Downtown Victoria has needed more parking for a long time, and the City has known it for a long time too. Here's what that actually looked like, in the City's own records:

The City's own July 2026 TIF filing states plainly that new development in the district "is unlikely to occur without the use of tax increments for financing of the City parking facilities for a shared parking solution." That's almost word for word what the February memo proposed, five months, one City workshop, and one more public feedback session earlier.

But the City authorized a much larger ceiling than what was asked. The February memo proposed roughly $4.1 million in available TIF value to build a $3.5 million parking ramp. The plan actually adopted authorizes up to $13,108,738 in total project costs and up to $13.1 million in bonds — a not-to-exceed ceiling, not a firm commitment. The City's financial advisor said the actual amount will be re-estimated before any money is spent, and staff confirmed no active projects, including a parking ramp, are yet tied to this expansion. Bonds have not been issued. Still, of that ceiling, only part is clearly itemized: $1.6 million for land and building acquisition, $1.6 million for site improvements. But $8,882,369, more than two-thirds of the entire authorized ceiling, is categorized only as "other qualifying improvements," with no further public breakdown. No more delays or studies — the taxpayers have spoken. I'll push for a real deadline on downtown parking decisions, a clear public rulebook for how "shared parking" gets divided between existing businesses and new development, and every dollar of a plan like this spelled out plainly.

The City's own rules say the public-comment period, called "Open Forum," can't be used to talk about anything already on the agenda — the very things about to be voted on. For most other items on the agenda, whether you get to speak at all is completely up to the Mayor or a Council vote. There's no guaranteed right to speak on the decisions that matter most. I'll push to guarantee residents a voice on the real decisions in front of Council, not just other topics.

Minnesota law says city business is supposed to get worked out in public meetings, not in private conversations beforehand. Courts have held that a "serial meeting" — officials discussing the same issue one-on-one, or through a chain of emails, until they've built agreement without ever holding a public discussion — can violate the law even if no single conversation does on its own.

Victoria has been down this road before. In 2013, a Carver County court found that a former mayor and three council members violated the Open Meeting Law 38 times, including holding meetings that should have been open to the public. They were fined, but they were not removed from office. The Minnesota Supreme Court's 2018 review addressed only whether they could be removed, and held that removal under the law requires violations proven in three separate rulings. It left the violation findings in place. The City's own training materials for new Council Members still warn them to watch for this exact problem.

Today, the City Manager holds one-on-one briefings with each Council Member before public meetings, and staff sometimes send emails to every Council Member at once on topics headed for a vote — without those emails ever becoming part of the public record. None of that proves anyone is breaking the law. But it's the same shape of practice that surfaced in that earlier case. I'll push to end private briefings and unshared email chains so the real conversation happens where residents can hear it, not after a decision is already lined up.

Builders often pay for their own roads, pipes, and sidewalks. So why is Victoria paying for it instead? Almost every item on the City's meeting agenda comes with a short, plain note on how it's being paid for, even a $34,248.87 utility vehicle purchase (a Toro Workman HDX). The single biggest money decision in one recent meeting, a deal with a private developer, had no such note. The public didn't learn how it was being paid for until six weeks later, in a separate report most residents would never think to look for:

The City even said, in its own report, why it chose this approach: "This interfund loan will remove the debt levy and replace it with a general fund budgeted transfer." In plain terms, instead of taking out a loan that shows up clearly on the books as debt, the City moved money around in a way that's harder for residents to notice. I'll push to require a named funding source, disclosed in public, before the City votes on any development deal.

This isn't a one-time thing. The same move — quietly using one City fund to cover another fund's shortfall — shows up again and again in the City's own 2026 Budget Book:

• New Fire Station: the City borrowed from the sewer savings account to buy the land, then took on $20,905,000 in debt for the building. The Budget Book says this debt is a main reason the City's tax levy is going up 8.96% this year.
• One Neighborhood's Tax Deal (TIF District 1-6): the builder there keeps 75 cents of every extra tax dollar collected, and the City still had to borrow $545,000 from its main account just to keep that deal afloat.
• An Older Loan (2018A Bonds): the City had to borrow money again just to make one loan's timeline match another loan's timeline.

Think of the Water Fund and the Sewer Fund like two separate piggy banks: one is only supposed to pay for water pipes and treatment, the other only for sewer lines. Residents pay into them through their utility bills for exactly that purpose. But twice now, the City has reached into those piggy banks to cover costs that have nothing to do with water or sewer. Neither fund is supposed to work that way — utility bills are supposed to cover utility costs, full stop. I'll push for one public report every year that adds up every tax dollar, loan, and land deal used to help developers, in one place, including money moved out of the water and sewer funds.

It isn't just people who own homes who feel this. When property taxes go up, landlords typically raise rent to cover the difference, and small business owners who rent their storefront see the same thing happen to their lease. So even residents who don't own property, and business owners who lease their space, end up paying for these deals too, just through a higher rent bill instead of a tax bill.

The City's own General Fund Long-Term Financial Plan projects this through 2029:

By the City's own numbers, close to a quarter of every property tax dollar collected goes just to pay off debt — not to police, roads, parks, or anything residents see day to day — and total debt keeps climbing rather than coming down.