value proposition for the city that makes sense >> miss Hardy please >> thank you mayor members of the council um we will bring that information back to you with that larger discussion so we'll be happy to answer all that great I don't have that the answers to all of that but yes we will absolutely do that >> $5 yes $5 seems low >> to me >> well I mean it has >> with all that stuff Right. It seems >> it might seem low, but it might seem that it's not going to get done at all. In which case, we would have bought $14,000 worth of skates. And I'm throwing numbers out there. And you know, will we will we rent enough pairs in open skates to be able to >> Yeah. >> make that a venue that >> and we will we will have a business plan on that option coming forward. Wonder how often do we have the rinks available to even have open skate is the second question because we don't generally have free ice time. So it might not even right we could say we're going to do it but if there's no free ice then that's a problem. So >> it's a good point >> and I >> I fully understand that I I made Jenna's day very bad tomorrow. I get it. >> All right. All right. Anything else on this slide? All right. Go ahead, Trish. moving forward. >> Great questions. Okay, next slide is park and wreck. Um, so they are planning to restructure the Lions Park pavilion rental um to be able to book a specific time frame. Um, reason being that it would allow for more rental options. And then the Charleston tune band stand is increasing its fees and the picnic table and memorial benches are increasing to cover costs. >> Okay. So this is if someone wants to donate, this is what the their charges are. >> Exactly. >> To donate a picnic table. >> Correct. Yeah. Because the costs have gone up and especially with the concrete um the price to put the slab in is very expensive. So, just one question here on the timing and stuff we're looking at. That's pretty tight timing. Are is this same day stuff? >> Yeah. So, their plan is to have um one of the park and recck staff go and clean between the 2 and 3:00 time frame. >> Wow. Okay. >> That's pretty aggressive. Um but I mean it I'm not saying it can't be done. I just when I see an hour that's pretty quick turnaround. >> Yeah. Might take a team instead of a person. Okay. Any other questions on this? >> Mine not really like I I only see like Monday through Thursday is they're not weekend. >> So the the fees for the Friday through Sunday are not changing. So I just put no change under the 25. >> Okay. >> Um because I was running out of room on my >> understood. All right, Miss Hardy has a comment, please. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Great questions on all of these. So, um, so this is something and and I had lots of questions around this and so, um, hopefully we can answer some of the questions. My understanding is that, um, the half-day rentals will not be available on the weekends and so it'll only be during the day. Um, and right now the way that that this is scheduled is that if a city or the Lions or somebody were to hold an event um in the more let's say 8 8 to 10, we have a training up there, the city has a training up there. And the way that the system currently is set up is that that once that's booked, even though it's going to be available for the next 6 hours after 10:00, um it's not able to be rented out. And so, um so during the weekday, we'll have an opportunity to gain some revenue even if we're using it in different capacities. Um and um the in between there's not a a larger demand until uh we get into the um we'll call them call it like the senior uh graduation parties. Um then I think there may be uh a little bit of a a rush to get things cleaned up. But one of the things that the staff were keeping an eye on this year was how much um how much what type of work and how much work are we doing in between to do the cleaning to see if this is even reasonable. Um and so our understanding is people are have been very respectful um with the pavilion and do a nice job um cleaning up after themselves for the most part. it's the emptying of the garbages, um maybe a a quick cleaning of the bathrooms. So, they have not um at least those who have been renting it so far, um have been respectful to the building and in leaving it in good condition. Um when we do have our cleaning company come in and do the cleaning, we are charged $90 per cleaning. And so we did not think that under this scenario, if we were moving in this direction, it would be um an option for us unless we significantly increased that cost. And um we would likely because that would be outside of our contract, we'd likely and during the day would likely be charged more for that service. And so in order to do this, we had to make a decision to bring that inhouse, that cleaning piece. Um and so this would be to trial it. uh for one year and then if it works we'll you know we would be gathering what's working, what's not working. Um so it's possible that this would go back to the way it has been um if it's not able um to work out the way that we think. But this would be an opportunity for us to make that beautiful building available to more people during the day, especially during that higher demand um higher demand season. Do we have any data on uh I mean I'm sure we do. The use like non-resident versus compared to resident. I'm just wondering if if we want to raise the non-resident a little bit higher and make it more I mean it's busy in the summer and we maybe want I mean obviously if it's we don't want it to sit empty either but I feel like our residents are using it a lot and so if that helps our residents get more access to it because the non-resident fees are a little bit higher I >> I can I can get that information from Jenna Just a thought. I just >> Good to know. >> Other questions, comments on this. >> All right. And then there's just one change in the admin section um a new fee for the one day consumption and display permit um which is $25. Can you that one day cons? So that would be like a >> Yeah. >> When the lions have their fish fry and they have alcohol there. Is that what that what what is that? >> I'll let Claudia and status give us an example of this, please. >> No. No. Council member uh Roberts. The consumption and display permit is when someone like the Lions or a different group um wants to bring in um hard alcohol or let their members bring in hard alcohol and not charge for it. That's what the consumption and display is for. >> So they wouldn't be making money off it. It's basically just letting people bring their own >> and that this is required by state statute. >> Um so and the fee is what we are allowed to charge by state statute. In the past we have not charged for that. Um so yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. I just confusing on what that was. >> Yeah. Good good point. >> Thanks for clarifying that. >> Okay. This slide's looking at our utility franchise fee fund. Um, it's a 10-year projection 2026 through 2035. The original undergrounding debt service will be paid off in year 2031. So, um, the green there, you'll see that most of the increase in our fund balance um, will be realized um, in 2032. um we'll continue to increase our fund balance for more undergrounding projects over the next five years as they um approach. And then the other debt service payment that you'll see is the 160,000 that's left in those last four years is for the park debt service. Uh staff are not recommending an increase in utility franchise fees at this time. Any questions about franchise fees? >> So everything like so the 300,000 drops off in 2031. Correct. >> Correct. So >> so that's the undergrounding debt service. So is that 300,000 uh is 140,000 of it the underground and the other 160 is the was >> correct. I mean it varies a little bit year-over-year because the principal will increase as the interest decreases but yes approximately. >> Okay, understood. Thank you. >> Any other questions on this? Okay. So now we'll take a look at the updated 2026 general fund budget and levy. So the June preliminary budget levy projection was 9.26% 26%. After considering guidance given at that workshop um from council, we're proposing a max tax levy increase of 9.96%. Um reminding you that that does not mean that your property taxes will increase by that. That is just a year-over-year difference um in the tax levy. What are the proposed changes from June? The top two um lines are for training opportunities for the community development director um to participate in the compass peer training. And then the second line is for the city manager if she is elected to the government finance officers association executive board. Um she will need to travel to Washington DC. So, we would remove that if she's not selected before final um budget. And then the elections is to reprogram the DS200's. And uh the city received the notice of the levy for the Lake Mitaka Conservation District um since that last um budget workshop and they have increased their fee $8,459. So it went from 20,000 to just over $29,000 like a 43% increase. Um they stated that the increase was due to they went back to the amount that the levy was in 21. So they had lowered it for three years um to use up some surplus reserve funds. So now they're reinstating that. And then also they are hiring an executive director position which is going to increase their personnel budget significantly. >> Do they not have an executive director currently? >> They did have one and now they're getting another one again. They're reinstating it is what the letter said. >> So not adding but >> reinstating. Yeah. Um the next line item is um because of the big beautiful bill um they included an exemption of a portion of overtime pay for individuals that are non-exempt. So this would include our public works personnel who currently have the option to elect comp time or overtime. So, we can expect that we'll see fewer people electing comp time um and instead wanting overtime pay since it will likely be tax exempt for them. Currently, the comp time they use their bank up before the end of the year, so they get more time off, but we're not paying that out um in cash. So, um, we've included 15,000 as an estimate of what it could cost, um, for some additional employees to have overtime. Um, and then the final line item is the balance of the amount that we needed to hit the 9.9% levy goal. Um, the trail maintenance is definitely a need. Um, there's a great need for additional seal coating and um, maintenance on the trails. So, um that's where that amount went to get us to the 53,700 um that we needed to hit the 9.9. >> Okay. Questions, comments? >> Okay. I don't think I have any comments on these, but one thing that I'd like us to have a discussion about is this. This is the time for us to set our fees for 2026 and after this the window closes without any kind of special council action. I'd like us to consider the thought of increasing our fees for parkland dedication in lie of land from these developers. We have seen, I think over 2025, a repeated no, we won't dedicate land to these new subdivisions that we're plucking down and developers are paying the fees, paying the fees, paying the fees. So, there's a value equation for them in doing that. We are not getting the land that we make these justifications that we have these concentric circles around parks that we have. And you know there's you know we make these value judgments on hey you know this many this distance is close enough for a park um I feel like we are missing an opportunity to start shifting the direction on those decisions and if if those are the decisions that are being made then they need may be more expensive decisions and the reason for that is that when that happens and the the case is made that there's another park close note by closer by. What we are doing is we are systematically increasing the demand on the existing park space that equipment wears out faster. That's more money that's coming out of our general fund budget at some other point in some ratcheting up the budget to cover for that what was more or less unplanned depreciation on the existing equipment. So, um, I'd like us to give consideration to raising those fees so that we can bring in more revenue from that and either get the land we need or then then let those fees pay for the increased burdens that are being placed on the existence. >> Okay, Miss Hardy, I think there's some some restrictions on this, right? >> There are, mayor, mayor, members of the council, and council member Iansky. um we hear you and we'll we'll bring back um this item if there's council consensus to do that to just talk a little bit more about park dedication and the requirements around that. I think it's a it's really good even with all the development that we're having just for the general public to be aware. So, um and I can certainly appreciate what you're saying because that is with all the parks and trails that we have as a growing community, um maintaining and investing in what we have is very important to us. So, I certainly am hearing you. Um but the state law does require that the fees are proportional to the the need that that is um that the need proportional to what was created by the development. So um and it restrict when you're taking park dedication fee in lie of land we are restricted to use those only for new park amenities and new parks. So we're not able to use those funds for park dedication. >> Understood. um or park maintenance. >> And in the places where we have had new land dedicated, we have empty fields. So if our idea is to program those new spaces, then we need money for those new spaces and and we should if if we're restricted by statute to put them into new facilities. those new facilities aren't getting built, then it just goes and reinforces my argument about the existing facilities taking on more burden because there isn't the resources to uh keep those afloat. So, I think it's like uh madame city manager has said, it it bears out a discussion. Um, but I think we we would be remiss in how we're treating the citizens of Victoria if we're not paying attention to this and and going for that revenue stream while we have the opportunity. >> All right. >> I I agree. I think it does warrant. It's a healthy discussion to have further and we're a growing community. So, um, to your point about the parks get overburdened, 10 years ago, this probably wasn't as big of an issue, right? just weren't as big and you weren't seeing the growth and so I I think it I'm sure there's you're gonna bring up the statutes and things like that, but it's a healthy discussion to have. >> Do we have any sense of park usage? >> It's a great question. Mayor, members of the council, just to be clear, do we like who's attending our parks, how often they're >> Yeah, I would say I mean if >> and I think this goes to um as we think about how we how we are programming our parks and how how they're being used, you know, do we have 20 neighborhood parks that sit empty, >> you know, the majority of the time? Um, do we have um park equipment that's not being used? Um, I you know I that's always been a question to me because park maintenance is very expensive and um so that's always been a question to me about you know are they being used? Are they being used in the way they are currently programmed or is there some other things that we could be doing? And um that might be a good that might be a good project or a good question for our parks interact department or committee to kind of figure out how they're being used. And I know you guys have do do some pop-up park stuff. >> That would might be a good opportunity to have a full discussion about parks. And I would just say too, you know, yes, if we don't build new parks in certain neighborhoods, neighborhoods that have parks are getting uh >> tax, you know, they're being used more, right? So, yes, but if we b build more parks, that means we need more people to help take care of them, right? So, there's an extra cost there, too. So no matter what we do, there's going to be an extra cost because it's either replacing the older stuff that's getting overused because we have less parts or if we have more parts, you're going to need more people to help take care of the public works and such. >> Does do we separate out the public works staff that is uh benefits parks? So like there's the the So we know what park and wreck the parks cost us. >> Yeah. So um great question, mayor. Um, so we have different departments and when the public works staff is filling out their time card, they are allocating hours to these certain um pay codes which are then um going to those specific departments and park maintenance has its own department. So yes um we do have we have the amount that they that they cost. >> That might be an interesting exercise to look at what that looks like year-over-year. Yeah, Miss Hardy, please. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. The other thing I'll just add is we did take a park survey a couple of years ago. Um, I think it's been a couple years now, and I we did ask some of the questions that were raised here this evening. So, when we bring back the discussion on park dedication, I think it would probably make sense to maybe package this as just a parks conversation. Um, and we can bring back some of that survey information because we can look at it through a different lens as we're talking about this budget and our the future and how we want to set oursel up for future success here with our park. So, we'll bring all that back for a future discussion. Um, and then we'll have an internal conversation as long as um you're okay with this to either bring that as a separate conversation or maybe we'll package it and bring it when we talk about the capital um budget. So if unless you've got a preference right up but otherwise we'll take that back and and look at it and bring something back for you for sure. >> And I know it's extra work but it would also be I think introspective for us to know in comparison to our neighbors i.e. Janhass, Chaska, Wakonia. What is the park space per capita of our communities? And there a couple ways we can look at that, right? We can look at, you know, um, park acreage per person or number of parks per person so that we can get a sense as to are we really heavy on parks, are we light on parks? Lakes and parks isn't our name. We I think it helps us to know that if how we're doing in terms of you know our neighbors in in that space to frame the discussion about you know do we have a good balance or do we have are we overparked are we underparked >> yeah I think that's a good conversation >> and I think in you know we had this conversation it feels like many years ago uh but you know like even just you know is it we don't need as many neighborhood parks and those communities But we want more destination type park parts, right? Like I think the variety is nice, right? we have, you know, and when we were looking at our southern growth area, that was one of the things we considered was, you know, do we want more of that destination park that you see like in Maple Grove and and places, you know, like where there's a lot of different stuff that might because we have a lot of neighborhood parks and it feels like in the past at least, I don't know about the recent uh uh survey, but you know, they I it felt like, you know, people were asking for more, you know, different things in, you know, more of those destination type park type. >> Yeah. >> And I think we're encroaching on the topics that would be part of a parks study, which we we've we've made a conscious decision as council to not spend that money to answer those questions now. So I I want to be sensitive to staff's time and focus on that. of just, you know, like high level quick hits, you know, an in-depth paid park study, which is we all know is quite an expensive venture. And we felt like there are better places for our funds right now. But just this a little bit more of generality on how um a small view of one of those segments that report could could help guide us. Thanks. >> Okay. Great. Okay. So, this slide um shows the breakdown of the projected levy. Um so, the general fund is um actually being reduced slightly from 25 and then the um debt service is increasing um due to the fire station debt payment. So, there was one issuance that dropped off and then we added the fire station. So, the fire station's about 1.4 4 million. Um, so we um end up with that 9.96% levy. What does the 9.9% increase in the city's levy mean for your property tax bill? So, at our June meeting, I showed you the top chart with the preliminary market values from the county. Those values didn't include the adjusted net tax capacity which is calculated based on property classification and it also didn't include the fiscal disparity numbers. So the bottom chart shows the updated numbers received from the county last week and we did receive about $30,000 extra um increase in fiscal disparities and have an increased tax capacity. So both of those lower the tax rate. So as you can see um in that bottom chart, the tax rate is projected to be flat compared to 25. Um and just a reminder from our June workshop that there was an overall market value increase to residential home values of 4.76%. So people will see that market value increase affect their overall tax bill but the tax rate is only um moving about 07% at this with these numbers. Any questions about this >> questions? Just going quick. So, so if if I have an assessed valuation of a million5, my taxes are only going up by $11. >> That's correct. The >> Yes, that would be correct. >> We're getting a new fire station and your taxes are only going to go up by $1. >> Good. It's a fair deal. >> That really taxes >> that really shows >> portion of it. >> It really shows what that tax capacity does with that that that tax rate. So, it just shows, you know, we don't really have control over that that tax rate because it's really all driven by the tax capacity and what the county sets for evaluations. >> But it but the other thing, um, Greg, to your point about this, um, you know, we we had to undertake a new fire station because of our growing community is paying for a lot of that. >> So, it's a good point. >> All right. Okay. Um, yeah, we don't know what the rest of the school districts and the county and all those folks we don't yet know. >> But that bottom chart looks a lot better than the top chart. >> It does indeed. >> It does. Yeah. That that tax rate um definitely makes a difference. But then um just again reminding you that you know people's values likely increase depending on their home um could have increased which then they will see that valuation increase which then their valuation is being at that rate. So just to >> explain that. So here's what we're looking at from past present levy changes. The outlook for 27 um right now would be about eight I have 8.63%. Um there's a couple of road projects that we'd be issuing debt for. If those go um we're not 100% sure and whether or not they happen to receive another funding source. So um that number could go up or down depending on those issuances. Um and then 28 and 29 um we're looking to stay pretty steady um right around that between 3 to 4%. So, as stated earlier at our September 22nd meeting, we'll have to set our max tax levy, which needs to be certified by September 30th, and we cannot have a final levy higher than the preliminary levy. So, um this is um where we will um present to you at the next meeting um based on your feedback and then um we'll continue to discuss and refine um the levy throughout the fall to see what we can um reduce it by if any. So, that leads us to a couple of slides of council discussion. Um, we had a question at the last workshop about what would the taxes be if we didn't have the new construction tax base. Um, so I um took took a look at that in the medium value home taxes would go up an additional $60 a year um and the tax rate would increase. So, um this does show that growth is paying for growth. um it is reducing um the overall medium home value um taxes with that growth. Um the next point um of discussion is the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition cost of $2,500 a year. Um staff would like to ask council if they want to continue to be a member of that um coalition. Okay. Are is there another question too or is this >> I have more questions. This is the only question about the transportation coalition. >> Okay. Let's let's talk this over a little bit then. So um the Southwest Quarter Transportation Coalition is a coalition that um Victoria has been a member of off and on. Is that fair enough to say? For probably >> 20 years maybe. Um um and it started kind of with the um expansion of 212 and the coalition has members from Eden Prairie all the way to the border of Minnesota and um you know we have been supportive of this as a as a quarter of commerce. Um it does come through our community and it impacts our community greatly. um as we have put together our program for construction, we're going to be through the city of Victoria. So, I think the question here is how are we feeling about continuing to be a part of this coalition and supporting the expansion west of us at the cost of $2,500 a year. And these folks make a trip to Washington DC on an annual basis. um they they do meet on a monthly basis. Um so it does cover some administrative costs and some travel costs. >> Do we think there's any benefit? Right. We so we do still have need funding for the downtown portion of Highway 5. Will that be a help for us with that? >> Yeah, Miss Hardy, please. >> Thank you. >> Your opinion about this? >> Yeah, thank you, mayor, members of the council. Me, Council Member Roberts. That's a great question. And so they have a long history, this organization has a long history of doing some lobbying work in Washington DC um and at the state level on behalf of its membership. Um and um they have been active in the highway five. And so I think any opportunity that we have to get in front of our uh legislative delegation on the federal and the state side I think is um has been beneficial. I think that we're seeing that in um just with the highway five project with um all all the funding that we have gotten with the different um approaches that we have taken and the county has certainly played a big role in that on our behalf. Um SWCTC has also been active in those conversations and those lobbying efforts and so I think there's some value in continuing to do that. Um but the question would be um do we think you know is there value in doing it through this membership or do we feel like we're better off um taking those funds and doing that on our own? I think that is one of the the questions that is out there. Um, I think if you were to choose not to do this, um, and do lobbying through SWCTC, I would encourage you to consider keeping the funds in there rather than reducing your budget so you can continue to do those efforts um, on your own. And that said, they do they are well connected um, and they do uh, do a lot of that scheduling and because of their connections, we're able to get meetings um, perhaps easier than we could on our own. um because they have that name recognition and continue to do that. The other piece to look at is into the future um as they focus out west. It's a matter of just do we find we city of Victoria, do you council members find that um does this investment as continue investment and lobbying for that going west of here benefit our community broader the region? Um, and so that would be another um another way to look at it that is does the regional draw and do regional improvements actually um make things better for our community and for the um $2,500 a year that you're investing? Do you think you know let's say we didn't uh continue to do this right and we have the 2500 so you're saying right we could do it ourselves but do one does staff have capacity to do that right for or if we're find someone else to do it on our behalf it doesn't feel like that 2500 would probably go as long of a way long of a ways as it probably does here and I guess I'm just with what we have still to do here It probably makes sense right now and maybe in another year or two. It doesn't. I mean, I feel like a couple years ago we didn't because the focus was really 212, right? Like 212 and it didn't make sense for us at that time be part of it. But with all the road construction we have going on, I feel like it's a pretty small amount. >> I agree. I agree. I think this is well I think it's worthwhile to spend it. Um it does have a regional impact. They have had it for a long time. They're well connected. Um I I feel like this is is something we can pay forward. >> Yeah, I think to your point too, uh Chad, the $2,500 we could use it directly, but would it get us as far as this? And this is an annual decision, right? It's an annual membership. You can >> It's not like a fiveyear commitment or >> Yeah. So you're >> Well, I I think that like for all the reasons that we said about way five. That's those are all good reasons. I think we need to think forward about where the next fight is going to come. And if if I had to place a marker on where that's going to be, it's going to be County Road 10 and the expansion through there. There's, you know, there's going to be the railroad is going to have a pretty strong lobbying effort to want to keep doing what they're doing. Um there's high tension lines that are going to want to keep doing they're doing. Uh there's the interconnectivity between County Road 3 which is in our south growth development area. I mean that's the next place that Victoria is going to grow. So if we feel like this being part of this, you know, can put resources and manpower on on that next area that we're going to face challenges. Um it's probably like we've all I think consensus Well spent on whatever that consensus on that. Thank you. >> Perfect. My last slide of questions. Um, does council agree with the proposed changes to the revenues, fees, and charges? Other than maybe the couple of questions that we're going to circle back on with you, the skates and whatnot. I'm feeling I'm feeling comfortable with where we landed on those. >> Yeah, >> I do. I do as well. >> I feel like we have we're all >> likeminded on it. >> Mayor, members of the council, I'll just add um Thank you. I'll just add that um you won't actually adopt your fee schedule until December. And so there's plenty of time to revisit this if you learn more information or if you want to revisit anything. So we certainly have ample opportunity to do that between now and when you would adopt this um in December. And that adoption is done by ordinance. So there'll also be a public hearing. Um so there you may be um subject to hearing from public comment on these things too. That might help inform your decision when that time comes. >> Okay. >> So maybe the question is do you have enough information to know what areas we want to dive in further on? >> Yes. >> Through this discussion. Yes, that yeah, that was good feedback that you gave um earlier and it does help to know as we are budgeting for some of these increased fees. So, if there was something that didn't feel right to you or you had questions or more concerns about then it could ultimately affect the budget which is why we ask at this point. Well, and just as an example, and I think I brought it up earlier on the Lions Pavilion, I love the creativity. I I love the option, and we can see if it's a workable solution, and if it's not, >> go to where we were before or another option, >> think it again. >> Great creativity. That's >> agreed. >> Great. >> Okay. >> And then, um, does council wish to proceed with the max tax levy of 9.96%. Yeah, I'm good with >> I'm as well consensus on that. >> Okay. And then finally, what additional information would be helpful um to the council's policy decision making before the final max tax levy is approved on September 22nd? If there's something you want me to bring back to you with that um preliminary levy vote before you vote, is there anything? I from my standpoint, I think we've given staff enough direction on the things that we have interest in and get a viewpoint on. I >> agree. don't feel like we can add anything at this point where >> I I know in a previous meeting we talked right so the there was been a large uh increase in the cost with the um yard waste dump and I guess um I'm curious now that that it's been a few months I guess right that we've changed the access to there have we seen a big reduction uh in I guess I'll say legal dumping uh that is hopefully bringing our costs down. Um yeah, I guess that's >> Yeah. Um great question, Council Member Roberts. Um yes, it has. Um it has solved a lot of the problems for with that um illegal dumping from contractors. um we're not seeing those trailer fs coming in and out throughout the week like we were previously. In addition, we do have that um very visible security camera out there. So, that may have helped deter um some people from dumping illegally. Um, while we continue to have some problems here there, it's it's it's definitely been reduced to um in comparison to where we were at. So, >> it's good to hear. >> And then did we I know we've had a I guess a couple of storms where we've had some high winds. you know, I don't think it's probably at the level as the last year, but have has that been a significant like has that been an increase from last year at all with the, you know, public works having to pick up all the branches and down tree stuff? I I think last year was a really bad year if I remember right. Um, so we probably haven't hit that, but I know we've had a few. >> Yeah, I I can look at where we at our year to date. Um, I know I walked by there last week and they had just emptied it like the week before and it wasn't like piled up like I've seen it in some some in just over a weekend. So, um they did open it a couple days like right after those storms during the week to allow people to come in and and more conveniently get um rid of some of their compost, but overall um it's public works hasn't reported of any like excessive dumping or >> Thank you. >> Yeah, that's >> good to hear. Appreciate it. >> Okay, I'm not seeing anything else from council on this item. Do you have anything else that you need from us, Trish? >> I do not. Thank you very much for your input. I appreciate it. >> All right. Very good. >> Thank you. >> All right. We're moving on to our next item. We'll let the um planning staff get in place here. Item 2.2 is to discuss a proposed new residential zoning district, which would be called the R1A Oldtown um district. And presenting on that this evening is our associate planner, Travis Brierly. Good evening, Travis. Welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Can you one second and get this pulled up? >> Yeah, go ahead. Whenever you're ready. And these are the wrong things. There we go. So tonight um we're going to be talking about just a overview of a proposed R1A zoning district which is similar to um our R1 just in a smaller area. Uh just background with this uh this is a all started with the zoning amendment request that was made for a change to dimensional standards for R1 which uh the city council uh voted to not adopt. uh and this is an alternate solution that um has been asked to move forward for review. The process that we're looking at is uh going to the planning commission which we gone to the planning commission on July 15th as well as last week bring it to the city council tonight for a discussion on it. Uh we will need a public hearing before any of this passes and then council consideration we're looking at uh sometime in September or early October to bring it back if everything keeps moving forward. The goals of the R1A district is to focus on redevelopment and not subdivision development. So this single property development instead of large parcels, 4050 homes and and up from there. Uh the main focus of the R1A is to make the principal structure of the home being the focus of the property. So, keeping that single family look uh that traditional as well as creating reasonable design standards to match with the neighborhood that is available or that is in the R1 area. Going into that, our R1 area is is basically this map. It's south of five um and going down north of St. Victoria. If you look, you'll see that the neighborhoods are uh subdivisions going all the way back to 1914 in the area. So, we're mainly looking at the areas that are in red plus um a little bit uh down in the south with the with the deed helms edition back in 1995. Couple things that we're looking at for the affected parcels is everything that's in the in the gold is would be the new R1A. Uh there is a property off Quamlit that is right now zoned as R1. We'd be looking at reszoning that to central business district uh an apartment building so it better fits within that district. so it can become a standard formatting. Uh to the south along Patunia, there's a property that's currently R1, just north of the R3. Moving that to an R2 would make that duplex property conforming. Uh we do have kind of the overall effect of the rules for this area. The majority of the properties on the left are underneath the shoreland zoning. You can see that by um the shaded area with the blue dots on it. Um, so they still still have to follow shoreland regulations and all those rules. And then we have everything that's not in there that has a better potential. And then you'll notice that there's different colors on different parcels. When we start looking at the dimensional standards for the minimum lot dimensions, the parcels that are in green that are on the right side could be split into two parcels. um the one that's in in dark blue in the dead center that could be split into two parcels, but it's still slightly affected by the shoreline regulations, primarily the impervious surface coverage that's available. And then the two parcels you see that are highlighted in red, they're large enough to be split into two parcels. However, shoreline regulations would not allow for that to happen as the minimum lot size is much greater than our current R1 standard. And then we have the the two parcels that are in the off blue colors. They'll just kind of highlight uh parcels that need to be reszoned. With that, they wouldn't be able to be split and they wouldn't be affected by anything that we did with the oldtown residential zoning. So, I'm just kind of getting into everything. Uh the intent, like I said, is for infill redevelopment opportunities. Uh we want to maintain similar construction in the existing homes, i.e., we don't want to uh 4,300 ft home sitting next to a 950T Rambler. It just it's out of place. is out of character. We want to avoid that. We want to allow for the smaller lot sizes as well with that for smaller front rear setbacks. Um we also want to allow for more var various housing stock within our comprehensive plan. Our R1 would allow for twin homes and duplexes. However, R1 does not. So the R1A would allow for twin homes and duplexes to be placed there. It's a way that we can improve or improve the the use of the property by building something on there that generates a greater value of the property which ultimately helps the city in the longer run. When looking at the comprehensive plans, we have the 2040 comprehensive plan. There's no changes we need to do that with that. And then with the 2050, we would add in the R1A as a zoning district. Um, and then our future land uses wouldn't be affected either by that. Uh there's a little bit of word tweaking we need to do, but uh through the planning commission, city council in the next several years, we'll take care of that small change. Uh we also looked at the shoreline ordinance, reached out to DNR. The DNR will not adopt any variances to their requirements for the city for the purposes of this zoning. So they all still apply. When we are looking at the biggest thing that we're probably looking at is going to be the dimensional standards on the screen in front of you. Um, we have the R1, so our general single family low density. So that's our current standard of a 12,000 foot lot, 80 ft wide, 130 ft deep, as well as the setbacks in there. Um, with the R1A for a single family home, we'd be looking at 9100 square ft. And then shrinking the lot dimensional standards, 75 ft if it's a corner parcel and 65 ft if it's an interior parcel. also taking the lot depth and dropping it from 130 to 110 ft and then reducing the front and rear rear setbacks by 5T while still maintaining the 10-ft setback on the property. And then with a twin home, same idea, uh but making a smaller parcel and then duplexes um would actually be a larger parcel of 14,500. Those square footages are based on the densities that our comp plan has between the two and a half and the six units an acre. So when we look at twin homes, those are single family homes on two parcels with an adjoining wall. A duplex is a single building on a single parcel and that's why it's twice the size and that's just to meet those density requirements. >> So repeat that again. The twin home is two single family homes adjoined by a wall. >> Correct. So they'd be next to each other, but each part of the twin home is its own parcel. >> Okay? And then >> the duplex is >> one building on one parcel. Generally on a with a duplex building, you'll stack the units, but the units could be side by side as well, but it would just be one parcel for that, >> but a two family home. >> Two family home. Correct. >> Got it. Thank you. Uh, one thing that was brought up during the planning commission was the idea of taking the 35% imperous surface and allowing that to be created uh, at a higher number such as 40 50%. Staff did take a look into that. What that would allow to do is to actually build a larger footprint for a home or allow for greater accessory structures to be on the property. U, so that would be something that's considered. Uh staff's opinion on that is that it could create homes out of place, but we didn't look at an alternate solution, which I'll present later on how we can uh control that if that's something the council would be interested in looking at. >> Uh can we just pause on that though for a minute? >> The with the idea of 40 say 40% is service. Um we're going to keep sideyard setbacks essentially the same. So, if somebody wants to tear something down and put a larger square foot home on that property, um that I think the what we're trying to avoid is this like where we see in some other older communities where somebody drops in like a almost a fourtory house, single family um and then pushes the building out to the edges of the lot line and then that looks like something's just like a like an overgrown tooth in a >> out of place. >> So, um I I kind of don't feel like with a 10-ft sideyard setback, we're necessarily going to get that feel. So, if we don't increase the impervious surfaces in these spaces, um and then we would essentially create a toothless dog. It's like, okay, so you created this new um zoning district, but I'm still locked, so to speak, by not really being able to bring uh you know, the amenities of a newer home into renovating the area, which is I think what we want. We want reinvestment in these older neighborhoods. We don't want to create something that just locks people into having deteriorating home. So I I feel like okay I'm okay with this deepening of the setbacks, but if the effect of that is it can't be done because of impervious service, then maybe we're doing a disservice with this. So I I think I hear where the planning commission was going. Um, I think we should give serious consideration to upping that imperous surface as long as with that we are not going to create increased runoff from storm water affecting the existing neighbors because then that would be clearly something that's detrimental. So, you know, if we can craft things that way, I I think that from where I'm seeing what we want to do with the intention of this and spur redevelopment in these existing parcels that we have, um, might not be a bad idea because as time goes on, if we can't get something that works, uh, we're just going to have in this part that we're trying to do an increasingly deteriorating property value in in that part of town. >> Yeah, understood. >> And mayor and counsel, to the storm water point, that was one of the factors that staff had looked at. When we're considering storm water, there are state regulations that don't allow for any changes to a property to increase the concentration or rate of flow of storm water when it leaves the property. Um when we do look at increasing imperous cover, you might need individual lot storm water controls. Um the city council um to my understand is very aware of regional storm water ponding. When we're looking at infill development, we'd be looking something at rain gardens or some type of storage area for the water to be on site so that it can uh leave the property in a more appropriate rate and concentration. The the downside of those type of structures is that they're not necessarily maintained. And after 10, 15, 20 years, that rain garden is now flat ground and didn't change anything because it has been maintained. There could be multiple owners over that time period. it's things considered. That's it's something that's extremely difficult for the city to enforce uh as far as those maintenances, especially for individual lots, but it can be done and there can be other controls put in place as far as the the size of the home and those dimensions. Uh towards the end of the presentation, there's some proposed rules uh that we looked at that would stop that from happening. Uh before I move on, are there any other questions with the dimensional standards, the bulk standards? See none. >> Uh I mean I still have there's there's we're proposing to convert the lake of for lack of better expression. Um a parcel that's in the R1 right now that has a multi-dwelling building on it and then changing that to central business district. Um are are we do we h do we have the potential to create unintended consequences with that by you know would now turning that into a commercial parcel and then somebody not maybe not the present owner but maybe the next owner says you know I'm going to knock this apartment building down because I think I can put in something fast food here and then now we have something that is in congruent with the existing neighborhood. Whereas if we allowed the existing uh residential structure to maintain and keep it in the zoning district that maybe some of the other uses is that if it does get past its useful life, it's torn down and we're creating let's say single family residences or other um more, you know, um properties that are more congruent with the neighborhood that it sits in. >> Yeah. Mr. Riley, you got to comment on that? >> Absolutely. May Mayor and Council, uh, in response to that, there's pros and cons to doing the resoning. Doing the currently the property that that's on quote unquote sits as a non-conforming property, and what that means is it means that it would be difficult for the property owner to make any improvements. Um, I've spoken to the the current property owner uh as the prior property owner actually passed away earlier this spring. Um, so there's some questions on the future of the site and potential improvements and things like that. So if it stays R1, it makes that a little bit more difficult. However, if you go to CBD, it that becomes a legal conforming property and then at that point they can make the expansions. Um, but to uh, Council Member Vansk's point, that does open it up to where that property then would be able to be redeveloped into something similar to what we have in the rest of our downtown area because it would be underneath the same zoning district. Um, and that might not be appropriate for that parcel due to its proximity to single family homes and not having Highway 5 being a buffer zone between the two districts. Um, so it's something that there's pros and cons to each way that it could go. uh is the short-term value that we would gain out of it and the property owner would gain out of it. We're at the long-term risk of causing potential issues in the future. >> Yeah. Something to consider for sure. And at if if something like that were to come forward with the council at that point in time, is it would it be okay for us to deny that based on the fact that it doesn't it isn't congruent with the surroundings? >> Well, mayor and council, one of the things is that we have certain design standards and review processes within our CBD district. Um, and that goes through planning commission, comes through the city council. Basically, you can't build anything in the CBD without first coming to the planning commission city council for approval. So, through that process, that could be used as a tool to help at least shape what that property could be redeveloped in in the future. Um, but that's mainly what you have what the city has in place to stop something the stop of fourstory 60un apartment building that may not fit there and it would just look out of place and everything else. or if we expanded the uses to um uh restaurants that have drive-thru services, would that be appropriate there? And that's the thing is it it all depends on um unfortunately who's who's all sitting at the dis at the time of that redevelopment and what the uh the community feels about that type of stuff. But it's unlikely that that building would be torn down anytime soon. But it's always a potential. We can't really control what a private property owner does when it comes to the concerns of their property. >> So I have so if we keep it the way it is, right? So they have less options of what they can do, right? But if they had an idea, right, they could bring it to us >> and then at that time we could change, >> right? Could we not change? >> We could change the zoning of that parcel >> at that at that parcel at that time to if if it >> if if that idea met what we thought fit the neighborhood better than just open. >> Correct. Mayor and council, one of the one of the wonderful things that the city is allowed to do that has >> was we can choose our own zoning or land use and it's something that there is a little bit of oversight on. But when it comes to the zoning, because that parcel is adjacent to current CBD, we can change it to the central business district at any time. And this is one of those things that we don't need the consent of property owners to do. I know that sounds strange and weird, but that's one of the the ultimate authorities the city council does have is they can make that decision. Well, an alternate use could also, you know, if there's a compelling um reuse, it could come as a conditional use permit. >> Could it not? >> Is as council member, as far as the proposed use on the site? >> Wait. So, let's say we dispense with the idea of turning it into CBD. Mhm. >> It stays in the air one, but because of that proximity, could that owner bring a conditional apply for a conditional use permit to sort of change or or or bring an application to council member? Not necessarily. What they would want to do is apply for a zoning text amendment. So that would affect all the R1 or all the R1A to allow for that type to go in. At that point, we could put a conditional use permit on it. But it'd be it'd be my my opinion that leaves down a slippery slope because we would be affecting the whole thing and that's why we're looking at R1A today instead of looking at making a zoning text amendment change to the entire R1. >> That makes sense. >> Okay. Any other thoughts, questions? >> All right. >> Um, as as we go through this, uh, a lot of the stuff that we're going to look at for our principal accessory uses already allowed in our R1. The main difference is twins homes and duplexes get added to the R1A. Uh there's a lot of words on this page, so I thought I'd simplify it, but basically uh what all this breaks down to is limiting how accessory structures are are placed and built on residential properties. Since it's a lot of words, we'll just break it down into the simple changes. Um, for the R1A, it's being proposed that all accessory structures, whether attached or detached, can't have a footprint greater than the footprint of the principal structure. So, if you have a footprint of your home where the foundation's 1,000 square ft, your attached garage plus any shed or any detached garage or anything like that can't be greater than that, thousand square ft. Currently, what we have is we say that attached accessory structures, we don't have a limit. As long as it's attached, you can build as big as you want. meet the impervious and you're fine. Um, detached is 900 square feet is permitted and then up to,350 square feet is permitted with a conditional use permit. So, this sets a standard where if someone is to redevelop a property, they have to look at how big they want the home versus how much garage space that they want on the property and find a balance to that. Which goes back to limiting how big a home is going to be as well as limiting how big a garage is going to be. trying to keep that focus towards the single family home or duplex or twin home, what have you. Um, accessory structures heights wouldn't be greater than the principal structure. Under our current code, the height's 35 ft. The home could be a single family rambler and you could have a 35 ft uh detached or attached garage and that's well within our code. This would limit it. Yet, going back to the house should be the principal thing that you see when you look at a property. um getting rid of metal covered storage buildings or pole barns. Right now we don't have a restriction against that, but that would get rid of uh the opportunity for someone to put in a metal shed, which when you have smaller lots and every closer together, you have to think about the noise that's caused by rain, wind, storm, and other debris that could be bouncing off that. And that could be disturbing uh to neighbors or could be disruptive, and we'd want to avoid that type of stuff. Um you must have a principal structure. So, if you're going to split a property, that could be split and it's going to leave just a garage on one or a shed and that wouldn't be allowed. You'd have to take down the shed until a principal structure is attached unless that shed is part of a building permit that would come into play to actually build it. So, the main reason behind that is you just don't want to have a garage or a shed left on a parcel that could hinder its ability to redevelop because the whole point is to redevelop to something new. and increase the property values and the look of the feel of that neighborhood. The other thing that we looked at was inner module containers, the shipping containers, conxes. We have a lot of people who are moving into Victoria. We get a lot of calls from pods and other shipping companies that want to drop off um a conx or shipping container and we've had requests to have it there for a weekend. We've had a request to have it there for two weeks, things like that. What this would do is it sets a limit saying 48 hours. Now, it doesn't necessarily seem like a lot because that's not an entire weekend. What happens, this falls underneath the zoning code, and so it' be a zoning code enforcement action that' be handled by staff instead of law enforcement. So, upon a complaint of one of these containers sitting in someone's yard, we go through our normal code enforcement process, but it still allows that flexibility, still allows some discretion um at the staff level to to resolve the issue of that being there in violation of the code. Right now, we don't have any restrictions. Basically, as long as it's not put in put in the uh street, you can throw it on your property. >> What's magic about 48 hours? >> 48 hours is a determination between when we look at vehicle standards between the between how long a vehicle is parked compared to when it becomes storage. So 48 hours, 72 hours are the two numbers that are generally used to define that. Uh, so we try to stick with either 24, 48, or 72 hours when looking at a standard. The 48 hours is just an arbitrary number that was thrown in. Um, there's really if it needs to be longer, shorter, or completely removed, it's it doesn't have a whole lot effect. It just depends on how the city council would want to see that type of language enforced. >> Yeah, I I favor going to 72. I don't think we need it longer than that, but I think 72 is fair. >> You're I concur. >> Yep. >> Trying to move >> takes a long time. >> Yeah. >> One quick just clarification. So detached or attached. If you've got a thousand square feet, it just has to be a thousand or less. Doesn't matter if it's detached or attached for the garage. >> Uh is that accurate, >> council member? I think I understand what you're saying. So if the home itself has a foundation, >> so let's say it's a thou the foundation for the home is 1,000 square feet. Yep. >> It has a threecar attached garage which is going to be 650 ft. >> At that point, now there's remaining 350 ft worth of foundation for your second accessory building to be placed on the property. The current code only allows for one of two, so up to two, excuse me, uh, between a detached, attached, shed, um, and other accessory structures. So, we're not changing the limit of two. We're just redefining how we're determining how big a the accessory structure can be in comparison to the home. And we want to make sure that the home is >> the the main reason structure. >> Yeah. That that's what you're looking at. You're not looking at the garage first and then, oh, there's a home attached to it. >> Got it. >> Something like that. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, we did look at uh some conditional uses uh as well and these come from some of our R1 standards. One is accessory dwelling units and we do have in the proposed language part of the entire zoning review. There's similar language of this already placed in there, but we want to make sure that attached access or accessory dwelling units are counted part of the principal structure, meaning that it's part of the footprint. It's got to meet the setbacks, that type of stuff. It's detached, meeting detached setbacks. Um, it does count as an accessory unit. So, you wouldn't be able to have, say, a detached ADU and then have an attached garage to the principal home and then another garage that works for the ADU because then at that point it'd be three. That'd be too many. The point of a single family home or even a duplex or a twin home is that there's just the one principal structure. We don't want an accessory structure being used as a principal structure. Um we also looked at off- streetet parking requirements and uh one of the things that we're proposing there is that you have to increase by one space to accommodate that ADU whether it's attached or detached. The biggest thing that we want to avoid is getting into a situation where there's not enough off- streetet parking. And when winter rolls around and we have a storm, we get put in a position where public works and law enforcement have to start making decisions on towing vehicles or the quality of plowing and just staff time and resources. It's probably the biggest thing in there. The other thing that we looked at is daycare facilities, which there's a lot of the state regulates daycare facilities. So, we don't want to get into those regulations on our own, but what we can look at is we can look at parking and we can look at play equipment and we can say, you know, play equipment has to be in the rear yard of the property and not in an easement. That's something that makes sense. It's in the backyard so that when you're driving by, you're still looking at a house, not necessarily uh it's not a new horizon. It's it's your it's your family daycare. um in there for parking. Uh making sure that if you have employees uh that are bringing out of the daycare that there's parking off street for them. Um and making that way we don't have disruptions with flow of traffic and we don't have more parking generated on residential streets taking away from the other neighbors in the neighborhood. One thing that is being proposed um and that we looked at with the planning commission last week was pos potential design standards. In here, the main things that we're looking at is the relationship to adjacent buildings or maintaining a similar design standard. So, when you do build a home, it has to fit within the neighborhood. If it doesn't fit within the neighborhood, what would happen is that that would be reviewed by staff and if we felt that it didn't, we would work with the applicant to to have it there or they would be able to go through an appeal process through the planning commission and the city council to get a final judgment on does it meet that standard. Uh the other thing we looked at is making sure the uh primary entrance is towards the street. uh a lot of older homes uh built, you'd have the driveway on the side of the home going to a detached garage if there was a detached and you have the entrance to the home on the side of the house, not on the street side. This would say that any redevelopment has to go with the more modern standard where the entrance is facing the street. Uh in addition to that, uh minimum use of windows on the front wall facing the street at 15%. 15% is easily done. We haven't had any applications that have been below that. But what that does is it would is it would potentially stop a redeveloped property from having a home placed on the site and it's a front door and a bedroom window and that's all that's on the front. We still want to try to encourage that more modern look to fit in with the development of houses over the decades to come. Uh a private front yard requirement. This seems a little weird, but basically what this says is that you can't guard a gnome all the way to the rightway. you have to have space between the street and your house that is an actual yard. Um so that will stop the basically putting in those front yard gardens. We do have a couple in town. Um some look really nice, some don't. It's all a matter of opinion, but this would just be a way to stop that type of activity from taking place. Um and when we look at uh similar building materials for accessory structures, if you're going to put in an accessory structure, whether it be attached or detached, um you would be required to make it match in a similar design to the the principal structure. Currently in our residential zoning, if the you only have to do that when the building gets to 200 or accessory structure is 200 square feet or greater, then we require that, which is common throughout any code that I've looked at. But this takes it a step further and says if you're going to do an accessory structure, you got to make it match because we're trying to find something to modernize without taking away from the historic feel as well. Uh the other part to this is the tree preservation. When you are redeveloping a property, it's encouraged not to take down trees that um provide shade for the adjacent properties or if you have we have older trees. We have trees that are over 100 years old on some of these properties. we shouldn't be cutting them down to take down a house is basically what this regulation says. Um, so with that, that's that's the giant overview of the R1A zoning and some of the changes. Uh, a few of the questions that that staff had is one, uh, do the proposed accessory structure regulations make sense for the R1A? Uh, based on other applications that we've had and things that we've heard from the community, are the restrictions uh, to what can and can't be built within the R1A reasonable? So that kind of goes to uh your design standards and layout of it which is something that we don't have in any of our other zonings except for the CBD and then should we allow for the increase of impervious surface uh knowing what uh we discussed earlier. And with that I stand for any questions. >> Thank you so much. You did good work on this. Um I think um aside from the couple of things that we brought up during the presentation I think you did a great job on this. I feel like it it sets us up really well for redevelopment in our um more our older parts of town and I think um the accessory structure regulations make sense to me. Restrictions are reasonable and impervious surface. I think as long as we can figure out where we we go with that extra runoff, I'm I'm okay with increasing the permitted amount on a case-by case basis. Council, any other comments? I think I'm struggling just a little bit with the concept of the private front yard if um I mean there are a fair number of homes in Victoria where people have chosen to have their front yard be a garden and I I get that in some cases it's not terribly maintained but in vast majority um they are and I'm a little bit reticent about that much of a restriction. Um, I could see maybe cutting that to something about 50% of the yard. So that there there is some yard but if I think that not not that I'm you know a heavy proponent of you know protecting the pollinators but that that is part of some of the appeal like people want to to go that route and uh and especially in some of the older communities there there seems to be a bit more of a prepundonderance of that. I don't know if I want to reach to that depth of restricting that or, you know, cut it down to give it, you know, that it's not impermissible, but maybe snug up. >> Um, you know, how how much that uh would we be willing to >> because right now we're saying that we're not tolerating. >> Yeah. So, is there a happy medium for that front yard that we could allow? >> Have you seen Travis, have you seen some alternate language that might accommodate council member Ivansky's concerns? >> Mayor and council, one thing with this is there's there's a lot of different ordinances that have been being looked at or especially over the past year. And one of the things that we looked at, we actually reached out to the city of Edina because they have a really big green thumb and a really large green initiative. And we were actually talking to them about pollinators and about different regulations they have and what they see and issues and good things and whatnot. And a pollinator is a maintained area. You're getting rid of noxious weeds. You're having professionals come in taking care of that type of stuff. It's maintained. It's not just growing grass to grow grass so the butterflies come around. Um, so with that, we've worked with them and that's something that we're going to be bringing forward and within the nuisance code uh to see if there's anything, but that's still a ways away. So, there is that mixed into it. Um, as far as just going in here, that's the main thing to stop is that. But if we did allow for pollinator gardens or regular gardens or for what have you to be in the front yard, the other thing that would regulate it is our regulations on sighteline distances, especially at intersections and making sure that those items do not create a hazard uh for pedestrian or vehicle traffic. So we have other means if we want to allow this to happen. The only thing that this has is an aesthetic appearance and that's all subjective to uh to anybody who reads it. and and if the homeowner should choose to do something like that. So, >> okay. Any other questions, comments? Staff, you have everything you need for >> Mayor C. I' I'd like clarification on the on uh to Council Member Vansy's point. Is that something that the council would like to see struck from these from these regulations because this will also have an effect on >> I mean I'm leaning towards having that yard restriction struck from this. I think, you know, we it's I, you know, if somebody wants to have, you know, their especially if they're you we're bringing front yard setbacks down to 25 ft. >> Well, >> you know that you're not going to get these imposing >> and considering we have other means of enforcement if it gets out of hand. >> I guess I'm okay with that. >> Yeah, I am. I as well. It's fine. >> Yeah. Okay. Looks like you got consensus on that then. >> Um, so the next steps going forward, mayor and council, with this is to, uh, let the city attorney take a review of all the final language, what the ordinance would be. Um, and then we would go ahead and schedule a public hearing with the planning commission to get feedback and take any guidance from uh, the city manager of anything in between if something should change. All right. >> I feel like we're a little bit late on guidance for Travis on the impervious surface question. Um, I mean I I kind of feel like if we're going to look to sort of promote the use of these deeper setback the shorter setbacks which would allow larger dwellings to be built. Um the I wouldn't want that to be restrained so to speak by you know the essentially the the same impervious surface requirement that we have. I feel like we could probably relax that a little bit in these instances. So, um, you know, maybe 50% is probably a little bit on the extreme side, but 40 feels like, um, a decent balance. Again, subject to, you know, like you can't create a storm water problem for, >> right, >> your neighbors. Um, so, you know, it's it's a review of adequate drainage. Maybe there needs to be, you know, certainly in some of the denser areas of um I'll just throw out my I'm living in the city of Chicago. I mean, the you you had large impervious surfaces by the time you had uh you know, sort of two garages and in the dwelling and you would need a catch basin to catch all your rain water before it would flow into the storm source. So those kind of things I think we might want to explore about, you know, what do we do to make sure that we're not creating a burden for our existing neighborhood >> and that'll all be engineered. Mr. primarily >> uh mayor and council to that point uh something that that I'll be doing is talking to the city engineer as well as looking at various uh recent uh subdivisions which were approved and kind of how those homes were set up as what because those were with the PDS had smaller setbacks than what we're looking at as well as higher impervious numbers for a lot of the properties. Um, grant those use a different thing. And we'll also take a look at um the properties that we do have in the in the proposed R18 district to see how that could be affected as far as development, provide some examples, and um if the if the council uh would like, I'd be more than happy to come back to a future workshop just to discuss this point with more detail and better examples prior to moving forward with any public hearing. >> That sounds fine. You know, if the if the data can support it, then let's let the data I just >> don't want to create something that just we did something it was moot because of this point. >> Yeah, I think that's a great idea. All right. Anything else? All right. There are no further items on our workshop agenda this evening. So, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned. We will be back in less than five minutes with our city council meeting.