Mhm. >> Good evening. It's now 5:00 and I called this workshop of the Victoria City Council to order. Our workshops are informal and with that we're going to dive right into our agenda. The item on our workshop agenda this evening is our 2027 preliminary budget. This is our first look at the 2027 budget and the first of several budget discussions that will be held between now and December when the council finally adopts the budget. With that, I'm going to turn this over to our assistant city manager and finance director Trisha Pollock who will kick us off this evening. Ms. Pollock, let's go. >> Thank you, Mayor and members of the council. Welcome to our first 2027 budget workshop. The agenda includes the 2027 preliminary uh property tax projections, the preliminary budget, and then also we'll leave some time for discussion. So, this is a starting point for our budget discussions which will be held regularly over the next 6 months. While you're not voting on a budget today, we'll be looking for direction and feedback. So, when we come back to you in August to discuss our maximum tax levy, we're on a path that reflects your goals for the community and the budget. Our budget calendar includes six public meetings before the final adoption. Our July meeting will be hearing from our department heads who will give overviews of their departments and what their budget pressures are for the upcoming year. And then in August, we'll present fees and charges from our proposed 2027 fee schedule and a max tax levy budget based off of your feedback from tonight's meeting. In September, we'll adopt the max tax levy and November, we will review the budget for the Victoria Recreation Center, the enterprise funds which include the water, sewer, and storm water, and then we will also look at our 5-year capital improvement plan and a final general fund budget presentation before we adopt the budget in December. How does the city budget process work? Well, we use both an incremental and priority-based approach. The incremental approach means that we start with current services and base those prior year expenditures off of a 3-year average. There can be some other indicators that that might change those projections depending on inflation and also pricing changes that we receive from vendors throughout the budget season. Department heads will then review projections line by line and they may add new requests or remove items which are then reviewed by the city manager before they are included in the preliminary budget. The priority-driven approach determines how effectively a program or service achieves the goal and objectives that are of greatest value to the community. So, these items are determined by council through their strategic plan. And another budget consideration is the projected year-end fund balance. So, um as we've talked about before, our fund balance policy requires us to have at least 30% of the subsequent years operating expenditures in fund balance at year-end. So, this is due to the timing of when we receive our first tax revenue payment, which comes um we just received our 70% of that first payment um this past week and then we'll get the other 30% early part of July. Other tax considerations include the long-term financial plan. And we look out 10-plus years to project future debt and capital needs. So, from year to year, your property taxes might go up and down. So, why does that tax bill fluctuate? There are a number of factors that can cause your property tax bill to change. And even though you may have a slight increase or decrease in your city portion of your tax bill, your levies of the county and school district and other jurisdictions can also affect your overall tax bill. One mandate that's included in our 2027 budget is for the 2050 comp plan, which is a 3-year budget pressure um that totals about $250,000 over that 3-year period, um which we have um a considerable amount budgeted for 2026 as well. So, when you receive your tax bill from the county, it's inclusive of all the taxing jurisdictions. The city's property taxes right around a fourth of the total tax bill. So, as you can see here, for each dollar, the city's portion of the tax bill is 27 cents. Other taxing jurisdictions also make up your property tax bill, including the county at 28 cents, and schools at 42 cents. Other jurisdictions include um like the mosquito control, the Met Council, the Watershed District. Um that's that smallest portion of about 3 cents. So, school referendums are included in this calculation, and we want to point out that even for the same valued home, your taxes might not be the same depending on what school district you're in. We [snorts] have three school districts, Eastern Carver County, Waconia, and Minnetonka. Um this model is based off of Eden um Eastern Carver County. So, comparing our 2026 tax levy to the benchmark communities, you can see here Victoria is hovering in the lower end of the pack at 9.78 million. Um with our market cities levies ranging anywhere between 5.4 and 28.1 million. We get preliminary numbers from the county in June. These numbers can and will change before we get to the max tax levy budget. So, residential market values are projected to increase by 3.37%. Um we've not received any fiscal disparity numbers for 2027 yet, either. So, we're projecting that to stay the same right now. Um for the public's benefit, the fiscal disparities has a mandatory participation and is set by state statute. It is a revenue sharing program that applies to cities in the Twin Cities metro area and on the Iron Range. And it's meant to support a regional approach to development, equalizing the distribution of fiscal resources, and reduce competition for commercial and industrial development. >> Trish, on the fiscal disparities, can you tell us what it was for this year? >> Do you know that number? >> and I want to say 30-ish thousand, somewhere right in there. >> 430,000? Okay. >> I can get you the exact number, but it's roughly in that range. >> That's fine. I was curious as to what the impact of that was. >> Yep. >> And And just to be clear on that's money we pay into the state and it's redistributed within the metro region and the Iron Range. >> That's correct, yeah. >> Thank you. >> So, the median valued [clears throat] home is projected to increase approximately 3%. Um, so continuing to strengthen the city's tax base, total construction value is projected to increase by about 133 million. Um, that includes roughly 32 million of apartment construction that's within a TIF district. So, just to note that. Um, for budgeting purposes, we're currently assuming 130 new homes for next year. The assumption is slightly below the 144 assumed in 2026. And does reflect a continued moderation in residential growth activity. So, new home permit activity will remain a key metric for staff to monitor through the rest of 2026. And we'll revisit this during our next max tax levy discussion. Um, but through May, the city issued 38 new home permits, which is below the pace needed to meet that 144 houses for this year. So, although activity typically does increase during the summer and the fall, um, we do anticipate permits could finish, um, below budget levels. Um, and if that happens, we would, um, need to use the revenue stabilization fund to offset that. Um, revenue shortfall, which is consistent with its intended purpose. Lower annual permit totals do not signal of lack of future growth. Victoria does continue to maintain a strong inventory of approved lots and development areas that will support growth for several years. Overall, the data suggests Victoria's shifting from the rapid growth of the past decade to a more moderate, sustainable pace, while the city's long-term growth outlook does remain to be strong. So, an increase or decrease to individuals' property tax bills will largely depend on individual changes in their property tax value. So, as stated in the last slide, the median home value in Victoria will increase 3%. Um, so, up $17,400 to the $600,500 um, valuation. Our focus is on the budget and the city levy cuz this is what the city can control. The county assessor assigns those values to homes and state legislature sets the property tax rates. So, based on current projections, approximately 102 million in new taxable construction value is expected to come into the tax rolls for taxes payable in 2027. This estimate I excluded that approximately 32 million of the apartments that are located in that TIF district. And as that value will not contribute to the city's general tax base. The additional tax capacity generated by this new construction is estimated to produce approximately $307,000 in new property tax revenue. So with the preliminary levy increase currently projected at approximately 324,000, um new construction growth would offset nearly all of the increase. As a result, only about 17,000 of the levy increase would need to be absorbed by properties that were already on the tax rolls in the prior year. So in other words, approximately 95% of the proposed levy increase is currently projected to be absorbed by growth in the city's tax base rather than the existing taxpayer taxpayers. >> [snorts] >> This slide shows um Victoria's tax base continues to be predominantly residential. And with a relatively limited commercial and industrial presence compared to more mature communities, um as a result, residential property values and development activity continue to be the primary drivers of the tax base growth. So the chart illustrates the two sources of growth in the city's tax base, which is appreciation in existing property values and the addition of new construction. So existing property values increased across all major property classes with residential values increasing about 3.4% commercial and industrial values increased about 4.4% and apartment values increase approximately 7.4%. So, in addition to market value growth, new construction continues to expand the city's tax base. Residential new construction added about 3.6% growth while commercial and industrial construction contributed about 0.8% in growth. The most significant increase occurred with the apartments. Again, that category about 50.8% growth for that apartment project. Um the which would be the Roers building. Overall total property value growth for 2027 is approximately 8.1% consisting of 3.6% growth from market value and 4.5% growth from new construction. So, while Victoria remains primarily a residential community, the city's growing multi-family and commercial sectors will continue to diversify the tax base over time and reduce the reliance on residential growth as a sole driver of its valuation increases. >> [snorts] >> So, Trisha had a quick question for you on this last slide. >> Yep. >> So, this 50.8% increase for apartments, this is the property value that is added to the tax base that the city is can attach property taxes and get funding from that, correct? >> So, that is the the 50.8% is the new construction. So, that is for and since that that apartment building is in a TIF district, that's not adding to the tax base. >> You were going to my next point. So, we've added market value, correct? >> And but this market value isn't funds that could flow back in the form of property taxes to be used in the general levy. That's sort of sort of earmarked, so to speak, to fund the TIF district that was done to improvement lighted properties, etc., correct? >> Correct. >> So, I think it then becomes incumbent on that project to move off of TIF as soon as possible so that we're not s- taking too far from the future to fund for today and get those TIF properties back into the general tax levy as quickly as possible. >> Correct. And that's a 15-year district. >> for 15 years we're in TIF and then after that that full market value then comes back and is able to be used to offset >> Correct. Yes. >> the opera- Okay. >> Yep. >> Thanks for clarifying that, Trisha. >> Any other questions about market values? >> So, you mentioned the Roers project, but you did not mention Olivine. >> Yeah, so this was for trying to think if this was for both of them cuz Olivine is coming online, too. So, they would they're both in a TIF district, so. >> But Olivine, only a portion of it is, right? Aren't we Aren't we getting some of We're not. >> No. It's the same deal as Roers. It's a 15-year district. >> Okay. >> So, both of those apartment buildings added value, but the tax taxes are going into the district, which are um you know, within the TIF district notes, so it's getting paid back to the development. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Okay, so moving forward with the 2027 [clears throat] preliminary budget information. Um so the items showing on this slide represent the primary drivers um currently incorporated into the preliminary 2027 budget. Some of these pressures are outside of the city's direct control while others reflect previous council policy decisions and strategic investments. The first couple items relate to employee and staffing. A 3% cola for employees with the opportunity to earn up to 3% merit on their anniversary for going above and beyond is being proposed. This compensation strategy allows the city to remain competitive within our market cities while also recognizing high performance based is on based on annual evaluations. The budget also assumes a 10% increase in health insurance costs. Final rates won't be available until after max tax levy. Um they come out in October. So this remains an estimate and may be adjusted as additional information becomes available. >> Trish, can you give us maybe the last 3-year? What's our average increase per year over say the last 3 years on health? >> On the health insurance? So I believe last year I had put in a 9% estimate and it it came in at like 11%. So I went with 10% this year, but the previous year to that we actually ended up changing plans cuz it had come in at like 20 some percent. And so we actually had to change plans. We went to a whole different provider >> Okay. >> um in order for us to get those to be more reasonable. We also adjusted the cost to the employee. Um, previous to that it was, you know, it's usually like right around, you can figure at least like that between 8 and 12% is usually kind of where you expect to land. >> Okay. Good. Thanks. >> Mhm. >> And then Trish, just a quick question. On your slide for to clarify for those who are watching at home. The The pluses that you're using on the left are more like bullet points, correct? >> Yeah. >> And then but when you're getting into the contractual services the the what looks like a what's probably a dash >> Mhm. >> is truly a dash. It's not a decline of 9.6%, a decline of 37%. >> Oh, yeah, that's a dash. >> Okay. Yeah, great. So, I just I know that Abby is very skilled in Bitmojis and emojis and things like that. [laughter] She probably do an up arrow like this to convey it. But, I just wanted it to be clear. Our packet says that it's increasing. I just want anybody who's following at home to say to understand clearly that these are increases to us and our packet has the dollar amounts which is in this particular case is pretty substantial cuz those items are about $100,000 collectively. >> Yes. >> All right. >> You're talking the contractual services side. >> Yes. >> Correct. So, that you know >> Yeah, there was a little bit more detail in the packet. Yeah. >> Thank you for that clarification, Councilmember Ivansky. It's an important one. >> Yes. Um, okay. So, moving [clears throat] on um, to the infrastructure. Um, there's several infrastructure related costs continue um, that continue to place pressure on the operating budget. As the city's trail system ages and expands, annual maintenance needs continue to increase. Um, likewise, the city's ongoing commitment to pavement preservation and transportation infrastructure is reflected in the proposed $1 million transfer to the long-term street maintenance fund. The proposed budget also includes funding for the Holy Family tennis court resurfacing project that the city and Holy Family share um, maintenance responsibilities for those courts and the city's anticipated contribution is approximately $350,000 um, toward the overall project. Um, the 2027 uh, budget includes a $250,000 transfer um, to the park improvement fund with the remaining funding anticipated from existing fund balance. Another driver is the city's 2050 comp plan, which is required by state law. And this falls into the category of unfunded mandates. And the total project cost, um, like I mentioned before, is about 250,000 with $150,000 being included in next year's budget um, to continue the planning process. The budget also reflects financial commitments associated with prior council investments. As part of the downtown West redevelopment project, the council previously approved an interfund loan of up to $3 million from the water fund to support public infrastructure improvements. And the proposed 27 budget includes the first annual repayment back to the water fund of $325,000. Similarly, the opening of the new fire station will result in ongoing operating costs associated with utilities, insurance, maintenance, and building operations. These additional annual expenses are currently estimated to be at about $52,000. >> And just to be clear on that, Trish, that's additional to what's currently being paid, right? >> Correct. >> Okay, thank you. >> Finally, several contractual service providers are proposing increases that exceed normal inflationary trends. Notable examples include the assessment services, prosecution services, police services, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Um staff will continue to review these costs as part of budget development process and will identify opportunities um if to offset any increases wherever um is possible. It's important to note that many of these costs are tied to the strategic priorities and investments previously approved by the council rather than them being any new initiatives that um are being proposed. >> Can we spend a little bit of time on the contractual services? So, the assessment, prosecution, and police services are all coming from Carver County. >> Correct. >> And those are all increases from them. So, um it when when they propose these increases, did we get some kind of justification about I mean, 37% in prosecution costs, that's pretty high. Do we have some context around the increases here? >> Yeah, I'm looking at Miss Hardy. >> Um I can start if that's all right. >> Yes, please, Miss Hardy. >> It's fine. Um thank you, Mayor and members of the council. Just to talk about the prosecution contract is that one is is pretty significant, 37% increase. And so, the county attorney had been sharing some information with um the different cities that you most cities in Carver County utilize um the Carver County Attorney's Office for prosecution services. I think I I believe Chanhassen I might I'll correct myself if I'm wrong, but um I believe Chanhassen does go out for an RFP and hires like a private firm, like a Kennedy & Graven or something to do prosecution services for them. But most cities in Carver County do use Carver County for those services. Um and so the county just went through kind of a an audit process to see what their overhead and their actual costs are. Um it'd been a while since they looked at fees. And so um there's a $109,000 gap between what it costs them to provide the service um and what they are charging. And so they are spreading that cost to the cities over a 5-year period of time. So for 5 years we're going to see um some increases. This um it's my understanding that this year is the most significant um adjustment and then the rest will be spread out um over that. So um a big piece and I'm pulling up um some information that they sent around that. So a big piece what they are saying is driving that is that they had not been recognizing the salary increases of their staff. Um and those estimates are um the that is a big driver of that and then fine revenue. So um they're looking at 3-year averages and so they're going to go back and look at adjusting based on a 3-year average to make sure we're staying consistent. So um those are the big big drivers um on that piece. And >> So what what's the value of the prosecution services? I know it's going to be a $3,000 increase this year, but do we know what the What what's our contract with them? Is it $20,000 a year >> cost is? >> I can look that up and get back to you. >> That's That's great. That would be helpful to know on um all of these, the assessment, the prosecution, and the police services contract as well. >> But is it fair to say that that's somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 for the year if 33,000 is represents 37% we're in that sort of zone? So >> Yes. >> the I mean, as Madam City Manager points out, it somewhat is what it is. I mean, we are contracted with the county to um, do this essentially like question would be um, does it economically make sense for us to pursue what other cities have done and and I'm not you know, my my immediate like reaction would be is we're we're even though this is coming with an increase that they they did need to recognize their costs, we probably are not going to see something away from the county that's going to offer us a a better, um, bang for our buck, so to speak. >> Yeah. I would also just say like with the police services, a couple things, right? So, I mean, we all know you know, we we've been short-staffed, right? And now we're increasing, right? Since we're still short-staffed. Um, right? But it's an election year, right? We know we're going to have a new sheriff because he's not right, so things could change in the future based on who gets elected and, um, also, you know, I just for maybe even discussion at a later time is we've had really good luck with our CSO, uh, and partnering with Carver County. And do we ever Is there savings there where, you know, maybe we do look to hire a deputy or someone ourselves and partner with Carver County versus going directly through them, right? Like we did with our CSO. So, um, you know, that's that I'm more concerned about just because I don't think we've necessarily got what we've paid for necessarily in that um just because again we're been short-staffed. We haven't had to right so um just things to think about I think in the future so. >> Ms. Hardy you have comment on that? >> Um thank you Mayor Motors of the council. Yes, I will just say that um our CSO program that council member Roberts noted is a pilot program and I think we're in our second full year of that. Um so it's unique to Victoria. There are CSO pro the county itself has a CSO program. The county CSO program is different than what we have. And so um when we first set out to do that program just to provide a little bit of context um is we wanted to have a staff person that number one could provide um some assistance to our deputies to free up their time because a lot of the calls that they're getting are can be handled by a non-licensed peace officer. They're non-emergency, they're more nuisance, they might be code related, and so you didn't really need a licensed peace officer to manage that caseload. And then we also wanted a visibility so boots on the ground developing relationships with somebody in uniform that can help with public education that can help make connections with the businesses that can be that point of contact for um things like parking citations or um you know during snow emergencies so you're not taking away a deputy from being on the streets and dealing with real emergencies. And that program has been really successful. So the our CSO augments the work that they do so they're freeing up that time. And so, it's unique in Victoria because we were part of that hiring process, and our CSO reports directly to our fire chief. So, she is embedded in our organization, um and reports to the fire chief, but also on the county side has a sergeant that And so, then the sergeant and the fire chief work very closely together to um look at workload and how she's spending her time and everything. Now, we did that because we as a city without a police department don't qualify under the state and the state laws for being a law enforcement agency. And so, if you're not classified as a law enforcement forcement agency, we cannot have access to the tools or that CSO does not have access to the tools they need to do their job effectively, mostly law enforcement data. So, being able to look up driver's license information, being able to get CAD law enforcement data on the CAD system. And so, that's why there's a partnership in that contract. It's part of our police services contract. We have And I'm sharing all of this because we have had some conversations with the current administration about taking that pilot program and potentially growing it into the deputy. It's worked really well for us, and we have been having some open and ongoing conversations about what if we took that CSO model that seems to be working really well for us, and we made that into um piloted what a new model. So, evolving our current model of policing to something that looks a little bit different. And so, um it puts us as a city more in the driver's seat about, you know, what we want municipal policing to look like in our community. And so those conversations have been ongoing and I feel good about um a about the open dialogue that we're having. Um there are certainly some hurdles and challenges with it, uh but that could it certainly could be um a path forward for us. I I think um regardless of how things land, I I feel um that there's some good momentum there and we've got a really solid program that's working well for us that could be easily translated into something different. >> Would Would that Could that evolution Could we take anything from our sister cities or peers? Have they done any of this evolution that we could latch onto and maybe learn from or what do you think? I mean, is is it out there? >> That's an excellent question and that is the exact question that we just actually today asked when we were having this conversation to say, "Do we know? Like what are the other counties that have this model? The Anoka counties? I think Scott County's dabbling in this. What are they doing and can we learn from them?" And that is exactly the next step. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> One more question before we leave this. Police services, this 9.6% increase does not increase our service level at all, correct? >> Correct, Mayor, members of the council. So the way that the increases in the contract for police services are um are being passed along to us. There's a lag. There's I think it might even be a two-year lag. One year It's at least a one-year lag and it's based on um it's mostly driven by what the actual overhead costs are and then the actual wages. And so um so and it must be a year lag. So this year we're paying what the real costs They're Those real costs are getting passed to us and they're driven by the wage increases are through the union contracts. So, as contracts settle um and we know what we're doing, they pass that along to us. And then, if we have um shifts that go um we don't have They're not They're not covered, we get um money back. We use that to offset overtime and other costs uh throughout throughout the year. But, those unfilled shifts get credited back to the city. Um and then the the change in service that we have this year cuz to Council Member Roberts' point, there has been some challenges uh with staffing. Um and this year we've actually had um the probably the best, I will say, stability in terms of staff staffing um that we have seen in a really long time. Um and that said, um there still were some challenges. And so, we have taken one shift that was like perpetually unfilled. And we translated that into the sergeant position. And so, Sergeant Josh Baker has been assigned to the city. We share Sergeant Baker with the city of Carver. And with that, um we are essentially having one deputy shift go unfilled. So, originally, the intent was to have a 24/7 coverage, and we do have a gap there. There It's roughly 9 hours a week. Um what we get in return then is Sergeant Baker being here being able to flex time. So when we have for example classic car night or community event, we're not paying the overtime costs for those deputies. We can keep them responding. We're not pulling them off the streets. He can flex his time. It's an 8-hour position, not a 12-hour position. And so and there are other things that just his rank allows us to to be able to manage more efficiently. And so that has been piloted for 26. We're doing that right now. And there's some things that need to be worked out, but I think both the city of Carver and and we at least operationally feel like there's some benefit in doing that. So I think our recommendation is to continue with this model that would have that gap roughly 9 hours a week. Um to continue this for another year and then re-evaluate for 28. >> Thank you. I I'll just >> [cough] >> This is becoming an increasingly thorny issue that the city of Victoria does need to think about because with $73,000 being under 10% increase um we're probably staring down $800,000 a year for police services. Trish had a nice slide up that said our population is 13,600 projected. We're starting to look like the critical mass where we need to start asking the hard question, should we evaluate the prospects of having our own police department? And what does that look like? You know, I think everybody's familiar that Chaska did that and chose to go away from the county. The makeup of the city of Victoria within Carver County is completely different as we well understand of what it has been over the past 10 years. I'm going to make um the mayor feel a little bit old here but when we started our Odyssey together in in serving the city of Victoria, I can recall that it was probably around 400,000 when you and I were on finance committee and when I joined finance committee our costs were about $200,000 a year. So, you know, in a in a relatively short time pick a number it's 600% or 200% increase over what we've had in the past and it it may be instructive for us to start to you know, get some ideas down the road workshops maybe get a consulting firm to look at and say what does it reasonably look like to have a policing model for the city of Victoria. I mean, if we're doing gun permits and liquor license renewals and you know, those are the kind of meat and potatoes of what our police force is responding to totally different than having that not that it couldn't happen but you know, there are other instances of crime in other communities or what I'll say more concentrated on resources to investigate and prosecute those crimes that we that we don't have here. So, it may be time to for us to start at least getting a little bit of a view on does it look like it makes sense for us to do that and that could also shape the decision-making when the county is sitting there and putting together what they think they should charge the city of Victoria. I think it probably a case could be made that they're not expending the amount of really tough policing on our community than other parts of the county. >> When do we sign the like I'm assuming it's a January through December and then when like is it just at the end of the year that we kind of just So, okay. And can you remind me so I think the mayor and I are the only two So, how many years ago was it that we we had a workshop all day workshop where we had two consultants [clears throat] former police um that did a big kind of this kind of discussion that you're talking about and I'm assuming a lot of that stuff is still relevant. I mean, obviously we've grown more since then, but um maybe 4 years ago or something something like that I want to say. >> Yeah, that's about right. Yeah. >> So, maybe even re-bringing up that information that we had to share with the new the council members that have joined us since then. So, cuz that was very really good discussion that we had. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. Ramping up a police department seems like a big job and an expensive job. $3 to $5 million minimum. I I would say it's probably got to be a little bit more than that. I I I was just actually trying to Google and see what the city of Chaska spends on their police department every year and they're about twice our size. But I do know that we have had conversations in um just amongst ourselves uh in Chanhassen it doesn't feel like they're ready yet to stand up their own police department, but I think the I mean, I I the question is a worthy one. At what point does your population become big enough where you have to start to consider a police department? >> It is maybe it's a start of right like you said this this pilot that we've done with the CSO if they're willing to talk more about that that's a good starting point and then you know and then you know if 5 years if that works for 5 years great and then in 5 years maybe we're we are ready I don't for you know our own police station but feels like there's an in between maybe first. >> That might be a good phase. >> Two neighboring towns combining forces >> Yeah, part you know pun intended. Um is not a model that's unfamiliar in America so there you know that potentially addresses Council members Patterson's comment about startup costs cuz they are substantial. We probably need a place to park bad people for a little while till we can get them over to the county jail. We probably need a place for you know our officers to maintenance vehicles >> equipment >> Okay, very good. >> We are vacating a fire station and have some space. >> thinking about that too. >> [clears throat] >> Pop in some squads there. >> [laughter] >> I mean my biggest concern just for those watching at home you're looking at you know the assessment services prosecution services three grand police services is 73,000 $6,000 increase for Lake Minnetonka the Conservation District that means we're paying 30 grand to the Lake Minnetonka conference conservation district. What are we getting out of that? >> Yeah, Ms. Hardy please. >> I'm going to >> And is it something we can cut? >> Um that contract by the way I looked those up and the the LMCD is going to be 35,000 next year. 35,000 And then the sheriff is 838,000 the assessment contract will be 105,000 and then the prosecution contract will be 11 5. Thank you. >> So, Mayor members of the council >> Yeah, the hard numbers scare me more than the percentages. You know, $3,000 the judges, we got to pay them. So, anyway. >> Yeah. >> What is What do we get for LMCD? >> Councilmember Patterson, Mayor members of the council, LMCD LMCD's um the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's primary driver for the increase was they had a depletion of their excess reserves, which helped them keep their levies flat for a period of years. And so, as they're looking at their long-term plans, they're looking at starting to rebuild the reserves so they can continue to do their core mission in um with that um with the things that they do, and then um they hired an executive director um position, which increased their personnel expenses. So, it's Those are the two primary drivers. Um they had had a part-time consultant in there, and when they um knew that they were going to have a longer hiring runway, they reduced the levy for us or at least kept it um steady. So, they didn't not pass those increases to us. And then um I just want to make a note on the assessment um contract. There is a formula that the the county uses on a per parcel basis that's dependent upon um agriculture, commercial, or residential land. And they too went through an audit process and um adjusted their formula, um resulting in an increase to um those per parcel fees. And so, the number of parcels that they're evaluating, so as our community grows, your assessment contract grows because you're evaluating more parcels, but also um now we have that added increase with the adjustment of their fee increasing. >> To answer your question about what they do, they're actually an over kind of an overarching umbrella organization that coordinates between I think it's like 14 cities, Hennepin, Carver County, just to preserve Lake Minnetonka. It's all focused around Lake Minnetonka's health, its vitality, and making sure it stays a great asset to this region for years to come. So, they do a lot of good conservation work. Um you'll hear them talking about things like um shores, um you know, maintaining the shores, making sure that the waters are used in appropriate ways. They they manage the um I'm trying to remember what those boats are called where you do the jet boats. >> Mhm. >> You know, >> Mhm. >> making recommendations about how far offshore they need to be to protect the shoreline and those kinds of things. So, it's all about making sure that Lake Minnetonka stays a healthy, vital body of water. >> Yeah, I'm not going to make any friends on that, but isn't it the DNR's job once we go past the shoreline? >> So, Mayor members of the council, just real high level, um and if you think it would be helpful, we can have Ann Helscher, who's our representative, come in and just do a really like a real brief um 101 on things, but um the legislature has actually given some specific powers to the LMCD to do some of the things that would traditionally be reserved for the DNR. So, you're not necessarily wrong in that, but the they do they have been empowered by um the legislature to do some of the things that they're doing. >> So, then we're just required to contribute, or could we say, "No, we we only have 200 people that live in the city of Victoria that live on the lake. We don't want to contribute anymore. Um that's probably not possible. Again, I said I'm not going to make any friends with this one, but >> Yeah, I'm not sure what I I guess I would have to do a little bit more research on what mem- How does that work? Does the legislature require like I I would have to do some more research to understand what our options would be? Um but I do know because we have >> or whatever? >> I do know because we have property that is on the lake shore um that we do get a representative and our representative is actually uh the board chair um and has been on for a very long time. So, I'm sure she's a wealth of knowledge on that and I can >> Yeah, we can tap into her answer some questions. That's That's That would be a good exercise, I think, for all of us. >> I agree. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, thank you. Okay. >> [cough] [clears throat] >> Any other questions on this slide? Otherwise, we can move forward. >> We kind of beat it up, didn't we? >> We did. We went on a rabbit hole, for sure. But, good stuff. All right. >> No, it's great. >> Ms. Pollock, please continue. >> Okay, so this chart shows the revenues that we are projecting for 2027 in comparison to the 2026 adopted budget. Um starting at the bottom, I guess, taxes and franchise fees continue to be the largest source of revenue um accounting for more than 85% of the total general fund revenue. The increase shown reflects growth in the city's tax base, um modest increases in property values, and the preliminary levy assumption that we've included in the 2027 [cough] budget. Um license and permits are projected to decrease slightly with the number of new home permits that it we are reducing it by um compared to 26 um which reflects staff's current expectations regarding the pace of the residential growth. And also based on current inventory and what is anticipated through develop developer or property owner elimination. Um and then looking at the um intergovernmental revenues um those are expected to be um fairly um steady. And then oops missed my slide. And then um looking at the um charges for services. Now that includes um >> [clears throat] >> items such as the antenna lease revenues, um planning and development fees, and plan check fees um that are part of the building permit process. And that slight increase reflects um there's always like a 5% increase year-over-year for those antenna fees. And then other revenue includes um things such as fines and investment earnings. Um we're just budgeting a very slight increase for those. Um any questions about revenues? We're going to get into like fees and charges in our August. So we'll go a little bit more in depth in some of these, but um >> Very small. Are we losing the lease for the antennas on the water tower now that they've got that other pole up instead? >> No, the only reason they have that pole up is cuz they're going to paint the water tower. >> Okay. Well, I was just thinking like >> [clears throat] >> are they losing 3 months of time of lease of the water tower? Okay. I was just curious. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Okay, moving on to these um expenditures. >> [clears throat] >> So, while revenues remain stable and continue to grow, several key cost drivers are putting pressure on the 27 budget. Um so, overall, the preliminary budget reflects an increase of about 7.25% compared to the 26 adopted budget. A significant portion of that increase is within the transfers category. This increase is primarily attributable to the first annual repayment associated with that downtown West Redevelopment um interfund loan payment. And as mentioned in the previous slide, the 27 budget includes that repayment first repayment of 325,000. Um so, moving forward, that's going to be a year-over-year um payment back to that water fund. Despite inflationary pressures, expenditures within the Parks and Rec and Public Works remains relatively stable. Um increases have been offset by elimination of the Parks and Rec director position. And that was budgeted for in 26, but removed from the 27 budget. Um public safety's increasing um as we just talked about primarily due to the inflation and contractual services associated with the city's agreement um with the county. Increases in the general government is primarily driven by employee wage and benefit adjustments, increases in contractual services, and additional insurance and operating costs associated with the new fire station. Um it also includes some expanded insurance for expanded park assets um and the funding of the city's 2050 comp plan as previous previously mentioned as well. Any specific questions about expenditures on this slide? We'll go more in depth into the transfers in a upcoming slide. All right. Moving on. Um so before discussing those proposed transfers, I wanted to provide some background on the city's park and trail capital funds. The city currently maintains two separate funds related to parks and trails. Uh the first is a trail gap fund which was originally established to receive transfers from the general fund for purposes of connecting trail segments throughout the community. Over time, however, the cost of standalone trail construction has increased significantly. And as a result, many trail connections are now more efficiently completed as part of roadway reconstruction projects or through private development projects rather than through dedicated trail gap projects. So the second um fund we currently have is the park fund which that is um primarily um funded through park dedication fees from developers. And those funds are restricted and they can only be used for acquisition and development of new park facilities. So they cannot be used to um pay for any of the park and trail capital improvement projects um involving any type of existing infrastructure. We previously had heard council ask for additional information on park dedication fees and we are going to be sharing that information during our August meeting um when we discuss fees and charges. So, we will be addressing that question then. And then as our park and trail system continues to mature, we are seeing fewer new park development projects and a greater demand for capital improvements, rehabilitation, and replacement of existing assets. So, staff is recommending that the trail gap fund be renamed and repurposed as park and trail improvement fund. This would create a dedicated fund for general fund transfers which support capital improvements to existing park and trail infrastructure while allowing staff and council to more easily plan for and track these investments over time. This recommendation leads into the next slide which will include the proposed transfer to establish funding for park and trail improvement projects. >> Trish, are we proposing to put the trail maintenance in this fund as well? >> Yes, Mayor and members of the council. What we would like to do is for some of like those larger trail rehabilitation projects such as like the Duck Trail one is the one that we're trying to get completed this year. In the future then those would be funded through this fund instead of having that one line item budget amount coming through just in one year. So, because some of those projects are you know well over $100,000 um it would be more manageable for us to be putting a transfer into a fund and being able to save up for some of those larger projects versus trying to fund them and increasing the levy a larger amount in just a single year. >> I think I like it. >> And we can we'll have some more um information discussions about that, too, um towards in a couple other slides here, but um this is just kind of I wanted to mention this ahead of time before I go to this plan transfers cuz this is where it would show that that plan transfer the proposed $250,000 transfer, which we would have put into the park fund and had to keep separated for that Holy Family um tennis court project, we would put into this fund instead so that um we can maintain the integrity of that park dedication fees and making sure that those restricted funds are tracked appropriately and that these funds that are for these improvements are tracked separately so that we can um more easily manage those projects and those funds. Um so that's what this slide is showing that um $250,000 um transfer is for. Um that $75,000 transferred last year, even though that park wasn't created, that would have been what we transferred into that park fund for the Holy Family tennis courts for '26. Then what I would do then is take that money and put that into this fund from that park fund. Since that's not dedication fees, we'd be able to do that. Um and then the balance um then would be coming from a fund balance that we currently have in that trail gap fund, as well. >> How much is in that trail gap fund? >> about I had that in one of my slides as a note. About 230,000. >> Okay. >> Is what we're expecting to have at this year end. We have a larger balance in there now, but we are planning to use some of those funds for the Rolling Acres Road trails. So, there's some monies that um we we would have needed to come up with to to do those trail that trail work. So, this is the fund that we were planning to use it for. It seemed was the most appropriate fund to use. >> Yeah. >> This makes sense to me. Feels clean. So, moving on um with the additional transfers Uh so, the proposed $325,000 transfer, we talked about that to the downtown redevelopment fund. Um the transfer to the capital equipment fund is actually being decreased in 2027. Um in prior years, the city's been building reserves towards the eventual purchase of a ladder truck for the fire department. So, this capital fund is includes both the public works and the um fire equipment fund. And so, while we have two separate funds for the slides' sake, they are combined together. Um but, we are proposing to postpone that transfer into the um fire equipment fund as we reevaluate the need for that um fire ladder truck. So, it's a very large expensive piece of equipment. And this would allow us to lower the levy um by reducing that transfer. And they're still able to use the fund balance that's in there for the equipment that they have in the CIP that is set for them to purchase over the next couple of years. So, um it was just we were starting to build that up in preparation for the lease on a ladder truck. Um and then the capital facilities fund is being increased a little bit um up to 250,000. We're trying to build reserves um to build a cold storage facility at the public works campus on the Berry Road. Um this facility would of course replace the storage building that's currently on the former public works site, which has reached its end of life and the use of that space might be transitioning to um something else in the future and this would allow us to be able to have that cold storage um for the public works equipment. And then finally, the long-term street maintenance fund um the transfer is consistent with the 26 budget. These funds uh support the city's pavement preservation program, including mill and overlay projects, and staff is expecting to complete the pavement management plan later this summer. And we might recommend some adjustments depending on how that um that assessment comes back. So um you'll notice that several of these transfers are really about planning ahead and whether that's replacing aging infrastructure or maintaining existing assets um or preparing for future equipment and facility needs. Any questions about transfers? Seeing none, we're moving on. Okay, so the levy change. Um when we consider the changes in both revenue and expenditures, we arrive at the city's proposed levy. So the levy represents the amount of property tax revenue needed to support city services and obligations, including all of the things that we mentioned, police and fire, street maintenance, snow removal, debt service, and all of the municipal operations. So, the preliminary '27 levy increase currently is projected at 3.31%. It's important to note that an increase in the levy of 3.31% doesn't mean that people's property taxes will change by that percentage. The levy increase simply reflects the difference between the amount of property taxes needed in '27 compared to the prior year. So, the actual impact on an individual property owner will depend on several factors, including the changes in the property values, the growth in the city's tax base and from new construction, and also the distribution of values across all the property types within the community. What does the 3.31% increase in the city's levy mean for your property tax bill? This chart shows a comparison from 2026 to 2027. And um the value is taken by 1%, and then that amount is multiplied by the tax rate. I rounded to the nearest dollar to simplify, but while the preliminary budget includes a 3.31% increase in the city's levy, the tax rate is projected to decrease from 30.08% down to 29.02% due to the continued growth in the city's tax base and increases in overall taxable market values. So, this chart illustrates the estimated city tax impact at various home values using the projected '27 tax rate. And under these assumptions, properties at each value level would experience a decrease in the city's portion of the property taxes despite the increase in the lobby. So, for example, the $500,000 home would see a decrease of about $53 a year. $700,000 about $75. $1.1 million about $117,000. So, it's important to note that these estimates assume no change in the properties market value. So, your actual tax bills will vary based on changes in individual property values. Um the final tax rates established by other taxing jurisdictions and of course um changes in the overall tax base. The median valued home um as well would [clears throat] go down. About that six greater than that $60 range. So, here's how the monthly change in spread [cough] out between [clears throat] city service functions. So, I'm using the median home value tax of $145 a month um as an example. And think about some of the other bills you might have as a homeowner, cell phones, internet, cable, satellite TV, electric or gas. But, comparatively for 11.75 you're paying to have the streets in good repair or plowed timely after snow event. Um for 45.97 per month, which includes debt service for the new fire station and the operation operational budget for the fire um department, you're ensured the community is safe and someone responds when you call 911. And this is just a different way of thinking about your property taxes and what services and value that you get from paying your property taxes. As you can see here, we're looking at a fairly steady levy over the next couple of years. So, um right now projecting in that 5% range over a couple of years there before dropping back down. But fairly steady, lower than um we saw in the prior 4 years. Okay, so as Victoria continues to grow, future budget discussions will increasingly focus on maintaining existing infrastructure and service levels to a growing number of residents while also planning for long-term capital investments. So, growth in service delivery pressures include maintaining current service levels for a growing population, evaluating staff and operational needs as development continues, and meeting service expectations of our community members. We also have facility and capital needs, um cold storage relocation and replacement, um as we just discussed, um future public works facility expansion, redevelopment of the former public works site, and then reuse and future operations of the existing fire station once the new fire station opens. And as the city of Lakes and Parks, there will be ongoing maintenance and stewardship of our parks, trails, and public spaces such as maintenance and replacement of aging park and trail infrastructure, funding improvements to downtown West public spaces, long-term asset management of community amenities. And there's also ongoing transportation and infrastructure budget pressures including Highway 5 corridor improvements, funding local street construction and pavement preservation projects. So, many of these items are not immediate and um but represent future policy and funding decisions that will require council consideration as the community continues to evolve and grow. So, the first discussion item tonight relates to staffing. The preliminary budget does not include funding for additional positions. If all positions were approved, the estimated levy impact would be about 2.56% on top of the 3.31%. So, before discussing the individual requests, it's important to recognize that city staffing has not grown really at the same pace as the community. And over the past several years, Victoria has experienced significant growth in residents, housing units, lane miles, parks, trails, facilities, and public spaces. At the same time, staff has intentionally delayed several staffing requests while the city's been focusing on major capital investments including the new fire station and transportation improvements, downtown West infrastructure, and other strategic priorities. So, as a result, departments have absorbed additional responsibilities and workload growth without increasing in staff. While staff continues to maintain service levels, doing so is becoming increasingly challenging and is not sustainable over the long term. Continuing to defer staffing investments will eventually impact service levels, response times, project delivery, strategic initiatives, or employee retention. The positions are intended to address service demands that have developed over time and to ensure organization can continue meeting the council and also ex- our growth. So, the first the first position I have on the list here is GIS. Um so, as you may know, for many years the city has participated in a shared GIS model through Carver County. And under this arrangement, one GIS professional provided services to four communities, which allowed Victoria to access specialized expertise without funding a full-time position. The city recently learned that the county GIS employee serving in a in this role is leaving the organization. So, the county's currently re-evaluating whether it will continue the shared service model and creating uncertainty regarding the future GIS support. So, Victoria currently receives 32 hours of GIS service per month, but the existing workload already exceeds available capacity. So, as a result, GIS resources are primarily focused on maintaining current operations, leaving many efficiencies, as asset management, mapping, permitting, utility, and public engagement opportunities unrealized. So, staff is proposing funding for GIS services in 2027 either through a continued contract arrangement um depending on the outcome of the county's evaluation, but regardless of the delivery model, additional GIS capacity would address immediate operational needs while positioning the city to leverage technology and more efficiently. So, um we would we're asking about for the support of the long-term asset management initiatives, not just like the current GIS needs that we're receiving from Allison um for the 32 hours per week or per month. And then the second position is public works. So, public works has experienced um significant growth over the past several years as the city's added roads and utilities, parks and trails. Um while the department has successfully maintained service levels and staff believes the current staffing model will become increasingly difficult to sustain over a long term. So, at a high level, the department's experiencing growing needs in three areas. Operational leadership and staff supervision field coordination, inspections, and contractor oversight asset management, work order administration, customer service coordination and administrative support. So, staff believes that additional resources will likely need to be phased in over time and we're still evaluating the best organizational structure um on whether those needs are best addressed through supervisory position, technical support position, or some combination of both. But, there may also be opportunities to offset a portion of the future staffing costs um through the utility-related funds um funding sources, reducing the impact on the general fund levy. And then there is the Park and Rec. So, as I mentioned earlier, as part of the '27 budget process, the Park and Rec director position was removed as a temporary measure assisting to assist in reducing the um levy while staff evaluates the long-term structure and needs of the department. While the city successfully maintained service levels, the continued growth of Victoria's park system, trail network, facilities, and public spaces has increased demands on existing staff resources. Um the key areas of need for this position include day-to-day parks operations and management, staff and seasonal employee supervision, park planning and long-range system development, capital project management implementation, contractor coordination and oversight, asset management, and maintenance planning. So, as the city trans- transitions focuses more on maintaining and reinvesting in our existing facilities and amenities, staff believe additional resources may be needed to support the long-term service delivery and asset management goals. And then finally, administration. Um As we've grown, um administrative responsibilities have also increased. So, today a significant amount of administrative work it's being absorbed [cough] [clears throat] by department directors, managers, and professional staff. So while this approach has allowed the city to avoid adding positions in prior years, it's becoming increasingly difficult to sustain an organizational demand um as we continue to grow. So key areas um of need include first point of contact for resident queries and customer service requests, uh phone coverage and issue triage, scheduling and coordination, contract administration and tracking, public meeting support and minute preparation backup, publication and legal notices and required public communication, correspondence preparation and distribution, special projects and organizational support functions. So what we're facing isn't just the volume of work, it's who's doing the work. Right now many tasks are being handled by senior staff whose time is better spent on project management, strategic initiatives, departmental management and leadership. So adding administrative capacity would help us align responsibilities at the right level and improve efficiency and give managers and directors the space that they need to focus on higher valued work. Our team has done a great job absorbing growth and taking it on more responsibilities over the past several years. Um as council looks at future staffing investments, the conversation is less about today's workload and more about making sure we can continue delivering the level of service our residents expect as the community grows. So, the policy question before Council this evening is whether they are supportive of staff furthering further evaluating resource needs in the areas that we highlighted and returning with additional information as a part of the maximum tax levy discussion. Okay. >> Council. >> It was a lot of information. >> It was a lot of information. I would agree. [laughter] >> Dana and I are open for questions. >> Yeah. >> I get one point of clarification on the GIS position. You said 32 hours a week and 32 hours a month. >> I meant 32 hours a month. >> Okay. Thank you. And so with that work like if we hired someone, would that be kind of like how our old IT thing would like it would be not necessarily on demand, but like they'd work so many hours they wouldn't be a FTE a whole full or would it be a or is that what you're asking us to look into more to do cuz I guess my my ultimate question is like since we're sharing we were sharing with at the county, is that something where we partner with another city again, right? Like we've done in other situations to save costs, I guess. >> Yeah, Ms. Hardy, please. >> Thank you, Mayor members of the Council Council member Averix. Um great questions. I think you're asking the same questions that we're asking internally and so um we are underutilizing GIS and there's there's a we're just scratching the surface with what it can be what can be done and the number of hours. I mean, we're we're barely keeping up. There is a backlog of work to do just to keep up with data inputting with the growth that we're having. So, one of the things that we're evaluating is do we have enough work currently and long-term where are gaps? What don't we know? What Where are those opportunities for growth? And do that Does that investment offset the um the additional cost for having a staff? And can you keep somebody busy long-term? We're going through that analysis right now. We um it What we're hoping to do is just get a flavor from council tonight on just your level of support. Do you see this as being an opportunity for growth in in this position to leverage other efficiencies across the organization? Cuz this touches every department from administration and elections to public works to planning to communications. There's so much that the that GIS can do that we're just not utilizing cuz we don't have enough hours dedicated to that. So, it's definitely a growth area for us. Um it could even be a bridging year. So, do we look at doing contracted services to better understand where those gaps are and work with the contractor? If the county is making a decision, and we don't know, that's part of what we're going to find out in a couple of weeks. Um if the county's even going to make make allow us to continue to have contracted services through them. They might say, "We're done with this program. We're shifting away from that. Cities, you're on your own." If that's the case, then I think we'd be looking at, "Okay, is there an opportunity to partner with other cities? Do we have the same needs? Or are we just wanting to use the tool more in a more sophisticated state than others are ready to do?" Those conversations and analysis still need to happen. And so, we feel like by the time Max tax comes around, we're going to have a better idea of exactly what our gaps are, how How we using it today, what are we missing? And then what is that long-term plan? Um we are getting quotes from other organizations that provide contracted services so we can look at does it make sense? It may not make sense for what our needs are. Um >> Can I I I have a question about the actual GIS tool. Do we would we have to buy that as well? >> That's part of Mayor, it's an excellent question. That's part of what we're trying to understand. Right now, the county hosts our data. It's an expensive tool and so you need to have server space either you're buying that in the cloud or an on-prem server and you're buying licenses. So not only the admin license to administer it, but every user and there's different levels of using if you're just looking up data versus if you're actually inputting and manipulating the data. And so there there's a lot to understand yet. Um and we'll if the county decides and we don't know yet, but if the county decides that they're no longer going to provide the staff service, one of the questions that we will have will be will you continue to host our data for us? Um there is a benefit we believe to doing that. That could be and we we're trying to collect what those expenses are if that's not an option. >> I think from my perspective 32 hours a month to funding a full-time person to 160 hours a month feels like a big leap for GIS and I I I would really before we go that road, I would really want to understand the benefit of having somebody on staff. In the meantime, I support your you know, your efforts to learn more from the county, see who else might be able to um contract this service that we might have something through our engineering firm. Maybe that could be done. Um but I guess on this list of priorities, I think the GIS for me falls at the bottom, especially considering what we're using now and not being able to understand fully at this point what the oper- uh the opportunity is. >> I mean, I guess I would just say they're basically, I think I my understanding is like you're just asking for basics right now. Like you just want us to tell you like can we look into this more? And to me, it doesn't hurt anything to like >> Mhm. >> just yes. I mean, if you're telling us we might need more people in these four areas, yes, look at it. And then if you come back to us and are like yeah, it's going to cost, you know, this much money to hire a person in this, but we're only going to use, you know, then we can say no, like it's not worth it. But it to me, it makes sense to at least dig in and see what are our options for all these, what is it going to cost, you know, can we even keep someone busy in any of any or all these positions? So >> Well, and I I agree and related to GIS, a lot of what we're going to do is dependent on what the county's going to do as well. Or at least our options, let's call it that. But the one thing on all these positions I look at is we're thir- going to be 13,640 people. We haven't hired a lot. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> So that comes to mind, right? >> So >> Statement. >> I think we have to bolster our staff. >> Yeah. I agree. >> Maybe bolster's a I don't know if that's the right word, but I think it's >> even I don't even think that bolster's I it from our our narrative in our packet, um you would budgeted actually one FTE down. I I I think before us is to say we need to correct that cuz we're going to start pushing into service level. So, I I would I would be supportive of having this preliminary budget put that one person back. Then let's have a discussion about cuz I'm if if if I'm interpreting what I'm seeing here, there's a five-person need. There's one that we're already down that we should have that we're we've left out of the budget, and then now we're talking about the four additional people to drive that 2.56% increase, correct? >> do want to clarify that. Yeah, I want I want to understand that. So, the Park and Rec director we we decided to take a pause. You guys did a lot of work on what is what does this position What does this department need? So, if we put that person back in, is that the Park and Rec thing along with the uh maybe some uh Are you looking for putting that back in and then getting another one? >> Um Mayor, members of the council, that would just be to put back the one that we took out. So, it probably wouldn't be a director position like the same as what we had. That's part of the evaluation process. Um but it would be to add an FTE back into that department to um but not two positions. >> Yeah, okay. Understood. >> Maybe a program manager? Is that what it Okay. >> Okay. So, I know we're running short on time here. Um so, I think there's consensus from the council here to continue the exploration, bring us back more data. Um and for for the purposes of our preliminary levy, we should include the this number in the preliminary budget. >> So, the number that we're you're advocating is to at least get the one person back. >> Yes. >> So, that we can have a preliminary budget that reflects that. >> So, the Yeah, the levy >> then we can discuss what does the 2.56 represent? Does that represent four people, or is it three, or is Is all five? >> That it actually represents three and a half positions. The half being the administration we were budgeting to put in as a half half the year. Like to put in mid-year. So it's basically three and a half positions. Roughly, you know, it's just projecting for those three. So three and a half FTEs. >> Great. Do we have other things that you need some feedback on? >> I have like three sides up. >> Okay. So um the next discussion slide is um staff continues to receive feedback from downtown businesses, um residents and visitors regarding the parking visibility and wayfinding, um connections between regional trails and downtown businesses, and then also promotion of community events and amenities. Um so two potential initiatives have been identified. Um a digital welcome sign, um rough estimate of $100,000. And then also downtown signs and banners, um estimated about $75,000. So um the digital welcome sign um would give community event promotion, business visibility, visitor and information, community branding and identity. Um downtown signs, banners, and wayfinding could improve the public parking visibility, um connect trail users to downtown, enhance navigation and visitor experience. Um Highway 5 reconstruction is anticipated, as you know, to occur through much of next year. So council might wish to consider implementation of a digital welcome sign um could be best pursued during construction or it could be deferred until the corridor improvements are complete. Um so neither initiative is currently included in the proposed budget. Um both initiatives were added um the impact would be approximately 1.7 >> Okay, on this item, I I would favor kicking the digital welcome sign into 28 and prioritizing the wayfinding. >> Could we split it over 27 and 28 or eight like so that it's not just one big, right? We've got 2 years to do it. So >> I'm not sure the mayor is viewing this feels like this is putting the cart before the horse a little bit on this one. The we've seen our parking surveys that have come back and commented about I'd like to know where more spaces, but I just don't know. So I think the the the sign initiative feels like we'll get more bang for our buck. Um I think we need the dust of Highway 5 to settle because we might be faced with what's the right thing to do. Do we do we really need it once that's done or do we need two? Do we need one at one end of town and one at the other end of town? And we still need to see how the pedestrian crossing comes over with the existing welcome sign that we have. Um so it feels to me like this is something that um we can look to move that to the future of the I'm I'm supportive of the wayfinding and things like that to to get the public to understand that there is uh space to put cars in this town. >> I think the wayfinding is critical now because of what we're going into. I agree. With finding you know people need to know where to park and you hear it from not only the residents and the businesses, but uh people coming into town, right? That aren't from Victoria, they would definitely benefit from it. So, um I think the welcome sign could be a good idea, but yeah, where do you put it? What's it look like? I mean, are we talking to um the levy impact with both of them is 1.79. So, roughly, if I'm doing my math accurately, you're under you're 7/10 of a percent. >> So, yeah, it'd like the 75,000 would be like the 0.79 roughly, yeah. And then the >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other comments on this one? >> I'm there. >> All right. And Okay. Agreed. Okay. >> And then this one we talked about, it sounded to me as if council was supportive of expanding the purpose of the trail gap fund to park and trail improvements, but I just want to get a consensus. Um for sure that that not here. >> No. >> I'd be a yes, then. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> That looks cleaner and easier. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Consensus there? And then the last final um slide here, just uh is there any direction to add cut services or increase reduce the levy or any additional items that you'd like to consider at future meetings? >> Um I am very curious about our old fire station and where we're headed with that piece of property and that asset. So, um that would be something that I'd want to understand better. >> Other council members, anything else? >> I would say that we struggled a lot when we had the decisions about what we wanted as a to bring for our community in terms of park products. And um we found that what would be beneficial and useful is a bit unattainable because we didn't put a certain amount aside for it. And I think it merits us taking a deeper dive to say what can we do to >> [cough] >> fund what we saw was a a million dollar shortfall with where we wanted to provide the services that we felt that community needed and the resources that we had to do it. So, given that uh we have I it seems like a favorable climate in terms of where we can come in levy-wise, I I I think it behooves us to uh look to see if we can make some progress there as well. >> Right. Thank you, Council Member. >> goes back to fees, right? Cuz we've also talked about making sure we can get as much as we can, right? Like that we can legally do for >> of >> parks. Yes. Yes. >> so >> dedication fees. But those are separate from Sure. >> Yeah, they are. Absolutely. >> all part of the larger >> Exactly. >> Absolutely, Chad. It's part of our larger discussion. We should absolutely have that on the >> Yeah. >> the future. >> You've heard me say before I like us to be the city of lakes and parks, not the city of lakes and park dedication fees, so >> Fair enough. All right. Anything else that for direction for staff? >> When is the next touch point? Uh August. >> So, um we're going to be presenting the um the the department heads are going to be presenting in July. >> Oh, July. >> So, they'll um all be here and then August we'll be presenting what we want to propose for that um final max tax levy in September. So, um we can get some more information, updated numbers, um especially on the staffing and I'll add back in from what I heard the 75,000 for the um the wayfinding signs. Um and then we'll get some information on the old fire station. I we are doing an RFP right now. It's out to do an assessment of that building. So, just to understand better like what the condition a condition assessment of it to make sure that we don't invest a bunch of money and there's problems with um the building it being the age that it is. So, before we really determine on what the best use of that building is, we want to make sure that the building is going to be with us for long term. >> Well, that's a good point. I think people are surprised at how old that building is. >> Yeah, that section of the building um hundreds of thousands of dollars into make that into say a community space and we find out that the integrity of the building is um subpar. So, um that's currently while we do as you know we were doing the same for the Victoria Recreation Center. So, we just lumped it into one and we added that space onto that RFP. So, um Alyssa is um working through that um to get some people to consultants to give us some idea on those buildings. >> We don't have a timeline on that yet. >> We do. I just don't know what it is off the top of my head. >> do. Happen to know? I'll I'll let you look. Um but to Council member Rife's point, we we have a touchstone every month from now until December on this budget. >> Yeah. Except for October you have off. >> Okay. Okay. [laughter] We'll probably need a rest. Okay. Very good. Um well, we can grab that information from you later. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Any last thoughts for staff before we adjourn [clears throat] our workshop? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Seeing none, I will uh take a motion to adjourn. >> I'll make a motion to adjourn our workshop. >> We have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned. We're going to take about