City Council - Regular Meeting

The first item on our agenda this evening is the announcements. We have several announcements this evening. On Monday, June 27th at 5 p.m., we will hold a second city council budget workshop, which will be focused on the 2027 budget. Department directors will be providing overviews of their operations, highlighting cost-saving measures and efficiency initiatives. All meetings of the city council, including workshops, are open to the public and held in council chambers at City Hall unless otherwise noted. We encourage anyone wanting to attend our council meetings or workshops in person to contact our city clerk in advance. In other announcements, please join us for the annual Truck Rodeo Thursday, July 16th from 5.30 to 8.30 p.m. at the Victoria Recreation Center. This free community event provides a fun, hands-on opportunity to explore city, county, and other trucks, heavy equipment, and public safety vehicles. We are also accepting registrations for Night to Unite, which will take place on Tuesday, August 4th. If your neighborhood registers with the City of Victoria, they will receive a visit from firefighters, sheriff's deputies, city council members, and city staff. Visits are guaranteed for the first 20 registered parties. You can find more information on our city website at There are no other announcements this evening, so we're moving on to our agenda. Our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda. Council, can I get a motion?

Moved to adopt the final agenda.

We have a motion. Can I get a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on our agenda this evening is open forum. First item on the open forum is new staff introductions. And with that, I'm going to kick it over to City Manager Miss Hardy.

Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council, this evening we do have one new staff member this quarter that we would like to have... to pop up to the podium and introduce himself. And he should be a familiar face to you all.

Welcome. Please introduce yourself.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name is Ryan Cleaver. You probably know me as one of the firefighters. I did this back in January, but I'm the new streets worker for the public works. And I'm very fortunate and happy to have the job. My first month and a half here, I've I've learned a ton on city infrastructure and just the way things work and just getting very, very fortunate. So thank you for having me.

Great, thank you so much. Thanks, Ryan. Welcome. We're fortunate and happy to have you as well, Ryan. Thank you. The next item is our open forum. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on items that are not on tonight's agenda and not part of an active application that will come to the council at a future date. If there's anyone who would like to address the council at this time, please step forward. OK, seeing no one will move on to the consent agenda items on the consent agenda or routine administrative do not require deliberation or housekeeping items that are required by law. They're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately. Miss Hardy does staff wish to pull any consent items for separate discussion and vote this evening? Is there a member of the Council that would like to pull a separate an item from the consent agenda or a member in the audience? Seeing none, I will make a motion. Please have a motion for the consent agenda.

Go ahead, Chad, please. Motion to adopt the consent agenda.

Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Now moving on to our regular agenda this evening. It's a meaty one. So the first item on our agenda is the 2026 Senior Advisory Committee Annual Work Plan and Year-End Review. And presenting on that this evening are our committee co-chairs, Jenny Spaulding and Vice Chair, Kyle Neibauer. We talked about this. Chair and Vice Chair, welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of Council. The Senior Advisory Committee has established five key focus areas for our current work plan that we're here to discuss with you tonight. The first is the development and execution of our Community Connections series. This was a four-day event held this past May at the community center. It was designed to bring local seniors together. While our attendance was not what we had anticipated, we understand that this was our first event, and we did have the opportunity to bring residents together and foster community and connection. We think we gained invaluable insights and lessons that will help us as we move forward and plan our event for next year.

Our second area of focus is around awareness to the vital resources within the community. We approach this through a variety of channels and strategic partnerships. For instance, we collaborate with Carver County Public Health and we'll be participating in the all county meeting this September to learn how our neighbors and other communities are improving the lives of these older residents. We will also be conducting an annual review of the senior resource guide to ensure all the information remains relevant, accurate, and accessible. Just last week, we hosted our senior night at the car show downtown Victoria, which served as another way to promote the valuable resources directly with the residents.

Our third focus area is on senior focus facilities. This initiative has been on our work plan for the past three years, and since we have made progress in this effort. Most notably, we helped with the furniture plan for the lower lobby space at the Victoria Rec Center to make it more welcoming for seniors and accessible for older adults. Moving forward, our next steps are to review the Victoria Rec Center's current programming and participate in upcoming Victoria Rec Center future discussions and engage in the planning conversations around Downtown West and those spaces and how we can make sure that they represent seniors' needs.

Our fourth area is around volunteering. And we know this is a vital component of an active lifestyle for this community. And it's not just a one-way street. It's a two-way street. Many seniors are looking for meaningful ways to give back and assist others, while others may eventually need a helping hand themselves. The committee's goal is to focus on redeveloping the city's overall volunteer program. We want to find innovative and creative ways to better leverage the resources and partnerships we have here in the community, including our local schools. And we hope to find ways to connect willing volunteers with older adults who need a little bit of extra support, whether that live independently or just need some technology help.

Our final area focuses on community risk reduction. In collaboration with the city's community risk reduction specialists, the committee would like to help brainstorm strategies to reduce hazards and prevent common safety risks among our senior population, such as slips, trips, and falls. And with that, that concludes our work plan. We will stand for questions.

Very good, thank you. Council, questions for these folks?

I don't have any questions, but I did attend the event that you guys put on, and I had nothing but positive feedback from everybody that was there. I thought it was done extremely well. Kyle, I saw you there a couple days, too, as well. So thanks for doing that. I think it's a springboard for what we're going to be able to do down the road. So good work.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I think we'd be remiss before we, and just to let everybody know, and for the record, that we do have an appointment opening. So if anybody knows anybody who is looking for volunteer opportunities, we'd love to have some more people join the committee.

Good plug. Thank you.

Absolutely. Good job.

All right. And thank you so much for your work. This is a very important demographic to us here in the city of Victoria, and they are an active and involved group, and we appreciate them and appreciate you. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Mayor.

With that council I will take a motion to approve the annual work plan and year-end review Motion to approve the annual work plan for the senior Advisory Committee for 2026.

Thank you. Can I get a second second? We have a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying aye any opposed motion carries I Up next is the 2026 parks and rec committee annual work plan in year end review and presenting on that is our vice chair, Amanda Cahill. Miss Cahill, please welcome.

Hi, thank you for having me. I get to present tonight on behalf of a very large committee, Park and Rec Committee, and in the absence of Chair Larry. So good evening. As part of our work plan, we've established three focus areas to guide everything we do this next year. Our first focus area is continuing public engagement for all park projects. Last year the committee drafted and the council approved a formal engagement policy for our park projects and this policy has already been put into place providing helpful clear framework for both the committee's work and staff on how to connect with residents regarding ongoing and future park developments. We again recently held a successful community engagement event at Brookmore Park and currently have an open survey to gather feedback on preferred amenities specifically at that community park location. We had a great turnout at the event and the committee will formally review the combined survey and event results at our meeting in August. Additionally, we look forward to reviewing the park and open space data from the broader community-wide survey to ensure our efforts align with city priorities. So there's a specific neighborhood we learned from In the past, there's a specific neighborhood survey that's only to residents within a certain radius. And then there's also an open survey that's available to all residents. And that is open until the end of the month.

And that can be found on our website. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you.

focus area number two centers on the city's strategic growth areas as part of the 2050 comprehensive plan the committee will be Very deeply involved in the park master planning process And that will be kicked off later this month with a introductory of the comp plan from city staff We know from past community feedback that access to water and access to water features is a top priority for our residents, which will be kind of focused our lens as we explore these growth opportunities. Another major component of focus area number two is continuing recommending park systems within new developments. At our last meeting, we provided initial feedback on the Astoria project and we'll continue to review sketch plots for additional upcoming developments to ensure trails, open space, and park connectivity are all prioritized early on. We are excited about the possible future trail connections that the Astoria project will provide access to, given we get a lot of trail questions. And then, like I said before, we've already reviewed how developments, how this works is with the Hunters Brook and Marsh Hall Park projects and making very specific recommendations to you as the council for those park projects that are in the planning process today. And then our final focus area is dedicated to non-traditional park spaces. So these are opportunities that exist outside of what you typically consider a park or a park boundary, such as spaces along our trail systems, outlots, or repurposed open spaces. So this is a really new focus area for us and early in the stages for this. SO WE HAVE YET TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS. BUT PART OF THAT IS RE-EVALUATING THE CITY'S TRAIL SYSTEM AND THOROUGHLY REVIEWING THE TRAIL GAPS. We've asked and we know the staff are working on updating the web page on trail gaps to reflect this work of the committee that has taken place. And then we look forward to keeping you updated as all three of these focus areas progress.

Very good. Thank you, Ms. Cahill. Any questions, comments from council?

I have a few. Yep. How is it going with the expanded numbers within the Park and Rec Committee?

I actually thought about that today. What, where I sat most was at one of our most lengthiest meetings to date. But what it provided, and that was the review of the Huntersbrook and the Marsh Hollow recommendations. What it provided is that with the numbers we have on the committee, we are seeing different perspectives brought forward and things that are shared and brought up that maybe wouldn't have been brought up without that additional perspective present.

So it's not too many people at this point?

No, not at this point. I think it's been positive. And then at meetings, too, as well, you know, we have had differing viewpoints, and to work through those has been really, in my view, like provided...

additional strength to our work Okay, great. I mean I've watched the video on the park of the trail gaps and the park recommendations And I think one of the things that came out was You guys had to operate under a budget and that budget in my opinion is an arbitrary number that was thrown together two three years ago and then you went through and you skimmed off some of the various features that were in some of those parks and well it came to us we actually have a fund which has more dollars in it than was actually budgeted so we were trying to come up with a way to get some of those things back in that you guys had to shave off uh... and i just wanted to say you guys have done a great job and been super busy on all those things and we do listen to you guys and we do take what you say seriously and try to do everything we can for everybody. So anyway.

I think our committee is really focused on bringing about every time we're there resident feedback. So really in refocusing our discussions around these surveys so that the residents have faith in us that we're listening to them when they participate in these events and surveys and that they they feel heard and You know will continue to then engage Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you any other questions So Amanda you've had a pretty long tenure with Parks and Rec at this point, correct?

I

Yes, so I just, this is my beginning of my second term, if you will, so yeah.

And so I think that, if memory serves me correct, when you were in your first term, we had kind of a view of Park and Rec as almost like a little committee that sat in a box somewhere. And it kind of like stayed away. Your meetings were always public. But I think we wanted to transition to have you and your team be more of ambassadors, so to speak, and reach out to the community. And that was our vision. can you give us a little feedback about did we make the right move move to shift towards that model and do you feel it's paying us benefits by doing that i i think i i heard that in your last statement but i i just want to get some feedback because i think we made the right choice but i'd like to hear it from you yeah um so where we feel like

I think that is part of where the committee feels most useful and engaged. And because at those events, they're able to interact and have conversations with residents. Now, we do all get resident feedback and bring it. when people have concerns. But allowing us to be out there brought in additional engagement, right? And then we felt, too, the change with really getting that resident feedback was making then the best decisions for the neighborhood communities So in the past, a park may have been brought to us, and we didn't feel as strongly that maybe we had all the information to make those recommendations to you guys.

OK, great. Thank you. well i appreciate your your service i think the council shares that and one of things i don't think we brought out when uh... we had senior committee is that these are great opportunities for springboard for people who volunteered to just keep adding to their public service uh... under call up one of Christian and I's neighbors, Mr. Kleinfelter, who is in our neighborhood, he was on the senior committee and he's just said, this is such a great opportunity and now he's on park and rec. So thank you for that great work. It just keeps weaving the net that we have in Victoria tighter and tighter to make our community a better place to live. So thanks for that.

Thank you. Well said, Council Member Ivansky. With that, I will entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the 2026 Parks and Recreation Committee work plan.

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. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda, item 6.3, our 2026 Planning Commission Annual Work Plan and Year-End Review. And presenting on that is our Planning Commission Chair, Ben Sikora. Mr. Sikora, welcome.

Thank you. Mayor, members of the council, staff. Thanks for the opportunity tonight to give you a little bit about what we've done in the last year and the plan for next year. So as you well know, we've had quite a few meetings, 19 in fact, over the last year. 17 of those had public hearings. We've had 37 land use applications and reviewed over 20 ordinances, or 20 ordinances including rezoning and zoning code review sections. We've reviewed central business district standards, including, of course, downtown west. And we've continued to review proposals and provide support for priority development areas such as downtown west and the south growth commercial area. And an overall review of our zoning code overhaul, which has been a little bit at a time over a long time. But I think we're getting pretty close to having that wrapped up. Just a comment on so far through 26 and back to 25 and earlier, I would just point out that we have courageous and hard-working staff that prepares for our meetings with us and materials that we can look at and make good decisions on and digest information. It's a lot of information, a lot of codes to sort through and a lot of different people to please, I would say, in those materials. So they do a great job providing that for us as they do, I think, for you as well. So just a shout out to the staff there. As we look forward to our work plan for 26 and 7, as you can kind of see here, same bullets I've got, that we're looking to cover these seven critical areas in the plan, which isn't really different than the past, except for the addition of the 2050 comprehensive plan cycle. Rewrites that's coming up, but continuing and finishing off the zoning code overhaul. Um, again, we're recommending and review bodies. So providing the recommendations to council on, uh, on all, um, you know, land use applications, zoning code, um, ordinance additions and amendments to the central business district. also attending some training opportunities when they present itself and Continue to support the priority projects of the city as directed by Council, so I think it's pretty pretty familiar happy to stand for Questions, and I think if the list is acceptable Our Commission recommends to the council as our recommending body that the City Council adopt the work plan as prepared by our city staff and Presented tonight very good.

Thank you. Mr. Sikora council questions comments

I would just have one what can we do better?

What can the staff or the council provide you to make your job easier or clearer or And it I don't want to put you on the spot But if you come up with something you can obviously tell me at a different date, but what I think I think our Planning Commission is Hungry and capable and if there's things that City Council feels there have overwhelmed with put us in coach, you know, so

Very good. You guys do just about as many meetings as the city council does every year.

Close.

Yeah.

We get to cancel a few more.

Yeah. Got it. All right. Any other questions, comments? Again, on behalf of the council, thank you for your good work. Thank you to the members of the planning commission who, we always say, do that heavy lifting for us, dig into those codes and those details and provide great recommendation to the council. So thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

All right. With that, I will entertain a motion.

Make a motion to approve the 2026 Planning Commission annual work plan and year-end review. 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.

Any opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our agenda, item 6.4, is a public hearing related to an interim use permit request for Vic's Bar and Grill for outdoor dining. Presenting on that item this evening is our Community and Economic Development Director, Jen Brewington. Miss Brewington, welcome.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the council. So, before we review tonight's application, I just want to provide some context on our outdoor dining program and the purpose behind it. So the outdoor dining program evolved from the success of eat street initiative that began during the coven 19 pandemic. Based on the positive response from the business in the community, the city developed a formal program to continue supporting outdoor dining. The reason this program is before you tonight is that the city wanted to formalize the approval process. In the past, these requests were reviewed administratively by staff, and this just moves us to an interim use permit process to provide greater transparency, allowing the city to establish conditions of the approval. So tonight Vicks Bar and Grill is requesting approval to use four public parking spaces for seasonal outdoor patio dining. Staff has reviewed the proposed layout, including the required barriers and safety measures to ensure it meets public safety and ADA accessibility standards. Interim use permit allows the property to be used for a temporary purpose that isn't intended to be permanent. The use must comply with city zoning regulations and the city can establish conditions to ensure it operates and minimizes impacts on surrounding properties. Because it's temporary, the permit expires each year and must be renewed, giving the city an opportunity to review the use and address any concerns before allowing continues. The public hearing provides neighboring residents, property owners an opportunity to review the proposal and share any comments or concerns. And with that, I can stand for any questions and I have a sample motion on the screen.

Very good, thank you, Ms. Brewington. This is a public hearing for the proposed interim use permit request for Vicks Bar and Grill for outdoor dining. I will now open the public hearing for this item only. If there is anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please approach the podium now. I will ask a second time if there is anyone who would like to speak to the permit request for Vicks Bar and Grill for outdoor dining.

and one last time see no one i will now close the public hearing and open the floor for council discussion council questions comments on this i have one i'm not sure how to approach it and i think it comes down to the fact that i went through and read the entire packet uh... and i just wanna make sure we're not approving something that we shouldn't necessarily approve the applicant for this to my knowledge OWNS THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR TO VIX. AND THEN THERE'S OTHER OWNER INFORMATION THAT'S INCLUDED WITHIN THE APPLICATION. ARE WE AGREEING TO SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST THESE FOUR SPOTS? ARE WE OPENING UP OTHER EAT STREET TYPE OF OPTIONS BY APPROVING THIS WITH THAT APPLICANT?

Okay, thank you, Council Member Pedersen. Ms. Hardy, will you address that, please?

Thank you, Mayor, Council Member Pedersen, members of the council. There's no concern here from a staff perspective on approving something that you shouldn't. It's pretty straightforward, although I do understand where the concern is coming from in that application. So because of the change in ownership with VIX recently, the owner is out of state. And so they are leveraging assistance from a local business owner next door to them to provide some assistance. So to staff's knowledge, it's nothing further than that, just providing the assistance and being that local contact. It is for those four spots, and the city staff are not aware of any additional requests at this time.

So nothing has changed from the past?

That is correct.

Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Hardy. Thank you. Council Member Rafe, any other questions?

No. Good question by Council Member Patterson. So the only thing that changed is in the applicant form itself, right, with the name?

Members of the council, yes, that is correct.

Thank you.

Very good.

Any other questions, comments?

I just have one. Excuse me, sorry. I wonder if we... On a grander scale, I guess, for lack of a better word, always the hard part with this is I love that they have the ability to have the outdoor seating and stuff, but obviously it takes away four parking spots in our downtown. What is the appetite for looking at what we can do, whether it's on the street in front, during certain hours or whatever, do you close, you know, right in front there. So that's more of a pedestrian area. Um, you know, obviously that affects traffic. I don't know, but I'm just, you know, uh, parking is a hot button topic. So, um, and again, I, I love that they're able to have outdoor seating there. Um, but it's four spots obviously in a hot bed area. So, yeah.

That does not go unnoticed but I always feel like this is a time of the year when it's nice outside, people are more willing to walk a little bit further and Minnesotans love to eat outside in the summertime and anything that we can do to help facilitate that I think is a reasonable request and to the point that it's lovely out. Take a walk down beautiful downtown Victoria.

that's that's that's your views on this marriage there certainly we've uh... anybody's dying to fix in the summertime uh... it's time downtown this is the you i'd personally Walk from my house, which is over a mile away, to patronize our establishments and see that certainly with, as you point out frequently, it is cabin season, so at times we don't have the parking demands in summer downtown. This is a great way to just enhance community. I don't really see that. there's an observable parking problem from this activity. We've done it for now is going on in six years. Um, and it, uh, it just gets, gets Victorians out in, like you said, the beautiful town. I, I, I'm a hundred percent aligned with, uh, passing this resolution. Yeah.

And I just want to be clear. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't do it. I was just saying, it's thinking about other opportunities of, more businesses having. So I just want to make it sure I'm clear that I wasn't saying that it's not a good thing to have outdoor seating. Got it.

All right. Any other questions or comments? If not, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution approving the interim use permit for Vic's Bar and Grill for outdoor dining subject to the conditions outlined by the City Council.

Thank you. Council Member Evanski, can we get a second? Second. Let's give that second to Council Member Roberts. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on the agenda this evening is item 6.5. It's also a public hearing for a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar and Grill at 1758 Arboretum Boulevard. Presenting on this item again this evening is, again, Community and Economic Development Director Jen Brewington. Ms. Brewington, take it away.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. So tonight we are here for a temporary noise permit. At the June 8th, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council approved an amendment to Chapter 12, Article 2, establishing a temporary noise permit process. The amendments provide a clear process for those requesting outdoor music that's amplified beyond the 10 p.m. while balancing economic activity and the quality of life nearby residents. The temporary noise permit process establishes 10 p.m. as the standard ending time for outdoor amplified music within the central business district. Businesses or organizations seeking to extend amplified music beyond that time must apply for a temporary noise permit. Each request is reviewed individually through a public hearing and requires city council approval, providing flexibility for special events while ensuring the transparency and consideration for potential impacts on nearby residents. Floyd's Bar has submitted for a temporary noise permit application requesting approval to extend outdoor amplified music until 11 p.m. on the six states listed on the screen during July and August.

And with that, I have a sample motion. You can stand for any questions. Very good, thank you. This is a public hearing for the proposed motion. This is a public hearing related to the motion for a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar. I will now open the public hearing. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item, please approach the podium. Mr. Roebling. Can you come to the podium? State your name and address for the record, please.

My name is James Roebling, 8026 Victoria Drive. Actually, there's two things I wanna, it's 10 o'clock. They played until quarter after 11 last Saturday. So I don't know who's going to watch that or listen to that. But the music didn't get too bad until like quarter to 11 last Saturday. Then it just cranked up until quarter after, 10 after. So the music is much better than what it was for noise-wise. But is there another issue about the motorcycles that leave there, that bar, on Sundays and after the bar closes or whatever? Sundays, I cannot be outside at my residence. It is super loud, the cycles. And I don't know, it's nothing that Floyd's can do about, but somebody has to do something with the noise in town. I mean, you guys are welcome to come in my driveway on Sunday to sit in there and listen to them bikes. It's terrible. So, I mean, that's all I have, so.

All right, thank you, Mr. Roebling. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this item, please? Can you state your name and address for the record, please?

Good evening. I'm Wayne Kesty, and my address is 7980 Rose Street, number 306 in the Rose development. Excuse me. We've been in the community for about a year and love everything that Victoria has done. We had experience with Victoria about 10 years ago and lived in the Exhaust area and have been very happy with the experience that we've had. When it comes to Floyd's, we understand the challenge when you're trying to expand your community and offerings and provide balance, especially for businesses that have been long staples in the community. I'd say the challenge with Floyd's is really the proximity as it pertains to the downtown district. And as was previously mentioned, we were excited to see the June 4th change because it sounds like that's been a challenge for a while, having clear definition around you know, hours of operation, and again, recognizing the change that's been happening within the community. Unfortunately, we've not seen any change being across the street from the development, from Floyd's. We've had to unfortunately report several times to the Carver County Sheriff's Department, and were instructed so by the city staff to make sure that there was an awareness that there was a violation that's been occurring since the new policy went into effect, I believe on the June 4th date. So I would just say, from our perspective, not seen any change from a business practice perspective with the new adopted rules. And I would say anything the city does, the city council does, just recognize what's happening from a business practice perspective. And I think that should have an impact and bearing in terms of what additional flexibilities provide to Floyd's.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this item this evening? Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this item this evening? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and open this for council discussion. Council, questions, comments?

Well, I'll just start with... you know we we've heard residents speak tonight we've also uh... throughout time have had uh... email commentary delivered to us council members about that the noise levels at floyd the time the uh... the sheriff's been out for enforcement so i think it points to what we've heard tonight that uh... the noise was actually beyond what our current statue losses it was so essentially past ten o'clock this past weekend would put them in a position of non-compliance. It's disheartening to hear that on the opinion of residents that the noise was even louder. I certainly will take that at face value. That's certainly not something that would be part of an administrative record. However, the reality is that we want Floyd's to be a good neighbor and this is one of the reasons why we had to engage in an ordinance in the first place and sort of make this a show of good faith by following the rules before we start to extend the hours at which noise is permitted to. So we're essentially being asked to grant a permit to go an hour long than what's been existing. What has been the rules in place have not been satisfactorily adhered to. I don't have an opposition to the The permit in general, what I would like to make a recommendation for us council members is to modify the times requested down to 1030 from 11 and with an examination of every one of the requested dates if there's compliance to this earlier time period on noise and we don't have a violation. then I think it begs the question of like, all right, if you've demonstrated that you could adhere with that, then we might look to expand to later hours. But at the onset, I think we would be remiss if we don't address what's taken place in the past and use that as potentially prologue for the future. So my recommendation is, would be that if we grant the noise permit that we reduce the hours from amplified music to be allowed until 10.30 p.m. on the dates that are in the request.

Okay, Council Member Evanski, you're kind of going down a similar path to what I was thinking. But we know that they have willfully and purposefully went past the time with the knowledge that they were doing it. And so I'm wondering, and I'm going to look to Council here to see if it's possible that if we approve these temporary noise permits and they exceed the 11 p.m. Can we pull back the remaining noise permits?

Yeah, Mayor and Council, the very short answer is yes. Of course, I can't stop there. But the short answer is yes, you could do that. You could grant the permits for multiple different events, multiple different nights. You have the nights here in front of you. And then in the event the permit was violated, revoke or modify the permit in response to the violation of the permit. that the back story and all that is of course cities don't have to allow outdoor amplified music at all and so you are doing it and we've talked in the past but how you're trying to balance the interests of one or maybe a couple of uh... of uh... eating drinking establishments that have had music historically with folks uh... more and more living in your downtown and so it's that's a hard issue to resolve and you're doing your best to make reasonable compromises between those positions and you know ultimately the city doesn't have to allow this at all and you're trying to make a compromise and so yes you could grant the permits in the event there is a violation pull back on those permits.

So, I mean, I'm a little torn because, I mean, and I think we're all in agreement, right? Like, we want our businesses to succeed. We want residents and people from out of the city to come enjoy our downtown. And obviously, music at Floyd's helps with that, right? Like, people come to see the music. But as you said, right, they've willfully and knowingly violated... noise ordinances multiple times. And I mean, from the sounds of it, it was even past 11 the other night. And so I don't think they have a leg to stand on from a trustworthy standpoint of will they even stop at 11. I am leaning towards Councilman Buravansky's idea or whether it's, I could see whether it's saying 10.30 at first, and if you can abide by that, then maybe we make it go to 11 next time. There was a time, I don't know how many years ago now it was, but music used to be once a month at Floyd's, and now it's every night on the weekend. That's, I think, part of the issue. Maybe if it was once a month, it would be fine, but it's... every night on the weekend, if it's nice out, you can't have your windows open because people, I mean, I can hear it all the way at the Woodlands at times. I just, all we've asked is to be good neighbors, and they really haven't chose to do that. Where they've told deputies, well, we're just gonna play till 11, when they've been cited. I don't know how they can come to us with a straight face and ask for something more than what they, I mean, I was just up north at a cabin, and across the street was a restaurant bar, and they had music, outdoor music, from six to 10, and we were sitting out listening to it in, because we could hear it from our cabin, and one of the people we were with were like, oh, they're done at 10, and I said, I bet you they have a noise ordinance. And guess what? They ended at 10. So instead of going to 11, start at 6, right? I've heard from numerous residents that have said half the time they don't start till 8 or 9. Well, yeah, if you don't start till 8 or 9, you're going to want to go to 11. People are going to come at 6 to listen to music. Go to 6 to 10. You got four hours of music. That's not a problem. So I... I'm not in favor of batch doing a month worth of, or whatever it is, two weeks, whatever this is, what, 17th of the first, so almost a month. I'm not for just giving them a month worth of 11 o'clock when they haven't shown that they're doing this in good faith. So whether it's reducing it to 10.30 or saying you get one weekend, out of a month and then the rest is 10.

I would agree with a lot what's been said. I think it doesn't seem to be a two-way street on the partnership perspective. We're trying to flex. And I don't think they're listening to those flexible options. And we'll continue to do this. So we all love Floyd's. We love bringing people to Victoria. But I think we have to modify this at some point. I'm open to each modification. I just think it would not be in our best interest to grant all these things just in a batch format.

I would have one question for you, Bob. Is it possible for us to make an addendum to the temporary noise permit to 1030 as opposed to 11? Or is all the paperwork already filled out that it's going to be 11? So we could do 1030.

Yeah, no, Mayor, Council, I mean, I'm sitting here just trying to triangulate my way to the answer that it sounds like you're all headed toward. It would be fine to say we're granting the permit for Friday, July 17th to 1030. and we're granting the Saturday, July 18th, conditioned upon compliance with the Friday requirements. The Saturday will be until 11, and then we're granting the next Saturday, the 25th, conditioned upon compliance with the prior, or the Friday, the 24th, you know, you could make these sequential and conditioned upon compliance with the prior, and if you wanted to have sort of a test case at 10.30 and then let the next one be 11 if they comply with 10.30, or whatever, I mean, again, I'm trying to triangulate, but That's all perfectly fine. Could it be viewed by the applicant as a partial denial? Yeah, it could be, but that's okay. You have the right to do that. You've had a hearing here. You've had evidence that there's been a noncompliance and prior noncompliances before that, and so that's a basis to impose some limitations beyond what the applicant has asked for. So you're on solid ground on doing that.

Thank you. me that was my biggest concern with this was it is new they planned they have bands that are all coming out there and there was no way for them to get temporary noise permits for the past ever couple weeks or whatever it was so you know i'm i'm always about well let's slide into this but it seems that it was pretty um... blunts and just not adhering to the ordinances, so I'm open to a modification.

Okay. After discussion, I will entertain a motion.

Can I ask two questions? So one won't have any bearing on this, but there was a comment made about the noise of motorcycles and I don't, I mean, I don't know from, right, like you a lot of times in cities see, right, like we enforce, you know, I guess what can our deputies, if anything, do, you know, if there happen to be near Floyd's and, you know, they're, I guess, rubbing, I mean, I don't know if there's anything that can really be done or not to that. I mean, can you answer that?

I assume you're directing that to me.

Yes. Or attorney fellows, whoever's best suited to.

Ms. Hardy, you want to take a crack at that one? I could take a crack. Council Member Roberts, mayor, members of the council. I think what I would want to do is take this back to the sheriff's office administration and then our sergeant and just brainstorm some ideas. I mean, if there's a specific, sounds like Sundays, is there a specific time? Is it in the morning?

Noon-ish.

Noon-ish. and it seems to be pretty regular. So we can certainly see if there's some additional things that we can do just to get eyes on and then we could probably brainstorm some potential solutions from there if they exist.

Thank you. And then my only other, I guess, comment as we're trying to think of how we want to modify this is is the 1030 modification enough, but then that's still basically allowing them to do every weekend, whether it's 10.30 until 11. This is where I go back to one night in a month, or two nights, let's say one weekend, so Friday and Saturday in a month at 11 o'clock is probably fine, but as you get, if we start approving a whole month's worth at 11, even if they are compliant and stopping at 11, or they stop at 10.30 initially, and then we say, okay, now you can have 11, and they stop at 11. That's still getting late for that loud noise for our residents. So I guess that kind of is where this comes back, is that it's The problem was is they were loud after 10. We had to change our ordinance so that they have to give us, well, if we're just gonna keep giving it to them, then it's no different than what it was before. So I guess I'm.

I hear what you're saying, and I think, Ms. Brewington, can you, I think at one point as we were developing this ordinance, we talked about was there a top number of times that they could request this? Does it say in the ordinance or did we decide no? Because we had the discretion that we could grant it or not grant it. There wasn't a limit on the number of times.

Okay. Mayor, members of the council, just to jump in there. So they did, their application does request through September, but based on your discussion, you wanted it packaged. in like month increments. So that's what staff's brought to you. So they have paid for those first $50 fee times whatever the number is. So that's what's brought forward. We will collect the fee for whatever is after August. So we do expect them to move forward with probably one, maybe two more applications. So we'll have one or two more public hearings potentially. Okay.

So from my perspective, the 11 o'clock on these weekend days doesn't give me as much heartburn as the willful extension past the 11 o'clock deadline. So I'm going to look to Bob for some help here, but I'm going to make a motion that we approve a temporary noise permit for Floyd's Bar to allow outdoor music until 11 p.m., subject to the conditions of approval on Friday, July 17th. Should they violate or get a citation on the July 17th, the balance of those dates would be canceled. Their noise permit would be canceled. Is that clear at what I'm saying here?

Yeah, Mayor, my only comment about that, that all makes sense to me. I think what we're trying to accomplish here is if we didn't say anything about you need to comply on the first date or else you don't get the other dates, what we're trying to say there is that the issue of revoking the permit doesn't have to come back to the city council for another city council hearing and a vote to revoke. We want that to be easier to administer than having to come back to the council. And so I guess the only thing I would say about that is I don't know if you want the threshold to be literally a citation by the sheriff's department as opposed to just the observance by a city official that they didn't comply. I mean, it seems to me that expecting the public to come back to you and report that there is still music going at 1115, that's not a very elegant way to do it. I mean, it seems to me that a city official can just be charged with whether it's a sheriff's deputy that says, yeah, I heard I'm still playing, or a city staff person, or you as council members, if we know that they've played past the time, then I think that should be enough for the staff, and I'd suggest your manager would be the one that you empower to make the decision that, yep, the rest of them are canceled because you didn't comply. So that's my only caveat on what you said and I think I'm just I'm just sort of putting a bow on what you already Said so and I appreciate that.

Yeah, you know you paid a lot of money for that degree.

Yeah, that's right.

Yeah So so so that is my that is my motion And And does council all understand that motion yes, yes, okay, so we have a motion can I get a second I?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Motion carries. Council Member Roberts dissenting. With an audible nay. Yes.

Mayor, before you move on, just a clarification. Based on what Attorney Bose mentioned, with that revocation, is that something that you're? did that motion include giving me the authority to do the revocation?

To revoke the balance of those permits.

Well I'm sad everybody left but I mean I think part of the problem is we've asked for mitigation that hasn't worked so we're trying to go with awareness and so far our transition into the awareness hasn't worked so this is kind of like the final straw you will You will adhere to that 11 o'clock cutoff time or else you're gonna lose all these others I think it's a fair fair shake for more than fair Anyway, all right very good just as a comment to close this out I

I think that I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm going to suspect that my other council members have been in an establishment that has had music, that has served alcoholic beverages, and it always seems that the band makes a commentary to the patrons, please tip your waitresses and bartenders. When we bring this back to... Floyd's about how we've modified it It would be neighborly for them to also have their band say, you know on your way out Please respect our neighbors do not run your motorcycles at full blast as you're leaving the establishment Think about if this was your house, how would you feel? I think that that's a reasonable request to ask of our neighbors to Floyd's to ask their patrons to do that well stated All right anything else on this item?

Do we have vehicle noise ordinances in the city? Are they enforceable?

We do.

Yeah, Mayor and Council, of course, I didn't think to look at that. My recollection, vague though it may be, IS THAT THE ANSWER IS YES. I THINK YOU DO. AND I THINK THERE WOULD BE OTHER LAW THAT WOULD APPLY ANYWAY. I WOULD JUST SAY, YOU HAD A LITTLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT EARLIER. IT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT ISSUE TO ADDRESS THAN ON CAMPUS ON SITE NOISE MAKING THAT YOU CLEARLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIMIT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT IN THE SENSE THAT THESE ARE PATRONS, NOT THE ESTABLISHMENT MAKING THE NOISE AND OFTEN THE NOISES ARE BEING MADE ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, NOT ON THE The bars, premises, and so it's a little tougher, I think, to get to enforcement. But, yeah, I think the short answer, again, is yes, I think you do have some limits on vehicle noise.

It sounds like you're talking to the sergeant. I'd recommend it.

Yep, yep.

Anyway, thank you.

All right. Last call for any other on this item? All right, moving on. Next on the agenda, item 6.6, which is a public hearing related to the proposed modification to TIF district number 1-9. And co-presenting on this item are Community and Economic Development Director Jen Brewington and Managing Director for Northland Securities Tammy Omdahl. And I'm assuming, Ms. Brewington, you're gonna kick us off here. Yes, Mayor and Council, thank you very much.

All right, so before discussing the proposed amendment, I wanted to provide a little background on Tiff District one nine and why it was originally established. So Tiff District one nine was created to support redevelopment and reinvestment in downtown Victoria. The project transformed the former later well property into a mixed use development with residential and commercial space. TIF allows the city to use the increment in future property tax revenues from new development to help fund eligible redevelopment costs. And the proposed amendment updates the TIF plan to align with future redevelopment opportunities and future downtown investment. This map shows the existing and proposed TIF district, which includes 15 parcels and nine buildings. The city hired LHB to evaluate the district to determine whether it meets statutory requirements for designation as a redevelopment district. As required by Minnesota law, they inspected the properties and confirmed the district qualifies because it meets statutory requirements for both building coverage and the number of structurally substandard buildings within the district. This amendment is needed to update the existing TIF plan so it can support current redevelopment opportunities in downtown Victoria. It expands the district to include additional qualifying properties, allowing the city to assist with eligible redevelopment costs where private investment alone may not be sufficient. The amendment also provides a funding source for municipal parking improvements that support redevelopment projects and helps continue implementation of the city's long-term vision for downtown growth. I do want to note that there is no active projects and this is only to expand the district. The proposed amendment makes several updates to the existing TIF plan, including the expansion of boundaries of TIF District 1-9, modification of the anticipated redevelopment activities within the district, updates to the project uses of tax increment revenues, and revisions to the financial projections associated with the district. I do want to just take a quick moment here to highlight the public benefits of the TIF amendment. One of the primary benefits of TIF is that it encourages private investment in redevelopment projects that may not otherwise be financially feasible. As redevelopment occurs, property values increase, which expands the city's tax base over time. I am now going to pass it over to Tammy Omdahl for her slides. Ms. Omdahl, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Council. Tammy Umdahl with Northland Securities serving as advisor to the city. I just have a few slides on the financial considerations related to the modification. The first one, the approval of the modification will provide the opportunity for the city to consider the use of the additional tax increment that is projected to be generated. And I will have a slide in a moment on those amounts. but I want to emphasize opportunity. You could approve the modification tonight. You get to, and if you don't act, and I'm going to have some dates, year 15 after the Roars TIF district PAYGO note is satisfied, the council could determine to decertify the district at that point. So the approval of this modification, I'm going to say that again, provides the opportunity, but not the requirement that you use that tool. The last point, and Jen noted this in her comment, the city does not anticipate at this time entering into any additional agreements with private developers where you would be using tax increment to support redevelopment. The focus is on the public infrastructure, specifically parking facilities in that area. If you go to the next slide, and these amounts are small, but let me highlight for you, and I'd also note those subtotal are for each. So years 1 through 15, and I'll read these numbers. So the future value just from the ROARS development, so if you did nothing with the expansion based upon the original adopted TIF plan, is about $5 million of increment generated between year 1 and 15. This district has started the clock on it because increment has been generated in today's dollars. That $5 million is worth about $3.75 million. That's just ROARS. With the expansion, and I want to emphasize, these are estimates. We are modeling out projected future development within the boundaries that Jen had up on the expanded boundaries of TIF 1-9 to estimate the future tax increment that would be generated. Based upon certain assumptions for phasing of that development when it may occur, we estimate that the tax increment from projected future development within the expansion area between years one and 15 at approximately 9.4 million future value collected over those years 1 through 15 of the TIF district. In today's dollars, at a 4% rate, and we use the city's borrowing cost, that's worth about $6.5 million. So in the first 15 years, the total projected increment to be generated is approximately $14.5 million. In today's dollars, that's about $10.25 million. The expansion... going out the full 26 years, a redevelopment district, and your adopted TIP plan, the original one and the modified, provides for 26 years of increment collection. The ROARS development, which is in the original plan, is projected to generate in year 16 through 26 approximately $6 million. The additional expanded area and the projected redevelopment within that area, another 12.7 million, so a total of $18.7 million in years 16 through 26. In today's dollars, that's worth about 8.3 million as far as what costs it could fund. And then if you add those together over the full 26 years of that district, the total tax increment to be generated, $33.2 million over 26 years. And that says total tax increment years 1 through 15. That is a typo. It's year 26 years, 1 through 26 years. In today's dollars, that's about $18.5 million. So I want to emphasize, this modification is intended to capture that additional tax increment to be generated from the ROARS development in years 16 through 26 and to capture new development in the expanded area for the full 26 years. You have to do the modification in order to capture this, because you may ask me, well, Tammy, we already approved this district for 26 years. Why are we having to go through this? The area was just the ROARS development that was approved. You approve both a geographic area and you approve a budget. This modification expands the geographic area and increases the budget. So the financial considerations, if you can go to the next slide, Jen. You have, and there's a date specific under statute, you have until April 16th, 2029 to obligate that increment that is not already obligated to ROARS and the tax increment financing note that has been issued. So tonight, you are not making a decision to use these dollars, you are making a decision to approve a plan that provides the framework for you to consider that at a future date. Waiting until closer to that date as far as use of those funds for let's just say parking facilities Allows that projected development in the expanded area to actually get built and to begin to generate increment to validate the assumptions These are estimates only and I would note and one of the questions are the sub bullet points here as far as risk and IF THE CITY WERE TO ISSUE BONDS AND PLUDGE FUTURE TAX INCREMENT FROM THIS DISTRICT, THE EXPANDED AREA, THE CITY DOES ASSUME SOME RISK THERE. YOU ASSUME THE RISK THAT FUTURE TAX INCREMENT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO REPAY THOSE BONDS. THAT'S WHY WAITING UNTIL DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY HAPPENS AND IT'S GENERATING ITS VALUE TAXES HELPS TO REDUCE THAT RISK FOR YOU. Issuing bonds closer to that April 16th if you decide to do that or or the council at that point decides to do that Is an option but there's still risk even if there are buildings up and it's generating increment state law could change as far as increment values could drop so a council will have to make that determination and pledging that future tax increment so issuance of the bonds does not create the risk because should tax increment or does create the risk because if it's not sufficient those are general obligation bonds and the city is on the hook for making those payments is my point With respect to tonight, in order for you to modify the boundaries and the TIP plan, it does require a public hearing. I would note another requirement is that the county commissioner and the school and the county auditor's office were notified and the county and school are provided a copy of the plan. I did receive an email from the county, not with a recommendation, clarification on the parcels. For the public record, I want to note that they did comment to just clarify on the parcels to be included in the expanded area. No comments beyond that. And it was from the staff. With that, there is a sample motion, and, Jen, I might turn it over to you. And it's in your packet, and that motion is to adopt that resolution approving the modified and restated tax increment financing plan for TIP District 1-9. Mayor, before I take my seat, I would be happy to answer any questions if you want to take questions at this time.

Yes, please. I do have a question for you, Tammy. So we know that the assumptions and the values are based on today's. assumptions and values. If we don't obligate these funds until closer to that 2029 date, at that point in time, do you undertake a new valuation of those properties once they've been identified, or is the valuation that you use kind of the one we go with?

Great question. So the valuation that was used for the modified TIF plan that is before you that becomes a not to exceed amount so that becomes effectively the budget you could determine to use less of that increment but let's just say it's the reverse mayor let's just say these values we used were low that there's more development that incurs including on parcels that were not anticipated and it generates more increment You are not able to capture that increment because you are limited by the budget that is in the adopted TIF plan. For that reason, we believe in working with staff that we have provided a budget that provides some room for that should those values turn out to be higher. But I want to note that becomes a ceiling. becomes the budget for it, and you would not be able to modify that after that date that I referenced in 2029.

Okay, but up till that time, if we found that valuations were higher than we expected, if we, before that date, can we change that budget, if you will?

You could. You would have to go through the full process again to do a full modification, public hearings. And in that case, you would not be amending the boundaries. You would be amending the budget, the projected tax increment and use of those dollars. Okay, got it.

And then if we feel that the money, that your valuations are high, that's the top. So we could probably ask you to go through that exercise and say, these aren't as high as we had projected they would be. Okay. create a new budget, but that one is a not to exceed budget.

I would say that's slightly different. The answer to your question is yes, but before actually planning to obligate or issue bonds to be supported by those TIF, the city would undertake an estimate of what do we really, now that the buildings are up, what do we project would be available for tax increment to support those bonds.

Okay, got it. Council, other questions for Ms. Omdahl?

I do. So what we're principally talking about is expanding the size of the district. And then the valuations of that district are determined as of the point of this adoption, correct?

That is correct. So the estimated values and more importantly the taxes generated off of that value and available to be captured within the district.

And then just I'll divert to the converse I think of the valuation because I believe you heard that I heard that this is sort of like max tax so to speak. If property values decline are we still have that district size to the what was now an overvalued sizing or does the statute then ratchet those values down in the event that there's a decline in purpose?

It does not ratchet them down. So a TIF plan, in order to prepare it, you have to make all TIF plans some assumptions on how much in taxes will be generated. So that's what's happening here. But let's just say a recession hits for a long period of time and it generates less increment. The difference here is if the city issues an obligation and you're relying on that tax increment, then the city would have to identify other revenue sources to pay your obligation.

Sure.

To date, there is an obligation, but it's to ROARS, and it's pay-go-only, meaning in your example, let's just say the ROARS property, that the valuation would decline during the 15 years that they're known. they may not get repaid the full amount of that TIF pay go note. That's all pursuant to the agreement with them. They assume that risk, that that future increment would be sufficient. If you were to obligate for city purposes, the city would assume that risk.

Okay. And then on, so shifting topics to the question of risk mitigation. I think that you've explained well that there are risks. I think we've had enough experience in some of the other TIF that we have done to have a nexus of what that might be. But we could also mitigate that risk by only in the expanded area using 15 years instead of the full 26, is that correct?

You could, and that'll depend on the project that you're trying to finance. And time is a ticking, meaning the district that, when I say one through 26, the first year of increment was in twenty twenty five i believe so now that clock has started so even if let's just say a few weeks from now a month permits are pulled for development in the expanded area that's two years before that would hit the taxes and you'd get increment you see where i'm going so it's not a full fifteen it starts then but the answer to your question is could you do that yes okay so but the termination date still sits there as we

spend more and more time from this date forward to figuring out when the projects begin and then when they come out and then that remaining time period compresses to say 13 years, 12 years, 11 years, et cetera, correct?

That is correct. Now I would also note that even if you wait closer to it and you're collecting increment from the expanded area, if it gets built and you haven't made any decisions yet, You get to retain that increment until, meaning you may use that for if you had a project, you'd have some cash. So you'd issue less in bonds because you would have cash available from increment that was collected during that time that you were waiting that was not payable to ROARS. ROARS only receives increment off of their property.

Their piece. Okay, thank you.

Good questions. Council, other questions, points of clarification?

I mean, to me, we're expanding it right now for the opportunity to use this money however we choose to do it with the issue of bonds. We aren't actually issuing anything or doing anything right now. This just opens up the war chest and gives us the opportunity to do it down the road. We've spent the money on getting everything put back together with this expanded district. Obviously, to me, it makes sense.

but i'd caution that what seems like an oversimplification we don't get to spend the money on whatever we want we have to have an identified purpose for it that fits within the statute of what we can use tiff for this is this is not a free-for-all we are expanding the district so that we have the ability to reach to other parcels that are semi-contiguous through a collection of rights of way and things like that to create an expanded district that we could capture increment from should we choose to do that. We may say that we don't plan on using this increment at all and let development and property ownership continue on its path. We're just simply saying what we want to do is expand the roars district to include a larger area that we could potentially capture future increment and then from there we can then make decisions about what period of time we want to capture it if we want to mitigate risk we can stay within that first 15 year window if we want to accept more risk and get a lower return on that increment than expanding it out is possible i would agree with both comments council members good

All right. Apologies on my capricious statement of anything we want, but.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Thank you, Ms. Amdahl. I think that's it for right now. Let's open the public hearing. This is a public hearing for the proposed modification to TIF District 1-9, and I will now open this public hearing. If there's anyone who wishes to speak to that item, please approach the podium. I'm gonna ask another time if there's anyone who wishes to speak to this item. And last call for the proposed modification to TIF District 1-9. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. Council, if there are no more comments, I will entertain a motion.

Motion to adopt the resolution approving the modified and restated tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing redevelopment district number one through nine. Roars.

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.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item on our agenda, item 6.7 is a conditional use permit request for illuminated commercial signs for Victoria Orthodontics, located at 7980 Rose Street. Presenting on this item this evening is our associate planner, Travis Brierley. Mr. Brierley, welcome and thank you for your patience this evening.

Aiden, Madam Mayor, City Council. Tonight, there's a couple different permits. The first one that we're looking at is a CUP for Victoria Orthodontics. Specifically, it's for an illuminated commercial sign. This is the same process that we used for Blue Agave just a few weeks ago. The 60-day period that we look at ends August 17th of this year. We did proper notice, including a mailing, and we did a public hearing at the last Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday where there was unanimous recommendation for approval of the CUP by the City Council. Location of the Victoria Orthodontics is at 7980 Rose Street, so it'll be directly behind the Blue Agave site that we previously looked at along Highway 5. The proposed sign is two two-piece signs that would be facing Highway 5. Simply stated, Victoria Orthodontics, the signs are within the dimensional standards of the city code. And then we have proposed conditions. I would like to remind the City Council these proposed conditions are the same as the blue agave resolution that was adopted to include the modifications City Council made during that approval process. The biggest thing in here is that if the sign stops working, any part of it, 30 days, they got to get it corrected, else we can require them to turn the sign off when the business isn't open, making sure that the sign's not on unreasonably and things like that. With that, I do have a proposed motion on the screen and stand for any questions.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Briarley. Council, questions or comments on this?

I had a hard time figuring out where this sign's going. It's facing Highway 5? Or is it facing Rose?

So Blue Agave is the more easterly part facing Highway 5. This is the more westerly. Is that correct, Travis?

Madam Mayor, that is correct. On the screen where the mouse is is where Blue Agave is, where the star is where Victoria Orthodox would be. The sign's going to be facing on the south side of the building facing Highway 5.

Okay. And then they're not going to have a sign facing west?

There is no application for a sign facing west or facing any part of the interior of the parking. This is all parking area. There's no proposals for any signs facing that direction.

Thank you. I just, after watching the planning commission and then going through it here, I still wasn't totally sure where the sign was. So thank you.

All right. Any other questions or comments on this?

Just really quick, Travis. How long is the CUP? Does it have an expiration date that we'd have to renew, or is this perpetual?

Councilmember, conditioners permits are a land use right, so it'll be a land use right that's specific to this business. It's something that came up when we looked at it, making sure that it's written in such a way where Victoria Orthodontics was to replace their sign with something similar that would meet the code. As long as it met the code and wasn't a completely different type of illumination, they would be allowed to do so. But if a new business was to come in and take over, then at that point, a new condition use permit application would be required.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, then I will entertain a motion.

Motion to adopt a resolution granting a conditional use permit for illuminated commercial signs for Victoria Orthodontics located at 7980 Rose Street.

Thank you, 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.

Any opposed? Motion carries and we welcome Victoria Orthodontics.

Amanda mayor and council this is another condition use permit that's been applied for for commercial area sign is for Circle K right now. It's the holiday site, but that's but the holidays been purchased by circle K so it's rebranding Same conditions or same setup as before we did a proper notice 60 days is August 17th for when the city needs to take an action then the Planning Commission held a public hearing last week and unanimously recommended to the council to approve the conditional use permit LIKE I SAID, THE LOCATION IS THE CURRENT HOLIDAY SITE, AND THIS IS PART OF REBRANDING, SO IT'LL BE KITTY CORNER TO FLOYDS, OR KITTY CORNER TO FLOYDS AND KITTY CORNER TO THE ROAD BUILDING. There are a lot of signs with this application. The application does fit with inside our city code, even though there's a number of signs. For the most part, what we're looking for for the illuminated signs would be two illuminated signs being placed on the canopy. Significant change to the sign that currently exists. It says holiday on the main storefront. Backlit signs for the car wash entrance and exit. And then one totem sign, which is the small, it's a small sign about that size on the other side of the building. One sign that is not part of this condition is the sign that has the gas prices on it. Because there's no change in the dimensions or the type of design of that sign, it'll continue to have a legal non-conforming classification to it. As far as the proposed conditions go, same conditions that we looked at with Blue Agave and that were just recently approved with the Victoria Orthodontics, which includes the maintenance and making sure that we're complying with all the code regulations. With that, I have a proposed motion on the screen and stand for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Briley. Council, any questions, comments on this?

Just a quick question for clarity. There are two new signs with this application, correct?

Councilmember, there are two, three, there are six new signs with this application. Six new signs. That would be placed in. One is a replacement of the current sign. The other thing that they're looking to do is the car wash currently doesn't have illuminated signage showing the entrance or exit, which is on the building itself. There's a little totem sign that just says Circle K. It's about a foot and a half by two and a half feet tall that they want to put on the west side of the building, excuse me, the east side of the building. and then you would have a replacement of the current holiday sign above the main entrance to the convenience store of the building, and then you would be requesting to add two illuminated signs to the canopy. One way to kind of visualize what this would look like at the end, this is very similar to what Quick Trip does with their locations, where they have canopy signs that are backlit as well as signs on the building that they light up their airs for their car washes. This is almost the exact same thing.

Very good.

Okay, I guess other council members, my only reservation, and maybe it's not a big one, is that the entrances and the exits to the car washes are not there today. Do they... face residential properties and have we uh... we have a few on whether or not that now that the signs are to be there somebody's me looking out through their front room window and seeing giant red car wash exit if that's the case then would we potentially have that Those signs turned off after the business closes for the evening so that those lights are Illuminating somebody's residential property.

Mr. Riley, please mayor counsel the business is proposed to be operating 24 hours a day So those signs would be on through the night I would like to point out the car washes on the back side of the building where we have one side that does face towards residential properties and the other part faces towards the back of other residential properties and With that being said, one of the conditions that's proposed is that the sign can't be used for illumination of the grounder spaces to illuminate the sign. So there is the option that the city council has to remove this illumination from the conditions permit application or to provide other modifications such as at a certain time the sign has to be turned off or a certain dimming would go to it.

Do you know if they're planning any of those things at this point? If they're planning to turn it off at 10 o'clock at night or considering that this is a 24 hour store, my assumption would be that they would want those on 24 seven.

Madam Mayor, that is my understanding is that they would want them on 24-7. I think the biggest concern with this type of signage for how close it is in proximity to residential would be the intensity of the light. But as I said before, it's within the council's discretion. If they believe there should be a limitation or if there should be language in there that this could be brought back for, well, I guess we can't bring it back for review once it's approved or modified.

Okay, very good.

So I guess the type of light illumination it is, it doesn't shoot out, right? It doesn't light up in front. It's more the sign itself, right?

Correct. Council Member, that's correct. The one thing in here that we have is no light should be plainly visible upon a sidewalk or create a safety hazard for vehicles or be used for an exterior lighting method. That type of language is intentionally put so that the signs turned on to where it's projecting out and say you could read a book underneath that sign light that could be considered too much light if this was to be if the condition is permits to be approved something that the council does have is we can always review the conditions of a condition you permit for compliance with it that is a longer process but it's something that the City Council does hold in its tool bag

I feel like we've got sufficient barriers around here that it's not going to be disruptive to the neighbors. It should not be plainly visible. It can't create a hazard. Those kinds of things.

To my knowledge, the entrance would face up against two garage structures and then the exit would go across their parking lot. I think there's like a six foot fence there and then there would be one to two residences that could, that sign could possibly be an annoyance, but they're also gonna have a backlit sign for on the side of the gas station as well along with the front of it, so I think the exit and entrance signs are probably the least of their worries at this point. Yeah, that would be my thought, just thinking it in my mind's eye.

Yeah, you're correct, Council Member Patterson. There is a big six-foot fence on that one side.

On the exit of the car walkway.

Correct, yeah.

Yeah, I have less reservations about the entrance sign for the reasons you point out, that there's garages and vegetation. While there's a six-foot fence, that sign is well above six feet in the air, so... would not want us to be in a situation where three months from now we have the neighbor across the street with complaints about the exit of the car wash. And you're going to be leaving the car wash. So perhaps we could we make some sort of reservation that if that sign becomes disruptive that we could turn it off at a certain point at night so that people don't have that blasting red exit car wash in their front window.

Madam Mayor, Council, that would be a condition that would need to be in the permit upon approval. It wouldn't be something we'd be able to come back to in the future because that would be modification of the conditions, which we could request, but the Circle K could say no. So if we were looking at doing something with that at a specific time, coming from a staff recommendation, I would take a look at probably 10 o'clock, just to consistently see what our noise ordinance is, and that would still provide an availability during the winter months to have the illumination during reasonable evening hours, but limit the sign from being on later than a lot of people would go to sleep at.

Attorney Bowles, can we put that in as a condition, that should the neighbors find the lighting disruptive,

they have to turn it off at 10 p.m. Yeah, Mayor and Council, I believe you can impose that kind of condition. I guess I'm mindful that you've had a public hearing and the neighbors that would be impacted haven't come and said they're concerned about that. I mean, that's just a fact. Apparently no one came with concerns at the hearing. That said, you're just anticipating, council members anticipating that they may not have appreciated what's going to happen here and they may have complaints later. And I think it's just fine to say you can have this lit, but if people are negatively affected and they go to the trouble of complaining to us about it, then we can restrict the hours that you illuminate that exit sign. I think that's fine.

Good point on the public hearing. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Yes. If not, I would entertain a motion.

I'm sorry, Mayor. Staff, do we feel like we can properly capture our attention here with putting a condition in? Because I think, Travis, where you were weighing in is just maybe for simplistic sake that we make the condition that that sign doesn't be illuminated after 10 p.m., for instance, correct?

Mayor, Council, my proposal would be to do something simple that's easily enforced saying ten o'clock if we want to do that or whatever specific time would be available uh... the other option is a little bit more complicated uh... of saying if we get complaints if we want to put the council would like to put that type of language in as a condition saying that upon receiving complaints the signs turn off at ten o'clock that uh... that's something that can be written and i would just ask that that be part of the motion

All right, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution granting a conditionally used permit for illuminated commercial signs at Circle K, located at 1793 Arboretum Boulevard, subject to amending the permit to allow for language to restrict hours of operation of the exit portal lighting in the event that we are, the city is notified by residents in the neighborhood that such illumination is a nuisance. Mayor and Council, that works well.

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. Any opposed? Motion carries. Who is my second motion? I'm sorry. Council Member Wright. Our final item this evening is item 6.9, which is a request to amend ordinance 490ZC, section 18-9 of the Victoria Zoning Code on Fences. Mr. Briarley, this one also belongs to you, please.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. Tonight we're looking at a single ordinance that involves three zoning text amendments that were brought to separate public hearings with the Planning Commission last Tuesday. In here, what we're looking at is the current zoning code requires that a front yard fence is four feet high. The definition of a front yard within our zoning code is the area between the principal structure and a street. So if you have more than one street adjacent to your property, you have more than one front yard by definition. The three requests can be summarized as wanting to allow for six-foot front yard fences with specific conditions, one being allowance of gates while crossing a driveway plus four feet for the structure to support the gate. If the property is adjacent to a non-residential street, a residential street is what most of us have right in front of our house. Most other streets that don't have homes lined up on it are classified, and there's minor collectors or residential collectors, things like that. Those would fall underneath the non-residential, residential being a specific term in this case. Also, if you're adjacent to a county road with a speed limit at least 40 miles an hour, or adjacent to a residential street that doesn't have driveways between intersections. Some of these do overlap, as we'll see going through the process. This does have a 60-day rule on it for the City Council to take into action, which is August 17th. And then we also probably published a notice for all three zoning tax amendments, and all three zoning tax amendments were recommended from the Planning Commission to the City Council for approval. When we look at the proposed amendment, just to keep it kind of a little bit more simple of how everything's going, uh... when we're looking at that the six-foot rule uh... just simply put when it gets press the driveway could be six feet uh... with the supporting structure the second part of the jason any public street other than residential not to clear and not to include properties adjacent to a county road with a speed limit is less than forty miles per hour to offer that six feet the forty miles per hour within this part is important uh... as it limits the scope of where this orders would apply to And then fences which are adjacent to any public residential street which does not have a driveway between the fence and the nearest intersections in all directions of the street. So the first part that we look at is the gates crossing. I would like to point out that this image that's on here is for illustration only. It is not part of any application that was submitted to the city. With that, this is about a six foot gate going across and it's got some posts on the side. It provides greater privacy. It also creates a sound barrier. The request came from a property along Smithtown Road and the main thing they're looking for is privacy as well as a barrier for sound. They do have an approved fence permit to go around this property, and they're using taller vegetation everywhere, but they don't have the ability to cross the driveway except at four feet at this time because... The next thing that we're looking at is adjacent to non-residential streets as well as to streets that don't have driveways between the intersection. On the top part in the yellow, you'll see that that's our current code, which would allow these properties, this is part of the Madeline Creek development and the Brookmore development. So it gets very limited because the property that's, or the upper property has three front yards, making so that only the yellow could be six feet. The proposal that came in or the zoning tax amendment will be to allow for a six foot fence to be used in what we traditionally call a side yard or a backyard for our properties. So the southern part or the southern or the bottom image shows what this request would expand that area to. I would like to point out that this is only for the height of the fence. So in there, this would back upon a city trail and there is a setback for fences of six and a half feet from those trails. Those would still apply. This is only looking at a height exemption. It was the county road request and the reason that we did 40 miles an hour or more is because we want to make sure that we put it where we want to limit the scope, scale and effect of the ordinance to be specific to what the request was. And when we look at throughout the city where we would see the greatest impacts for county roads, we looked at the part of Victoria Drive between 43 and Highway 5, you have a lot of traditionally residential properties. Having taller fences in the front yard, the reason that they're restricted in the first place was to stop from tunneling or just a general appearance. It also helps with safety as well, especially when you come to intersections or leaving properties and more tightly packed neighborhoods. So with the 40 mile an hour qualifier being in there, the areas shown in red are all 40. The main areas that we would see impacts would be the two properties on Lyman Boulevard, which this request is coming from the property on Lyman Boulevard, as well as along rolling acres between Highway 5 and Highway 7. And then we have some larger parcels to the west of Wasserman Lake. The general part of the rest of the properties either have an outlot, between the residential portion and the county road itself, where that is classified as a rear yard, so they would be able to do a six-foot fence under today's ordinance. This would not affect that right to be done. Additionally, you're looking at much larger parcels that would be developed in the future, or you're looking at commercial space that's unlikely to have significant change in the future. But the biggest thing with looking at all these ordinance is to limit the number of properties affected the size the scale and the scope is very important that instead of creating an overarching or exemption that could potentially Get in the areas that we didn't expect or we didn't see for and create a future problem We want to mitigate that risk the other thing just a reminder. This is just to extend the height It has nothing to do with design. It's nothing to do with placement setbacks or anything like that The other part to this is when we do a review process when the zoning application comes in for offense What we look at is we are looking at intersection sightline distances Staff won't approve a won't approve offense that would go into a spot that would create an issue with safety to other vehicles or pedestrians It's something that We've written into the code already with changes back in 2024. It's something that we would want to continue to do because safety is the utmost important. So if it doesn't make sense to do it and it can't be safely done, staff would deny it. The other thing that we want to look at is other hazards and obstructions. If a taller fence is being placed in such a way where it's going to create an unforeseen hazard or obstruction, we would want to deny that permit as well. We look at fence type. Fence type is also another thing. There's a difference from looking through a chain link fence or a wrought iron fence compared to a privacy fence. So that's very important as part of the application as well when we do the review. The other thing is all fences still need to have a working leg quality. Now during the review process, those are things we look at. But if a fence gets installed or it's deemed later that it does create a hazard or some type of safety issue, then at that point we would go through our code enforcement process to get that corrected.

Is there any, I'm sorry Travis, is there any requirement around the neighbors? Do they get to weigh in on a fence or is this an administrative thing only?

Mayor, Council, this would be completely administrative. Okay. So if there were, underneath the current ordinance, if you'd applied for a fence for your property, we wouldn't go to your neighbors and ask them if it was okay. If you do want to place the fence on the property line, we have a property line authorization form. It's a non-binding form, but its intention is to make sure that neighbors talk to each other about where those property lines are.

Got it. Thank you.

Two things. One, when I'm watching this and we're dictating what can be built along a county road, are we circumventing any sort of county ordinance by allowing six-foot fences where the county would say, no, you can't do that?

Council Member, that's an excellent question. The fences aren't being built on county property. Therefore, they wouldn't have jurisdiction in what is being built there as far as the fences go. And there's no ordinance that I know with the county that regulates fences in residential properties.

Just wanted to make sure that was sticking out. And then this is slightly different, but maybe something that we should consider with the gates. I don't know much about driveway gates, but is there some way we can make sure that they swing in as opposed to swinging out? I feel like swinging out would create all sorts of different issues. And maybe they're all designed to swing in. I don't know. But is there something that we can do to make sure that they all swing in?

Councilmember, that's part of the review process. We look for hazards. If a gate's placed up along the property line and they swing out and, say, create a sightline issue if they're open or if they're crossing over sidewalk or if they're going out into the street, that's definitely a safety hazard that's been created. We would deny that permit. But if the fence is brought in, say, 30 feet into the property, then the gate swinging in or out may not have a necessary effect. So that's part of the overall review of the application.

Fair enough. Those are the only two things, and I know that that's not really part of this application, but something that it seems we've had some fence things come up with our ordinance here, so we've got to go through all these text amendments. I'm wondering if there's a way to ease into it or make it a little bit more comprehensive. So just some ideas.

And mayor counsel, I would like to point out, uh, the zoning or the, the tax amendment that's being presented is an exemption under specific circumstances. Um, so it's not a new part of the code. It just says, here's the maximum height. If you meet or qualify for these. pieces of it, then you'd be allowed to go to six feet. But the number one thing that I think we can all agree on is safety and making sure we don't create a hazard that we have to try to resolve later and getting ahead of that. The biggest part of that is going to be the review process.

Thank you. Thank you. Other comments, questions, counsel?

Yeah, I mean, I'll make a comment that I'm increasingly finding that I don't feel that the use of zoning text amendments to keep dealing with square pegs in round hole situations. Everything that I think we're seeing lately could be handled by our variance process and go through that process and we make a determination as to whether in that instance it's merited or it isn't. So, for example, the gate that you talked about, we could deal with that with a variance. These other instances, I see a compromise to both safety, appearance, and then certainly I'm worried about letting the genie out of the bottle along county roads. It's almost like we're trying to find a problem in search of a solution. So I would be, I think that we can, my view is that we would not adopt this motion and deal with these on a case-by-case basis. Certainly along Obsidian Way, or sorry, Agate, We already have a tight street. We're going to have sight lines reduced by a six-foot fence all the way around it, and then if fencing is consistent with all the other fences that are there, we're just putting up more and more plastic in the city of Victoria. I think that that is... not consistent with what exists throughout the rest of the community and I'm not in favor of Adopting these zoning code text along along that line.

Mr. Briarley. Why? Would none of these situations qualify for a variance or can you say why we wouldn't use a variance or one of the other tools that we have I

Madam Mayor, a variance has very specific qualifications for the City Council to be able to prove it. Underneath the practical difficulties test, we have to identify a plight of the landowner. That has to be a situation that wasn't created or known by the landowner, regardless of if it was a previous landowner or current landowner. prior at the time an ordinance was changed. So when we look at our new developments, and we already have a definition for front yards being between the principal structure and the street, taking the example here, a variance wouldn't qualify because at the time of the purchase of the property, those regulations are already in place. Even with the recent change that we did in 2024, or in the fall of 24 on the ordinance for fences, those conditions still applied. They're still able to put up a fence that's four feet, so doing a variance to make it go to six feet. What we've done at that point is we've said, the code's okay, but it's fine if you have an exception to it instead of a variance to it.

Well, I mean, many of these conditions were known at the time that people were purchasing these parcels and could foresee that. So I feel like we're saying that... We're trying to use this now as a way to get around practical difficulties, which I think that practical difficulties exist for exactly that. We've seen this numerous times where there's features of topography that aren't readily able to be maneuvered because there could be retaining walls, there could be bluffs, et cetera. Those are the things that practical difficulties were designed for it. They weren't designed for giving people everything they want every single time they ask for it. There's other purposes why we've drafted these ordinances over time. They've stood the test of time. And again, I'm saying that I don't feel that in this instance changing our zoning text to accommodate something that would say I'm hearing I don't think I'll pass the practical difficulties test, so let's just amend the rule book. I think that that's contrary to what we're supposed to do here.

Very good.

I guess I would just say that some of the things we have done, the county has done, have also contributed. You think about Lyman, which was previously 82nd Street, was a dirt road that you, right, like now is a 40-mile-an-hour road, which would fit this exception, right? So is that a plight of, so that they could do a, you know, but not all these things are known previously, right? We've developed, we've, road speeds have increased in certain areas because of now what they've become. So some of them...

you know, weren't known when they... Council Member Roberts, I think you nailed it perfectly. That would be something that the practical difficulties test would clear that hurdle, because the landowner had something happen at the view, at the decision of the county, and the city also had a position in creating the roundabout. That is... Exactly why we have the variance provision. And I think that that particular example would meet the practical difficulties tested that were put in front of us and framed that way. So, again, I'm not in favor of making these zoning text amendments when we have the tools in place to deal with some of them.

Can you speak to that? Cause it looked like maybe you disagree.

A fence can still be placed in the front yard. Um, I, I'd have to confirm with the attorney, but I don't believe that saying that a four foot fence at six or seven or a different height in the fence would necessarily qualify for the practical difficulty because you can still place, you can still legally place a fence out front. It just may not be what you want. It'd be, saying that if you wanted a larger accessory structure, just because you want a larger accessory structure because you have one more boat than your neighbor does or something like that, we wouldn't necessarily see that as a practical difficulty. So I would still apply that same logic to a fence, saying just because you want a taller one doesn't mean it's a difficulty because you can still place a four-foot fence out. You can still build a small berm that's two feet high and put a four-foot fence on and get a similar effect.

Okay. All right, other questions, comments, thoughts? So, as I'm thinking through each of these examples, these are challenges that we've got constituents that have. So, they could build a four foot fence, or they could build a two foot berm and put a four foot fence on top of that and get the same thing.

Madam Mayor, that's correct. And they would still need to meet all, making sure they don't create hazards, making sure that they meet the sight line distances, all that type of stuff.

Okay. And then somebody could do a gate across their driveway. They would just need to do a four-foot gate rather than a six-foot gate.

That is correct, Madam Mayor.

And the residential street, they could still do a fence. It would just have to be a four-foot fence rather than a six-foot fence.

That is correct.

So that, so we are, okay. and they could apply for a variance and could be granted a variance based on practical difficulty. Am I correct?

Madam Mayor, if they can demonstrate practical difficulties, correct, they could get a variance.

Okay.

Which sounds like it would be very hard to do.

In some of these cases. All right. Other questions, comments? If not, I will entertain a motion.

Can you put our motion up for us to? Mayor, I apologize. That slide got cut off from our presentation. Okay, no problem.

I have one here. I will make a motion that we adopt Ordinance 490ZC, amending Section 18-9, Fences of the Victoria Zoning Code.

Seconded.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

Motion carries. And does the clerk have the dissension noted?

I do.

Very good. There are no more items to come before the body this evening, so we're moving on to reports and emerging issues. And Attorney Volz, you're up first.

Yeah, Mayor and Council, I think some of you may know, or you may have gotten inkling, a lawsuit has been filed. The Kings Road Neighborhood Group, the group in Chanhassen, budding the city, has filed a lawsuit in relation to the city's preliminary plat approval of the Bell Maple Farm development. You have insurance for those kinds of lawsuits. The League of Cities is your insurer. They have appointed defense counsel in that case. A very, very good lawyer, Paul Revers, and one of his colleagues. Very capable lawyers. I suspect they'll be communicating with you at some point about the case. I just would say it's unfortunate in the sense that, or unusual in the sense that you have not granted a final approval yet. We have not had a final plat. requested yet as I understand it so it's a little unusual to have a lawsuit filed at the preliminary plat stage but of course you've you've gotten a lot of feedback from this group and I think we always anticipated this was possible and so that has occurred and other than that I don't have anything to report here

Thank you, Attorney Vose. Ms. Hardy, anything from staff this evening?

Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council, just to note that our filing period for council candidates opens tomorrow, so Tuesday, July 14th, and runs through July 28th. And there will be two seats available.

Thank you. Any members of the council have anything to add this evening?

None for me, Mayor.

All right. Seeing none, there are no more items to come before the body this evening, so I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

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. Any opposed? Motion carries. We stand adjourned.