Common Council - Regular Meeting

Alright. We're gonna call this meeting to order at 6PM on 03/12/2026. Can we let the record reflect that all common council members are present? Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Allegiance.

We recognize that the City Of The Cross occupies the land of the Ho Chunk people. Please take a moment to celebrate and honor the ancestral Ho Chunk land and their sacred lands of all indigenous people. Thank you. We'll now take a motion for the approval of the minutes of 02/12/2026. Motion made by council president Dickinson, second by council member North Wood.

Any discussion, changes, or corrections? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to reports 260256, financial report from the director of finance for the month of January. Motion to receive and file made by council member Kahlo, second by council member Bedford.

Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to notices discussions. Please, if there are council members that have notices or discussions, click your button. Council president Dickinson.

I just wanted to share that one of my constituents reached out. They were having some questions about something as you would perceive as so simple as a dog, tag, renewal. And, actually, they came to the Treasurer's Office and were very pleased with the service regarding this dog licensure. And that person was Selena Lease, and I wanna thank her personally for being able to satisfy that person's needs and that they bothered to say thank you through myself.

Thank you. Councilmember Goggin.

Thank you, mayor. I have two, if that's okay.

Feel free.

Okay. First one is sun or Saturday, March 7, we had the polar plunge at Black River Beach, and it was a tremendous success. I wanna give a special shout out to Kate Croft for all her extraordinary effort to make this event run so smoothly. Also, the park and rec department, the fantastic job of all of the volunteers, the lacrosse dive team, and, of course, all the plungers. I'm not sure I'm sure I'm missing somebody, but it I've this is my first time I didn't plunge.

I judged. I judged plungers. This wonderful event all benefited the Special Olympics, but it was great music, a lot of camaraderie, and it was just really fun to watch. So thanks again to the Park and Rec department and Cat. And then my second thing is I'd like to make a special mention of a wonderful woman who has lived on her entire life on the North Side moving between District 2 and District 1.

Her name is Shirley Hefty, and she will be turning a 101 years old on March 28. We will be celebrating her, birthday at the Harry Jaelson Senior Center. Seems appropriate. And, I welcome all to come between eleven and 12:30PM on March 18 at our standing Wednesday for lunch. Just a little bit, Shirley still drives, does loves to do crafts, cleans her own home, does yard work when she can. She's a card shark, a valued member of her church, and a great neighbor. And a special shout out to the people on the 1700 Buck Liberty that keep an eye on her. Thank you.

Thank you. I just wanna say I was one of the plungers. This is my first plunge. It was awesome, and it was very cold. And I welcome any council member to join me next year for the polar plunge as I've already asked directors. See no. It was not. Oh, see? No. Very windy. Council member Bedford.

I just wanted to pass along a kudos to our snow removal team here, from the Citizens Committee for the Committee for Citizens with Disability. They said they did a great job on the North Side using smaller equipment to clear the curb cuts, and they did it in a very timely manner. So thank you for that, and thank you in advance for the work that you will most likely be putting in this weekend.

Thank you. Councilmember Jansen.

I had the honor last Friday to do a walk through at the La Crosse Center prior to the start of the the first year of the large wrestling tournament. I have to say that we I think we often forget what it takes to put these events together. There were two wrestling events going on over the weekend along with the bridal event and other things. But it was extremely impressive to see the setup, the people that were participating and the positive comments that I heard as I was walking around the building. So shout out to the entire La Crosse Center staff. The collaboration is inspirational, and I think we can learn a lot from them.

Thank you. And I'd just like to acknowledge that it is Women's History Month. And so a big shout out to all of our women's staff, directors, and council members for all the great work that you are constantly doing to contribute to the history of our nation. Moving on to council matters. Starting with agenda item twenty six zero two five five, resolution approving, twenty twenty five and 2026 bills and engineering estimates paid in March 2026.

Motion to adopt by council president Dickinson, second by council member Mendel. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Unanimously. Moving on to appointments by the mayor, item twenty six zero two five three. I do I say that now or do I wait, Nikki? Do it now? Alright. I would like to refer this item for thirty days as we have our legal department working to correct appointment terms and things of that nature for all of our committees in the city at this time.

So the motion were to refer made by council member Goggins, second by council member Podeski. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes unanimous well, 12 to one. Thank you.

I'll now take a motion for the suspension of council rule 15 for the following items. Motion made by council member Mendel, second by council member Stein. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously.

Moving to the report of bids, quotes recommended to be rejected. Twenty six zero one five eight report of bids for the 2026 sewer utility sidewalk replacement project. Motion to reject made by council member Goggin, second by council member Jansen. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote.

And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to the report of bids, quotes recommended to be adopted. Twenty six zero zero eight nine report of bids and resolution awarding contract to Train US incorporated in the amount of $87,125 for the La Crosse Center chiller replacement project. Motion to adopt by council member Jansen, second by council member Goggin. Any discussion?

Seeing none, please vote. That motion passes unanimously. Moving on to our next agenda item, twenty six zero one five room, report of bids and resolution awarding contract to Stager contract sorry. Excuse me. Stager Construction Incorporated in the amount of $229,800 for the 2026 citywide traffic signal interconnect, project.

Motion to adopt by council president Dickinson, second by council member Northwood. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes. Does someone not vote?

Okay. Moving on to agenda item twenty six zero one five twenty six zero five one zero one five one, report of bids and resolution award no. Just did that one. Twenty six zero one five two, report of bids and resolution awarding contract to Gerke Excavating Inc in the amount of $110,814.80 for the Saint Andrew Street, Copeland Avenue to Rose Street project. Motion to adopt by council president Dickinson, second by council member Caleb.

Seeing no discussion, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Our next agenda item twenty six zero one five four, report of bids and resolution awarding contract to Followinghammer Incorporated in the amount of a $102,549.50 for the twenty twenty six citywide miscellaneous curb ramp and sidewalk replacement project. Motion to adopt by council president Dickinson, second by council member Trose. CNO discussion, please vote.

And that motion passes unanimously. Nexogen item twenty six zero one five six, report of bids and resolution awarding contract to Fowler and Hammond Incorporated in the amount of 1 thou $119,007.80 for the 2026 annual miscellaneous curb and gutter and pavement replacement project. Motion to adopt by council member Mendell, second by council president Dickinson. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote.

And that motion passes unanimously. Next agenda item twenty six zero one five seven, report of bids and resolutions awarding contract to follow and hammer incorporated in the amount of $152,073.95 for the 2026 water utility sidewalk replacement project. Motion to adopt by council member Pedeski, second by council member Northwood. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote.

And that motion passes unanimously. Next agenda item twenty six zero one five nine, report of bids of in resolution awarding contract to Gerke activated in the amount of $576,428.25 for the Liberty Street, Windsor Street. It's a Clinton Street project. Motion to adopt by council member Gaga and second by council member Sleznikau. Any discussion?

Seeing none, please vote. That motion passes unanimously. Unanimously. Moving on to items with no recommendation. Starting with item twenty six zero one two eight, resolution amended the compression pay of battalion chiefs, assistant fire chief, and fire chief.

Since these came without a recommendation, council member Goggin, what would you like your motion to be?

Sorry, mayor. I would like to move this forward for a vote.

Alright. So a motion to adopt by council member Goggin, second by council president Dickinson. Any discussion? Council president Dickinson.

I think it would be valuable if our HR director, Rebecca Franson, would come forward and just give us an overview of this.

Thank you. So what this resolution in front of you is doing is amending the resolution from 2015. That resolution from 2015 allowed a comp compression, payment to our battalion chiefs and our assistant fire chief. Essentially, what compression pay is is we're making sure that there is an appropriate gap in compensation between the different positions. With this amended resolution in front of you tonight, it is not changing the structure of that payment, in any capacity.

All we are doing is adding the position of fire chief, to those positions that would receive this compression pay. The reason that I am requesting this, is because, every year, I'm doing analysis on our compensation and making sure that we are aligned with our strategies and found that this left a point 6% difference in pay between our assistant fire chief and our chief. So less than 1% difference. Our paying class study that we adopted in 2022, this common council voted on or a common council voted on recommended that we have a 7% difference between pay grades, which is what we currently have in our nonrepresented pay scale. So by not including the fire chief in this compression payment, we are causing issues with that pay scale.

Councilmember Trose.

Thank

you. I will not be supporting this item, the next item, or the one after that. I have spoken to taxpayers, my constituents, and they are concerned with how we are spending our money. I did have a long conversation with, director Fransen, and so I understand the reasons for why this is coming forward, but I still don't want to spend our money this way.

Councilmember Kahlo. Thank

you, mayor. Can we know and I'm sorry because I wasn't at finance and personnel, my apologies, but what what is the how are we making that up in the budget? Where is it coming from? And I'm not sure if you would answer that or the finance director.

From the discussions that I have had, this is going to just come from the fire's operating budget. So we will use the budget that has already been set there to offset this cost.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember McDowell.

You're reading my mind. Just waiting to see if I had a question for you. Can you explain why the fire chief wasn't already part of the compression pay

structure? I wish I could, but this was established back in 2015. I did ask around to my staff who was here at the time to try to get some justification for that. I have dug in files from my predecessors. I do not have any justification why that position was not included in 2015.

Follow-up here? Yes.

So compression pay, back pay, it's a standard, right, in HR best practices for pay scales to make sure that there's appropriate, like, space in between the cost. And you said that, like, point, what, six was the, like, the pay difference between the assistant fire chief and the fire chief. And so that is why this is coming forward to fix that, I guess, inequity in pay scale. Yes. And so

I actually did go back and look at data back to 2012 and just try to understand maybe where this became an issue, why this would have because, again, I don't have any history from my predecessors on this. The only thing that I can really attribute this to is there was a pay in class study that happened in 2014. So my speculation is there was something with that pay in class study in 2014 that then resulted for these two compression payment resolutions to come forward in those subsequent years. That's about the only thing I can directly tie the dates to, but I don't have specific reasonings. And to answer your question, yes.

These are fairly common practices. Back pain compression are two different things. But it is very common to have policies and practices in place to ensure when you have a very structured pay scale like we have here at the city. It is relatively common, and, I was told by our paying class consultant this was a really creative approach to solve the problem when we don't have further pay grades to move those positions around on.

And then lastly, are there other positions in the city where this is happening? Like, does this need to be a broader

This is a nonissue in other departments.

The

challenge here is we're faced with the individuals who report to these positions are covered under collective bargaining agreement. And when those negotiations are different than what we're doing for our nonrepresented staff, those can cause some of these compression issues. And so, it it is a combination of that, but, really, the police and fire departments are the only one where this is an issue right now and in the foreseeable future that I can predict. Thank you.

Councilmember Jensen.

I guess I don't understand why we're not addressing this in a different capacity. We could add different pay scales. And I have real concerns for the fact that we're we've actually just recently, in the last year, removed responsibilities from the fire chief, and now we're gonna increase his pay. Is it not true that a lot of these problems are also associated with people doing overtime?

Not related to the fire resolution. There's a structure differently than police. So with the fire resolution, we don't look at or how the resolution is written is it is a 6% payment of their gross earnings on a biweekly basis to a four fifty seven. So it's not directly on their take home pay. It is into that account, but we are not looking at any overtime related to the next position after a battalion chief would be a captain, and we're not looking at that as part of what was written in that resolution. We could, to your point, we could be looking at adjustments to our pay scale, and that would have been the pay in class market adjustment study that was brought forward during budget process.

Council member Jones.

And do you have an estimate of what this will how this will impact the 2027 budget? For

the fire resolution, I would anticipate that it would be between 8 and $10,000.

Council member Troost.

Can you is it accurate to say that part of the reason why we are addressing this compression issue at the highest levels of salary. Right? If we're talking about these positions, these are the highest paid staff in those departments, and so we're addressing the highest paid staff. Is that a function of these collective bargaining agreements that we've signed over the last several years with the 4% increases so that part of the reason we have this problem is possibly because we've signed some agreements that are turning out to be really quite expensive for us. And so that's exacerbating this issue or pushing this issue.

The current settled CVAs that we have at 4%, those could play a factor into why we're seeing increased cost because we did have a 4% increase on each of their years over a three year contract. So, yes, that could be playing a role in the issue of the pay being compressed between the two And so how many more years do

we have of these 4% increases?

We would be through 2028. Okay. Alright. Thank you. And so okay.

Any other discussion? Thank you, director. Alright. Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes.

Eight yes for no. Next agenda item twenty six zero one five zero resolution amending the compression pay for police captain's assistant chief of police and chief of police. Council member Gagan with no recommendation. What would you like?

Thank you, mayor. I'd like to move this forward for a vote.

Alright. Motion to adopt by council member Gaga, second by council member Podeski. Council president Dickinson.

May I ask our HR director to come forward again and explain this one to us, please? Thank

you. So this resolution is going to be similar in the sense that we are looking to make sure that we have internal pay equity amongst our staff. So the police resolution was written in 2016. It is structured in a different way in which we look at the average earnings of the police lieutenants. Those are covered under CBA.

We take that average, we add 7% to that average, and that is the minimum that our captains need to be paid. So that is currently how this is structured. We are not looking to change the structure of that program. Rather, to ensure we have equity with now the assistant chief and fire chief included in the compression program, that we also do that for both sides of our public safety positions. And so this resolution amended in front of you is to add the assistant chief and police chief to the compression pay program.

Based on how this one is structured, I do not anticipate that either of those positions will see any compression payments, in 2026 or likely not see any payment in 2027 based on my calculations and based on how their, payment program is structured. One thing I did not mention with the fire, resolution, I'd be remiss not to say it for this as well, this is a proactive approach. When we have our high level positions and there's likelihoods of five, ten years down the road that these positions may be open, vacant, we need to recruit the best for the city of La Crosse. And this is an insurance that we can do that. So I I want to put that out there as well that this is a proactive approach, and not something I don't want to come to you reactively because we have pay issues with our staff.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Any other discussion? CNN plea oh, sorry. Councilmember Charles.

I don't have a question. I would just reiterate my point before that we have locked ourselves into some bargaining agreements that have turned out to be quite expensive for us. And we have closed a library, closed a pool. And so we have big choices ahead. And I think some of our department budgets are crowding out others, and that is what my constituents are telling me. And so I am representing them as taxpayers here.

Thank you. Councilmember Weston.

Thank you, mister mayor. A few points that I wanna make. I will support this resolution, but with hesitation. And the reason is not because I don't value our public safety and all of the wonderful things they do, but for a few reasons. I also am my day job is on the state payroll, and we are not afforded compression adjustments just because those below us get a raise or because of other federal state mandates that change salaries.

So I think it is worth noting that this isn't always a common practice, although we wish it would be. I do think it's valuable to consider compression, but also parity in what other municipalities that are comparable to ours, that are local to ours, are paying. Now, I believe we probably are still under what many of them are, but I do think that's also part of the conversation. The other thing that I would add is that I echo council member trust in the decisions that we're making. And so I think it is a shame that we don't have seemingly all of the information when we are making budget decisions.

I think that is what causes distrust amongst our residents. And it's very difficult for this team of council members to make effective decisions when it feels as though we don't have all the information when we are making the decisions. So I will leave that in the hands of the mayor and the directors as we make future budget conversations, but I think that is unfortunate.

Thank you. Councilmember McKayla.

Thank you, Mayor. And I wasn't going to speak, but I'm going to state that I value all of our hard working union represented employees. And I think that they deserve the raises that they have received. We have a lot of hard working folks in the city, and they should be paid well. I'm also going to support this.

And I think when we talk about the tough budgets and public safety, we should be thinking about why we're in this kind of pickle. And it's the state of Wisconsin and the shared revenue. It is not that we are making poor decisions. It's not that we're paying people too much. We are doing the best we can with limited resources, and we've been handcuffed by the state of Wisconsin. So, I just want to make that clear and make that point. And thank you to all our public safety workers.

Seeing no other discussion, please vote. That motion passes. Eight yes four no. One abstention. Abstention. Moving to our next item, twenty six zero two zero nine, resolution requesting ten eleven funds for downtown beautification project. Motion to adopt by council well, sorry. Council Member Kahlo, what is your motion?

Thank you, mayor. Motion to adopt. And then, may I have the floor if oh, I have a second. Thank you.

Motion to adopt by council member Kahlo, second by council member Sleznikow. Council Councilmember Kalow.

Thank you, Mayor. And my apologies to my colleagues for not attending the meeting on Friday. When you book a trip out from last September, you don't know what's coming down the road in March. So I know there were a lot of questions. And what I'd like to do is maybe if I can ask a couple questions of staff so they could provide some answers for the council here, if that's okay.

Parks department, Dan. Thank you. And thanks for all your assistance on this with DMI and this request for replacing the planters and trash cans downtown. So we have a lot of beautiful planters in the city. We see them over on the North Side coming in on the highway. We see them on Petty Bone. We see them on Highway 16. They're in City Hall here. They're beautiful. They're great. Who paid for them and who maintains those?

So the Parks Department maintains those. They were paid for originally years ago from a prior administration. We had what we had referred to as mayor's money. It came out of the mayor's operating budget. And at that time, it was made determination was made through a course of three or four years, I believe it was, to start purchasing some of these planters and then paying for the maintenance and the flowers on an annual basis with that as well.

And then is that the money that comes out of the beautification? I think it's a line item in the Parks Department budget.

Correct. It is. It's under landscaping now.

Oh, it's under landscaping?

Yes.

Okay.

Contracted services landscaping is how it's identified now in the Parks operating budget.

Okay. And how much is that in when you is that just so that would include the parks too, though? So that that landscaping is Riverside, and I don't know if you've done it in any other parks?

That's correct. That that captures everything beautification wise that our department handles.

Okay. And how much does that cost per year?

Previously, I believe it was 70,000. We had now cut that based on cuts last year. I think it's down to 50,000. Mhmm.

Okay. Alright. And so your department is not going to be responsible or adding any additional money to the operating budget for this project, correct? You have not been asked to provide maintenance for the

flowers? Correct.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Councilmember sorry. Council President Dickinson.

This question is for you. Is there an MOU developed or ready for this particular resolution?

Thank you for the question. No. There is not to my knowledge. I'll speak just from a parks department perspective. I don't know if maybe other departments have been involved in an MOU, but, I did receive a, I guess, kind of a roles and responsibility sheet from DMI. And we I guess, we didn't come to an agreement on it because I have some concerns with that. On that sheet that I received, it stated that installation, removal, ownership, and insurance would all be to be supplied by the city. And, again, speaking from a parks department perspective, that's not something that we necessarily have the resources for at this time. So I I we never came to a written agreement on paper for this item came before you.

Is there a follow-up?

I think I'm ready now. So which are planters that the parks is currently responsible for? Where are they located?

Councilor McKayla mentioned quite a few of them. There's some here in the City Hall parking lot. We had them on Lozy, right near the Eagle Viewing area, Riverside, the entrance coming into town from Petty Bone. That's all I can on think the top of my head right now, but I'm sure there's a few more.

That's all I have at this time for you. I do have some more questions for engineering.

Director Gallagher?

I guess I'll start with a question I feel like there's probably more than one for you when we bid for these kinds of processes and maybe specifically regarding the trash cans who is responsible for that and how does that bid process move forward?

For CI bid for CIP bids, you mean for CIP projects?

Yes.

Those are typically prepared estimates are prepared by staff and are reported to the council. We enter those. And then once approved by the council, then we would go through the public bidding process if required or follow the city's procurement policy if required depending on the type of work and the dollar figure of it.

So a follow-up to that is this particular presentation was to add 10 trash cans. What kind of effect does that have on budgeting, maintenance, and other issues regarding the maintenance and, say, emptying of trash for those trash cans? Because those are our specific responsibilities as a city.

For the downtown ones that are part of this resolution? Yes, please. That would be something that is not currently covered by the resolution or sorry, the the contract that actually is up for extension for one year that's later on the agenda. But that's a service we contract out through street department, refuse recycling, and it would not include those 10.

Do you have any idea how much that would cost if we added 10?

When our recycling coordinator contacted the holder of the current contract, he estimated at least $10 per can per time it was it's serviced. You can't predict the exact number of times it'll be serviced, but at a minimum of once a week, that would be, like, 5,200 a year, potentially up to 10,000. We have a breakdown of how our recycling and garbage are collected, and, typically, it's more than once per week.

Do you have any other concerns regarding this?

I I guess I'm just concerned about what the source of the estimates were, just because because we didn't prepare those. Our recycling coordinator found similar ones, but they are different. I guess if we're gonna go in asking for funds, would want to know exactly how many and and the type and the style of of product we're buying and whether or not installation is included in that.

Thank you. I have further questions for director Hawkins.

Okay.

So what is the normal process? Could you just review it again if we have something that is a CIP budget item? Because this is when we're being asked to add after the fact.

So normal process to add an unbudgeted or project or a piece of equipment that wasn't in the original approved CIP as it is today is being brought forth as a request. That request needs to be approved by majority vote of the common council. That's to to add it. Obviously, in this case, funding source has been identified for the needs. So, again, we're just looking at majority vote of the common council to approve this would be our process.

Okay. Thank you.

Council member Jansen. Thank you, director Owens.

I have a question for mister Gallagher. Since this is, these trash cans and planters are gonna be in the the right of way, is do you normally do a a MOU with, like, Downtown Main Street before we approve a project like this?

It would it would, I think, depend on the conditions of the service and the ownership, which is kinda still something we're we're looking into. For the trash cans and recycle bins, it's an easy one. We do own those. We do service those with our contract. Actually, DMI shouldn't be a part of this. That's something we would do in house. For something like the planters, that would be one where we typically would like to get established who would be servicing those, you know, what group would be identified, and whether or not, you know, insurance or permission or other things would be covered.

So have you

gotten complaints in your department regarding the trash cans being overfull or there being a problem where they need to be addressed more often?

According to the recycling coordinator, not really. I mean, there's always one off events. You got Riverfest. You've got Oktoberfest. I know that we charge Oktoberfest folks funds to put out additional ones during that occasion. But but by and large, the records we have show that they do multiple collections a week depending on on how they need to be serviced. Some are collected two or three times a week, some just once.

Thank you.

Councilmember Goggin.

Thank you, mayor. I'm not sure who this question is supposed to go to. So, but we were given a downtown beautification project, and, it was costed out by their, what they wanted to buy, and it came out as a total at $92,650. The request is more than that. So I'm wondering, are we amending the TID request, or what what will be done with the extras not extra, there's no extra money here but the other $32,350

I will let the sponsor speak to that. Councilmember Kerr.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for that question. Typically, what I've seen when we have projects come to us, there is a contingency fee in there. Sometimes it's a high amount. You're not sure exactly how much it's going to cost on this because it's TID dollars. If it's $92,000 there's no more money spent. It's not borrowed funds. It just stays in the TID. So there are no negative repercussions. But if, for some reason, the installation in which that is going to be included in the project, the installation and the removal of the old planters this is not a new project.

This is just replacing damaged and very unsightly planters and trash cans. There would be money in there rather than having to come back to counsel to ask for more. So this just gives a cushion so that unpredictability with pricing.

Council member, Gaylo.

Alright. I had a few more people I didn't I didn't realize. I couldn't say all the rest earlier. So I also wanted to have Director Trane come up and just talk about this a little bit, the TID funding. And why do we create a TID? Why is there two TIDs downtown right now? What is the reason? And then what is that money to be spent for, and what is to be

spent on, and why? So typically, a tax incremental district is created when there's development opportunity or a need for development to oftentimes attract developers. So most recently, the three TIDs that we've created were Lincoln Middle School, the former Kmart site, and Bridgeview Plaza. So we proactively created those TIDs as a way to be able to draw future development and not let those vacant buildings sit vacant much longer. Back in 2004 is when TID 11 was created, and that was created to stimulate redevelopment in the area where US Highway 1461 enters the south side of downtown, so basically at the foot of the Cass And Cameron Street Bridges.

There have, since 2004, been six additional amendments to that project plan. So in the project plan, it details everything that is anticipated would happen in that And if there's an opportunity to add territory to a TID for an additional future redevelopment, like we've seen over the last twenty two years of this project of this TID, then an amendment is made. And sometimes it's an addition to territory. Sometimes it's a subtraction to territory. Sometimes it's an addition to a project.

Each one of those project plans outlines what is eligible for the TID funds to be spent. So I'll go through those, but then I'll also address, first, your question about why there are two TIDs downtown. So sometimes there's also the extension of the period of the TID. So depending on what type of a TID it is so there can be an industrial TID, a mixed use TID, a blighted district TID it determines how many years that TID can be opened. It generally ranges from about twenty to twenty seven years.

So this TID, created in 2004, is at its expenditure period in 2026. So it was created 10/12/2004. This will be its expenditure period 10/12/2026. What that means is we can no longer enter into any new contracts or come up with new projects that would use these TID funds after that period. And then there's five more years that this TID remains open to finish those contracts, to spend those funds.

And then it has to end at the end of that period. We can close a TID early. Sometimes you can even keep a TID open longer if it meets certain state statute requirements. But that's generally the timeline. So looking at TID 17, which is the other downtown TID, that one was created for the development of Lot C and Bell Square. So that one needed a different boundary, different timeline. And then that TID was created for the sole purpose primarily for the increment from Bell Square to pay off the debt service for the parking ramp that was created at that time. So that's why there are currently two TIDs downtown. Many years ago, was TID 6, which was we closed a couple of years ago. That was kind of one of the newer TIDs.

Obviously, we're at TID twenty one now. That was TID six, so you kind of see how this goes over time period. So as I mentioned, there are project plans that indicate what is eligible. A lot of them are just standard, what things are eligible in a TID, and then sometimes they get specific about what projects are anticipated. So generally in TIDs, there's eligible costs are property acquisition, right of way and easement acquisition, site preparation so environmental remediation, demolition of buildings, site grading.

Utilities are always eligible sanitary sewer, water, storm water management, putting utilities into the ground, streetscaping, street improvements, redoing streets, and contributions to the Redevelopment Authority so the Redevelopment Authority can do projects separately. And then there is a paragraph in here of streetscaping and landscaping, so I'll read that one specifically. In order to attract development and or redevelopment consistent with the objectives of this plan, the city may install amenities to enhance development sites, right of way, and other public spaces. These amenities include, but are not limited to, landscaping, lighting of streets, sidewalks, parking areas, and public areas, installation of planters, benches, clocks, tree rings, trash receptacles, and similar items, and installation of brick or other decorative walks, terraces, and street crossings. These and any other similar amenities installed by the city are eligible project costs.

Does that answer your questions?

That doesn't. Thank you. So, yes, this is eligible, and yes, this is what that TID increment could be used for. What I think I don't know if people understand, it's the tax that are paid right now, correct, by those properties in the TID that then go back into that TID to help that area. Correct. Correct.

It's not money from the budget somewhere else. So when the TID is created, we have four taxing jurisdictions the county, the school district, Western Technical College, and the city. And those taxes are frozen when a TID is created. So then as new development happens and taxes increases, that increment goes into the TID. So it goes into a separate pot of funds. So that's what we're seeing with these requests, is that's coming out of that increment that's been generated over the last twenty two years at this point.

So the redevelopment has been pretty substantial. And this is the TID that I always hear you say it's very healthy. So what the city has done in creating that TID, it has benefited the city in many ways, Correct? Yes. This is there

are there are healthy TIDs, and there are distressed TIDs. This has not been a distressed TID by any means. It's always been

a very healthy TID. Okay. Okay. That was all

I had on TIDs, and I appreciate you explaining that because it is difficult. All right. Thank you. Then I do want to just there were some questions that I do know the answers to, but maybe, Dan, you can come up and you can confirm because I I would like the confirmation on it, that we talked about pricing and your department gave quotes to downtown Main Street for that, Correct? So these these prices just didn't come out of nowhere. We had staff that have worked on this.

Correct. Downtown Main Street reached out asking about the planters, which planters we use. We gave them the contacts that we use for that, and then trash cans that we use in some of our parks too.

Okay. So I just want everyone to know those were they did come from staff. I don't think DMI just pulled them out or neither did I.

Yeah. We gave them the contacts. I'm not sure if they went with that model or not. But

Yeah. And then I know you commented that you didn't wanna Parks Department have to do installation or removal, but that would be that is within the project scope. So there would be no removal or cost, additional cost to the Parks Department or any department for that. You did state that you didn't want that additional cost. There won't be any in your operating budget is what I'm saying. I want to make sure that's clarified.

Doctor. Okay. I think I understand what you're saying, yes.

All right. Thank you. And I might have one more. Know, those are all the questions I have and then when we get to the comment I do have a comment.

Councilmember Weston.

Director Trane, this may be for you as I continue to learn about TIDS. My question and I have to imagine the general public as well as some of the folks on this table are wondering, what about when we get to the DOT project on 3rd And 4th Street? And we've we certainly have planters and trash cans right now. We will have to either move or remove. What I'm also wondering about is, it sounds like this TID will be done.

At that point, we cannot use dollars for that. So, Mike, based on but is there the ability to extend the TID to address whatever happens after that per that DOT project, or would we be looking at creating a whole new TID? I just don't want us to make a shortsighted decision knowing that we've got a DOT project coming in the next five years.

Yeah. Good question. And and the one thing that we have as staff been talking about, so breaking news, We have looked at being able to make TID 11 a donor TID to TID 17 because then that removes that time period of October 2026. So those funds would still be there. So right now, if we were to close this TID in five years, it's a lot can happen between now and then would close with about $19,000,000.

So that's you know, when I'm talking to council member Kahlo, what I would consider to be a healthy TID. So if we were to make TID eleven a donor to TID seventeen, we would be able to continue to use some of those dollars. And I can't anticipate that we would need $19,000,000 to redo what we're doing for a lot of that. We're looking at with the Pearl Street reconstruction, looking at the CIP years out. So that is one option that would kind of extend the life of TID eleven, but it would be it would be going towards TID 17. There's a lot of overlap, and the half mile boundary is similar between the two TIDs. That would that would take council approval. So that that would come back to you if that is the direction that we go in.

Council member Goggin. Thank you, director Cherry.

Thank you, mayor. My question I had that question the same as Councilmember Weston about the the big generational tear up from storefront to storefront. But I'm also wondering I think, actually, the system for you would be for Dan Trusoni. Sorry. Thank you, mister Soni.

The information that I, have gotten from DMI, aren't they saying that they're they will enter into an MOU with the city? And number one being the city of La Crosse will be responsible for the installation, removal, ownership, and insurance of all these planters and trash cans?

Maybe you're looking at the same document that that I looked at as well. Yes. That's what their request was, but we not come to an agreement on that, with some of the concerns I had mentioned previously, on ownership, who puts them you know, install, who takes them out, who replaces them if they're damaged, that kind of stuff.

Okay. And then, mayor, I have just one other question. Is that okay?

Yes. Go ahead.

Okay. And then, again, referring to the information that

we

got from DMI, it's they're looking at, they looked at the planters that we have. 24 are in good shape, 30 are in fair shape with minor cracks and some weathering, and 40 were in poor shape. So my question is, do we need to replace all these 80 planters, or could we maybe just get by with 40 and then look look forward? Because aren't we low aren't we because of the last budget, aren't we reducing beautification around the city by, like, $33,000 in 2026?

Yes. I believe that number is is in that area. Yes. Correct. That said, with your first part of your statement there, that assessment was done by DMI. We were not involved in that at all. So I don't know what, you know, their criteria was that they used to give a a rating for each of those planters.

Thank you.

Councilmember Minahl.

Thank you. Can you talk about I I think I read it in here, the city providing water to water the planters. I have been kind of surprised that I've gotten a number of calls complaining about the city watering planters because they think it's a waste of money. I certainly see the value, in beautification, landscaping, having nice planters, but that is a concern that I have been called about. They don't want the city to spend money on watering their planters.

What I can say to that is the planters we're talking about tonight are watered by the businesses downtown. They're all maintained on their own. We do water the ones I spoke on earlier. Lozy, my coming in from Petty Bone, City Hall here, and and Eagle Viewing, we do water those, but not not the ones we're discussing tonight.

Okay. So that would not be an addition. Like, staff time, actual water would not be billable to the city?

No. Based on the sheet I keep referencing here from DMI that they're proposed was that DMI would would maintain or take care of the watering.

Okay. And pay for it.

And pay for it. Okay. But if I may, that hasn't been clearly laid out either. And, again, we haven't come to an agreement on it. That was just the original proposal. So without something in writing documented, I I don't know where that sits at this point.

Okay. That was my my follow-up. So, like, the resolution as it is written, is that just approving the proposal that DMI is presenting to us?

To my knowledge, yes.

Okay. And you've had a good working relationship with them and, like, talking trying to negotiate an agreement? Or

We have yes. We went back and forth. We have not come to an agreement. I'll reiterate that. But, yes, we've had a number of conversations about how this could work and just assisting them through this process because the director is relatively new, and we've got experience in this world, if you will.

Okay. And can you speak to how DMI has supported the existing planters?

Yeah. It's it's my understanding. DMI works with the businesses downtown, and they come up with some sort of maintenance plan where they put the soil in, order the plants each year, take care of the watering, weeding, and all the stuff that comes along with that. That said, if if a business were to leave or DMI were to step away from it, not saying they would, my fear, if you will, is that they would fall upon the city. And that again, that's not something that we we have resources for coming from a parks perspective once again.

Okay. That's all for now. Thank you.

Councilwoman Jansen.

We keep having the parks department come up here, but this is not park land. So my first question is, who actually actually should be working out an MOU and all the details?

Director Gallagher?

And based on my experience and my recommendation would be that would be something that would be worked out between public works and legal and the applicant, and it would require the approval of the board of public works.

And does that get done before or after the money is approved for a project?

I guess that's up to this body. My preference would be before.

Thank you. I would like to make a motion to refer this.

Motion has been made to refer. You have a length of time.

Thirty days.

K. Motion to refer for thirty days by council member Jansen, second by council member Northwood. Any discussion? Council member Jansen.

I think with all the discussion going on here, it's clear that there are still lots of questions. And I think, personally, it's very important that we take care of the downtown and do things to to help the businesses down there. But I do agree that there needs to be a process, and it needs to be worked out, and we need to get rid of the confusion. So I think thirty days will take care of that problem.

K. Councilmember Newberry speaking to this or Yes.

But you might have to course correct me if necessary. Okay. Got it. Gotcha. Alright. I I just wanna say I I'm I'm fully on board. And Barbara council member Jansen, I totally agree with you on the delay, and I'll be supporting that. I I would like to ask a question of director Trane if that's possible.

It's only on

It's be on the motion.

On the motion to delay. Yeah. Mhmm. Referral. Alright. Well, then never mind.

We'll we'll come back when we do the motion overall. Sure. That's fine. Councilmember Bedford.

I agree with councilmember Jansen. I think that this needs some more work on it, especially when we look at that wiggle room in it. I understand the desire to not have to come back to city council, but we've been very strict with all of our city workers here that what they show us is a very tight budget without that wiggle wiggle room room, and they come back to ask for anything else that needs to be approved. And I'm uncomfortable with extending that wiggle room to an outside entity that we do not extend to our own people. I also I I wonder if maybe these should be two motions instead of one because me, it is kind of two issues that when we're talking about the planters and we're talking about the the garbage cans.

I have different questions and different concerns for both of those, and I I think it would be appropriate for them to possibly be separated as well. And then I also would like to see that MOU. I think I'm getting the the the MOU as well. We talked a little bit about things that we would like to see in the disability committee today, and one of the things that came up was getting some kind of restriction on

Point of order. This has to be about the motion to refer.

This is something that I would like to see next time and is a reason that I would like it referred.

Okay.

Gotcha. So I I think it's still on. But it was because if there is something that is overhanging in these planters from about waist height or up, it causes an issue for people that are blind or that use canes. So that's something that I would like to see added in that and that I think that the thirty days hopefully would give us time to, further that conversation and do. Thank you. Thank

you. Councilmember Weston.

While I agree with my colleagues that now is not the time to make this decision, I also will not be re not be supporting a referral. I would also not support this agenda item. And partially because of all of these questions, because of it doesn't feel congruent, I would rather not defer and simply vote down this and it have different resolutions come forward in the future. Although I agree tonight is not the night to make that call.

Alright. Councilmember Kalin.

Thank you, mayor. I would also not like to refer this. This was pushed off at the request of several of my colleagues when it was mentioned last October. And they mentioned that we had a pretty contentious budget, and maybe it should be separated from the budget process. So I gave them that and decided to push it off until now.

However, the lead time on these planters is such that if we wait another month, they might not come for the spring season. I guess we could have them for next year then. Currently, what I want oh, and I can't I can't answer the other. Sorry. I can't respond because I'm on a referral. Sorry. So just, on the referral, I will be voting no on the referral because we should be passing this tonight.

Alright. Councilmember Mendell.

Thank you, mayor. I think what I'm hearing from staff is that there should be a separate process for this to go through. Did I hear that right?

Yes. It sounds like this needs to go to the board of public works.

Okay. I think for that reason, I don't see what benefit would occur in thirty days or even clear on what the action items for the next thirty days would be,

so I will not support referral. Awesome. Thank you. Seeing no other discussion, please vote on the refer for thirty days. And that motion fails. Five yes. Eight no. So we're now back at the general motion, on the ten eleven funds. And councilmember Newberry, I know you wanted to speak to this and you were on the speaker list first, so I'm gonna go to you.

Okay. Thank you, mister mayor. Director Trayton. Hello. My my question for you is, are there other funding mechanisms? What are the other options to fund a project like this that you can think of?

There's always new borrowing. So as a part of the CIP, I don't know if I can't think of, like, any grants that are out there. Sometimes the WEDC, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, has some unique grant opportunities, but I don't know of anything that's specific to beautification. One opportunity is the creation of a business improvement district, which is not something that we have in La Crosse, but we do have that in the the state of Wisconsin has that in several other communities where an area of a downtown, Milwaukee has several of these. They contribute to a fund, and then that fund can do things like streetscaping and beautification.

That is something that we've looked at a couple of times in conjunction with Downtown Main Street, not with the current leadership at d m DMI. But I would think that and that's really something that is initiated and led by the businesses, not by the city. You know, we're support and can do a lot of research and help with budgeting and things like that. But that's an initiative that is done by the property owners and by the businesses.

Okay. Thank you. The and then back to the the TID specifically. Can you help explain to me what what is the what is the rush? Why why now and why right now, I guess?

Well, I I can't explain to the rush of the resolution getting those things done because I think that I would leave that up to council member Kahlo and and her need for this. From a financing, from a funding perspective, the need would be to get at least something under contract by that October 12 deadline. So after 10/12/2026, we can't enter into new contracts or acquire new things using TIFF funds. So everything would have to be prior to that date.

Okay. Thank you.

Welcome.

And then just to to close for me, I think on I'm just looking further down the agenda. If we don't have $30,000 for the 6th Floor, I don't think we have a $120,000 for the flowers.

So Councilmember McCallum.

Thank you, mayor. We did just approve a $100,000 at the request of the former speaker for this year for the roundabout at seven. So he is aware that there's TID funding. I wanna just make that point clear. Also, what I wanna make clear to everyone is these are planters that are and trash cans in the downtown in the city of La Crosse, owned by the city of La Crosse, bought by the city of La Crosse in the public right of way, owned by the citizens of the citizens of La Crosse.

And they have been there for quite some time. I did a little research and got ahold of a former mayor three mayors ago who let me know that the Public Works Department, former director Dale Haxam, did purchase those. So I did get confirmation from former Mayor Cabot, who was the executive director of DMI prior to being the CEO of this city for eight years. So I do just want to make that clear so folks know these planters are owned by the city. There was no MOU.

They've been there for, who knows, fifteen, twenty years. There hasn't been an MOU. The downtown businesses have been maintaining them, watering them, caring for them this entire time with no money from the city. What this request is is to upgrade and replace them. It's not a new project.

It's not something that hasn't been done before. It is just to upgrade and renew. I just wanna make those clear. And then if I can just add what I've written. The cleanliness and attractiveness of our downtown public right away is extremely important right now in the post COVID economy.

For any of my colleagues who have recently visited downtown, you will understand when I say that while private investment in downtown has been immense, the downtown public right of way has become tired, a bit unkempt, and in need of attention. It is important for the city to utilize the financing mechanism in place for revitalization and continue to encourage economic development at this pivotal moment to support the downtown. We can look to other communities to understand that beautiful streetscaping and public right of way improvements contribute to a clean, attractive, and safe business district. This additionally contributes to a healthy tax base and is important for a vibrant community. There are no borrowed funds being used.

This will not affect the ERIP for 2026. These are TID dollars to be used in the district for what the TID was created, and they must be under contract by October 2026. This project is a perfect example of the benefits of tax increment financing and public private partnerships to maintain a healthy economic climate and encourage growth in the city. I've had many discussions with many departments over the past six months. Director Gallagher and I sat down with Colin and DMI.

I've spoke with Parks many times. I've talked with the street department. I've talked with the planning department. I've talked with the finance department. So there have been many discussions on this.

This was initially again to be brought up in November and I delayed this because of the difficult operating budget decisions. This does not impact the operating budget in any way, cannot be used for operating the city, cannot be used for running the pool, cannot be used for the library. There will be no maintenance cost to the city on this. DMI will plant and care for them as they've been doing for decades. This is a one time capital cost that will enhance the public right of way for years to come.

The planters slash trash cans are not fixed amenities and they can be removed and stored when the state DOT project begins. In a conversation with Director Gallagher when we were discussing this, that project to complete downtown might be six to ten years out. So what we have right now is very tired and unkempt and poor looking damaged planters. We can't wait six to ten years. These can be removed.

So we cannot wait for the DOT project to invest in our downtown. There will be an MOU signed with DMI, even though we have none now, have not had one for fifteen or twenty years. There will be no additional cost. This is a win win for the city and downtown, and I ask you to support this for all the right reasons. Thank you.

Councilmember Northwood.

Director Trane, I have a question about procurement. I don't know. I related to a tit. Is there a process that we have to go through, or is it okay that the, costs are referred from a department and what their expenses are, or do we have to do a more formal process to utilize TID monies?

Not anything specific to a TID. It would just be the city's standard procurement process. Which I think if you want more answers to that is probably director Gallagher.

Yep. Director Gallagher.

Went to you for kids, but well, now we'll go over here. I just wanna know if there's a threshold for, a cost of a TID project that you have to do it a certain way. Is it okay as presented, with the costs that have been outlined, or or does there need to be a more formal process is my question.

So the the various rules and various thresholds related to projects just stem directly from state statutes. So whether it's funded by TID or borrowing or utility funds, it would all be the same.

So do we have to have multiple bids to choose from? Or

Per the city's procurement process, if we're buying equipment and if it's not something that can be sole sourced, and in this case, it really can't because the exact ones that are out there are no longer available, for example. It is a case where we would wanna receive multiple quotes. We'd write up some specifications and get those to purchase. If you do include any installation or any labor in it, it has to be a bid, a a closed, you know, a sealed bid process following the statutes that would be initiated through engineering.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilmember Mendel.

Think director Gallagher or or director Trane could answer this. It sounds like if this decision is denied, the same or similar request could come through the CIP process, and you could establish the funding source as TID 11. Is that true or no? Sounds like no.

No, I think because of the timing of it. Because we'd have to execute a contract or a purchase prior to October, you would not be able to put it in because the 2027 budget, even though you approve it hypothetically, say, August, would not be until next January.

Got it. Could you clarify, Director Gallagher, earlier you had meant that you thought this process would actually go through engineering as it's in the public right of way and would go through Board of Public Works? For the MOU, it would. For the

maintenance of items and to clarify various roles and responsibilities, like insurance and ownership and frequency of maintenance and, you know, what happens in the event that it's not maintained, Mr. Cusoni brought up, that would be part of the MOU that would go through the Board of Public Works for approval.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember Bedford.

This is gonna be for director Trane. You had that breaking news earlier that, money from TID seventeen will be going to TID 11. Is there overlap in the space that TID 11 and TID 17 encompass? So

it

would be TID 11 funds being eligible in TID 17. And so that's a donor recipient relationship with TIDs, where increment generated from one TID can be used in another TID. In this situation, yes, there's a lot of overlap in TID 17. There's overlap of properties, and basically the whole half mile overlaps each other. And that's just something that staff has been talking about, looking at as we're forecasting future year CIPs. That would be something that would have to come back to you

in the future. I apologize. I might be getting the TID numbers mixed up. The one that is expiring in October is which one? 11. 11. Okay. So TID eleven will be donating possibly to TID seventeen, which shares much of the same DELL: space. Correct. So it could feasibly be done under TID 17 rather than TID 11. If we miss that October date, we don't necessarily miss out on the use of the funds in this specific space from a TID. These expenses, the street beautification, the streetscaping, are also eligible expenses in TID 17. Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember Slesnikow. Thank you, Director Tree.

And I'm not sure if I direct this to director Gallagher or to Parks. So if this funding is approved this evening, and I'm looking at the spreadsheet that we had in the beautification overview, I'm wondering, were parks or engineering involved in creating the spreadsheet? So if we approve money, who would do the ordering? Who would do the installation or removal? Is that going to be subcontracted? I'm just trying to figure out after the funding is given, what happens next.

Sure. So my understanding is that the estimates and the data for the resolution were provided by Parks. Once it's authorized, that's something that goes through the engineering department to bid out to contractors to do the work. So we'd have to procure them from vendors to purchase from suppliers, vendors of the ones that are a best fit, you know, to replace the ones in place. And then the assuming that the installation, you know, is included as councilor McKaylo said, then that would become a public bid so that, you know, a contractor like, for example, Fowler and Hammer would would get that to then do the installation down down.

So I guess that's for the planters, I should say. For the for the trash cans, it's a little simpler. If we wanted to use funds to replace trash cans, that could just be a purchase that staff makes. It's a little more complicated with the planters. But with the trash cans, since we own those and have a service contract for them, if we wanted to purchase those, put those in our inventory, and replace them ourselves, we could do that. The concern was just with increasing the numbers of the trash cans.

And I guess the follow-up, perhaps this is more a Parks question since it sounds like Parks worked with the creation of this estimate. I just wanted to confirm that Parks feels this is accurate. I know there is, you know, potentially extra funding built in as a cushion. But, you know, in approving the funds, I just wanted to make sure that city departments are on board with this and feel confident that this funding is adequate and that moving forward, the project would move forward smoothly both in procurement removal, and installation.

Yeah. Maybe just to clarify that, we we provided DMI with the contacts, then they reached out, included us on the emails with these organizations asking for these the quotes that you're used in the the numbers you're reviewing.

But I guess that doesn't answer. Does Parks feel that these are accurate? Were they reviewed? Just hoping we approve the funding, but that the project, if this is approved, moves forward and everybody's on the same page with the purchase, with the removal installation. It seems like there's a little bit of a gray area here, and I'd like to make sure that we're not in the gray.

So I'll speak on the material itself. I can say that those are accurate numbers being included on the emails from the companies that provided them. Installation, as director Gallagher alluded to, would have to be bid. So we do not have an accurate number on that at this point.

So at least for installation, we don't know exactly where that number came from?

No. I do not know. I don't know. Maybe director Gallagher does, but I do not.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember Jenksen.

Director Gallagher, if we approve this as it's written, will we be stuck with all the locations, or would Public Works have the ability to say, no, we don't want a trash can here, or we do here instead? Where's the flexibility?

We've tended to apply flexibility quite a bit downtown. Like, for example, if we're near a park, we may move one that's on the same corner as a park or kiddie corner from a park to another block that has, you know, a higher use. We wouldn't be married to those exact locations. Over time, if we felt that there's a better use on a different street or, know, particular block or corner, we we could move those.

Thank you.

I guess, at this point, I'm gonna support this resolution because I do think that there are planters out there that absolutely need to be repaired or replaced. I'm gonna provide my confidence that the public works director will make sure that we're not adding trash cans and planters where they're not necessary. And because I do think we need to invest in the downtown, and I think that's what this money was for. And so I think it is a good use. In the future, though, I would rather much see an MOU come to have the details worked out.

And, obviously, there weren't staff at the finance and personnel meeting to address questions as well, so that just complicates things. So but I will support this tonight.

I am before I go to the two council members speaking, have actually have some questions. I don't know which director can speak to this, but the original agreement between the plan ters, the DMI, and the city, who has that historical knowledge around who's supposed to be maintaining these planters and all of that? Will that be you, Jay? None? Okay.

So then to that point, either director Gallagher or Dan or Jay, can you all speak to the agreements that we continue to have with, be it organizations, neighborhood associations, etcetera, on beautification projects and, kinda talk to the ones that go well and the ones that do not and who ultimately ends up being the person responsible to take care of those items?

Thank you the for question, mayor. I I can speak to that to an extent. We are in charge of this beautify lacrosse program, which allows some residents to maintain their boulevard, change the boulevard with approval of the board excuse me, the the park board. In that event, we've had some successful situations. We've had some situations where homeowners have moved and just haven't or or it's been it's been taken over, and then we're challenged with issuing orders to correct to make those situations improve. But, again, to your point, we have had successful boulevard redevelopments as well with that.

K. So let's say, and maybe this is director Gallagher. We purchased these new planters, and they chip like the ones on the picture. And we're saying that DMI is supposed to maintain these planters, and they come back to us to buy more planters. What, I guess, what's your thoughts on on that?

Well, I I think the devil's in the details, so to speak. I think it comes down to what an MOU would say. In the case of of objects in the right of way, that's kind of a special class of what's called a nondelegable duty. So while the city can enter into agreements for maintenance of them, if there's any negligence or abandonment, it ultimately still falls to the city to care for those. So not that I would suspect that they they wouldn't keep up with them, but that's generally why we like to have a pretty solid MOU.

And in the case that, you know, if they get damaged or if people trip or fall into them or their cars hit them or doors hit them, a lot of times, the ownership is very critical because if it's owned by a private entity, it's covered by their insurance. If it's owned by the city, those are claims that we have to pay out and we have to defend.

K. This next question could be for you or director Trane as a city planner, as the engineer. At the municipality have you looked at so we talk about the right of way sidewalks and beautification. We go directly to planters and and trees. Right? Are there other ways in which we can explore new beautification? What are some other ideas that other municipalities have done to beautify their boulevards?

As far as I know, you know, you you've got essentially kinda your your your living items, your your trees, your tree cells, the planters that you could install. You also have various street furniture is what it's referred to, whether that's literally furniture like benches, whether it's pieces of artwork, decorative light poles, like we have the ornamental light poles downtown. There are various elements of it that would all be under streetscape or beautification. It's just a matter of what the preference is of the deciding body if if that's something that you want.

Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Bedford.

You can stay

up there.

This question's for you. You went through the the bid process for the planters that would have to take place earlier. How long would that take, do you think, with the if it was approved tonight?

So based on on workload and when it can be, you know, addressed with the attention it needs, you know, it's it's gonna be a matter of months. Generally speaking, we need to follow, like I mentioned earlier, the the guidelines of the state statutes. So if we're going to open bids in any given month, you generally need to be wrapped up with your plans, your specifications, your estimates, and put out a public notice the month prior. And you're gonna back up even another month before that to be doing all of your design work and and everything else and laying it out. So, I mean, it's it's a months long process.

So very unlikely to be done by May 1, which is, like, our last frost date when you would most likely be planting?

I I wouldn't commit to May at this point. No.

Okay. I'm gonna be voting against this. I think that, with what we have learned here about the bidding process on the planters, it won't be done in a in time for it to happen this year anyways with the possibility of TID eleven donating to TID seventeen. That date of October is not nearly as scary of one that is looming over our head. I think we have time for this to go back and come back preferably to me with the MOU and as two separate things, rather than as one.

Council member Goggin.

Thanks, mayor. I'm gonna just throw out the question, and you guys can decide who needs to answer it. Is that okay?

Oh, sounds good. This is what we've

been doing all day. I will. So let's say this gets denied tonight. It doesn't stop anybody from coming back next month with the MOU, with with all our questions answered, and we can get this we can get this wrapped up next month. It just would be a different resolution number. Correct?

I'm a throw that at the city clerk. That

is correct.

Thank you.

Because it's very important that this the downtown beautification project happens. I'm not saying that I want everybody to understand that I believe in the downtown beautification project. I just think there's too many if this happened or that's not done yet and the MOU isn't created yet, and I just I would just rather have this buttoned down, and then I would wholeheartedly support it. So thank you.

Councilmember McCaleb.

For the second time. Thank you, mayor. Just so everyone is aware, again, there are planters downtown. It doesn't matter to me what you decide tonight. I don't care what kind of plants you think should go in them or where they should go or who might trip on them. I don't care. We have blight in our public right of way downtown. If that were my property, I would get an order to correct. It is responsible to correct things in the public right of way that we own. We don't have to.

DMI doesn't have an MOU. They have ordered the plant. They will plant them anyway. They will care for them. There's not a problem. There won't be anything that will happen. For fifteen years, this has been done. This is not reinventing the wheel. It is just removing blight in the public right of way that we own. And again, I could come back in another month and that would be fine.

The planters would just not get put in until next year. That's okay with me too. So but I just want to make sure everyone knows the planters will be there. There will be all the questions that you've had. Who's going to take care of them? They've been taken care of for fifteen years. They'll be taken care of again this year. And downtown in DMI will make the best of the pig, and they'll put lipstick on the pig in the public right away that we own to help their businesses. Thank you.

Council member Bedford.

I I just wanna say I think that, you know, when plants that were coming up and people tripping that came up, that was from people that have had issues with these that might not have had the know how of where to reach out to to speak to DMI and bring it up as an issue. Sometimes when things come to common counsel, we don't know that there's, you know, something that we can and and might possibly be able to make better until it's in front of us and we start looking at it. I, again, am very excited to get the MOU in front of us because it does give us a chance to bring those voices forward and make sure that they have a chance through us to speak to DMI and that we can ensure that what happens there is is something that benefits the the city as a whole and that everybody gets a voice in it. So thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other discussion, please vote. And we are voting on the motion as a whole. That motion fails for yes, nine no. Moving on to items to be recommend recommended to be adopted.

Twenty six zero one seven one, an ordinance to amend section 33 e of the code of ordinances of the city of La Crosse regarding nuisance abatement of drug and gang houses. Much to adopt by council member Podeski, second by council member Stein. Any discussion? Council member Newberry. Director Trayton.

Sorry. Just for the record and for the cameras, can you explain what the change is?

This one's not mine. I think that it's legal.

It's legal change?

Yes. It's Stefan's

I thought it was a I assumed it was a a

Can you get him for me?

An an inspections thing.

Attorney Marty, we need you out here.

The change to the ordinance is removing the sentence. No no person shall be charged with the violation of the section if such person has been institute has instituted eviction proceedings against the tenant who who suspected criminal activities would otherwise give rise to a potential liability under this chapter. The owner is required, however, to move forward expeditiously with any such eviction proceedings. So the concept there is you are removing that language because sometimes this is the person who causes the problem. And you're putting a tool in the toolbox that then lets us be able to solve the problem rather than the symptoms to the problem.

This doesn't mean that this will be exercised every instance. It just puts a tool in the toolbox. That's what this ordinance does.

Sorry. I'm gonna have you dumb it down just a little bit more. You're this is saying that the the resident, the tenant could be enforced against, I guess, by us?

This would be the the person who the person who starts the eviction proceedings. So the person who starts the eviction proceedings is sometimes the person who causes the house to be the problem.

Meaning the owner.

Right. Got it. So this just gives another tool. If the facts and circumstances warrant, then we will use that. If they don't, we would do not invoke it.

Thank you.

Council member Mendell.

This is

for attorney Manny. Council members who've been on the council for any length of time have probably gotten chronic nuisance complaints, and I've learned that legal and police department and various folks have been trying to figure out a way to make it easier to deal with chronic nuisance. Do you see this as a big part of that, or is there more to do?

Like I said, this is just another tool for the toolbox so that we can use this if we need to if the facts and circumstances warrant it. But, realistically, the city has a neighborhood services team that's has that's staffed by people from multiple departments of the city, and we all work together to make sure nuisances are abated. It's nipped in the bud before it actually becomes a chronic nuisance. That program has been in existence for about twelve years now, it's been highly successful.

Okay. I have no further questions for you, I think. I'm wondering, police department, do you have opinions on this? It's okay if you just shake your head no. Okay. Thanks.

Alright. Seeing no other discussion, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Going to our next agenda item, twenty six zero two one three, resolution to reallocate unused funds from completed capital purchases and or projects to newly requested capital equipment purchases for the water utility. Motion to approve by council president Dickinson, second by council member Newberry. Any discussion? Council member Mundo.

Question for director Gallagher. Just a question on, like, budget and how this all works. So we all learned or were reminded of the ways that the water utility and utilities work. Can you explain was this funds that came from the utility and were just, for some reason, get to decide to reallocate funds to the utility?

So the process before you was one that multiple departments have done in multiple years where, essentially, even throughout the year, they they reassess the piece of equipment that maybe they thought they needed. If they could go with a different one, a cheaper one, or or in essence, save money by reducing some of that cost. In this case, these were water utility funds. This is something that would be owned by and paid for by the water utility. So any surplus in this case, I believe 10,000 would then go back into essentially the the cash balance of the water utility.

Excellent. Thank you.

Seeing no other discussion, please vote. And that motion passes 12 to one. Moving on to items in tune be not adopted. Twenty six zero one seven three, resolution in creating and appropriating funds for capital improvement design for the La Crosse City Hall 6 floor remodeling project. Motion made by councilmember Goggins, seconded by councilmember Jansen.

Any discussion? No. It's not to adopt. Council president Dickinson.

I wonder if staff could come forward and explain these monies and the purpose, please.

Is that Chad or Jay? Jay, you got it? Director Odegaard.

Thank you, council president Dickinson. The 35 or 36,000 that we have in there for A and E, and that is to have the project designed, engineered to bid specs for our engineering department. The million dollars in 2027 is in there as a very rough estimate based off a square footage cost for a for a normal remodel. That's where that number came from. And that would be for the entire 6th Floor, the million dollar number.

Thank you. So that's for any of the four departments that are up there, or it it's all inclusive. Correct?

It would be for all four of the departments. That was one of the conversations that our department and those departments had as far as, you know, would this include all four? Before we can really go any farther with this, though, we would need to have a signed agreement with the A and E firm, you know, to start before they could start figuring all that out.

Thank

Councilmember Mendel.

Jay, director Odegaard, the Annie process. So this is funding just for the architecture and engineering service to prepare for this investment. What would happen if this was not approved?

It'd go back on the shelf.

So you would just have that million dollars prepped in CIP with no real understanding of the cost.

Well, my assumption would be if this doesn't get approved, my recommendation would be if this doesn't get approved, then, you know, there really wouldn't be that point to have that million dollars amended into the 2027 CIP. Because in a calendar year, we're we're really cramped to get a project designed and completed, and that's where we try to do it in that year.

Okay. And there's no plan in this for the 1st Floor. It does mention that the 1st And 6th Floor are the only that have not been renovated.

Well, the there's been different levels of renovation on each floor. Level 4 also has not had what I would consider a new renovation. But in in with the with the building that was built in 1970, we've we started the remodel process with the police department. And to me, that was kind of a commitment that we're sticking with this building. There's been talk of, you know, potentially moving to another building or building another building.

But right now, we're we're working as though this is gonna be our home for quite some time. And so a building of this size and due to our financial standing, we need to chip away at it like we would do at your own house. And so we've been doing floor by floor. The 6th Floor would be the next floor that would be in that remodeling kind of order. 1st Floor being last.

I'm not gonna speak to director Gallagher on the 4th Floor, but, you know, at some point, that will have to be done. All of these are gonna have to be done at some point. It's just a matter of when is that and when do we have the financial means to do so.

Is there a reason why the 6th Floor and the 1st Floor seem to have been lower in prioritization?

I think a lot of the other floors, to be honest with you, are more of one department that has pushed the need and and pushed the value. Here, you have four departments sharing one floor, and so there's not an overwhelming push. Mayor Reynolds had asked us to put it together a tentative framework design on remodeling the HR department and the mayor's office couple years back. And so there has been some talk, but again, it comes down to money. And this is never going to be a a real appetizing request from staff or a mayor to say, hey.

I wanna spend money in our office, especially, you know, when we hear the conversations about closing pools and libraries. But the reality is, again, at some point, this is gonna have to be done. At some point, the remodel's gonna have to keep going. That answers.

Yes. Absolutely. And last question, it is unappropriated note funds. Can you explain what that is?

So I believe that's just the uncommitted bond funds that are left over from previous capital projects that, you know, are sitting there.

So not new borrowing. Sort of ish.

Director Hawkins is coming.

So when I put the resolution when together when we when we decided to talk about this, obviously, this is in front of you today because, again, I wanted to make sure that we weren't putting a project forward if the appetite wasn't there. So obviously, the first stages with a project like this would be either our design and engineering constructed first. And again, if the appetite is not there to do this, then we don't need to put a million dollars worth of project in request for 2027, right? So this is kind of that first stage. But to answer your question on the inappropriate note funds, It is not new borrowing, right?

It doesn't require new borrowing. But like Jay had mentioned, it's funds that we have left over from projects that have been completed that came in under budget. Those monies go into our unappropriated bond funds. Those bond unappropriated bond funds that every year finance before we go and do our bidding and do our next round of borrowed funds. We look at all of our unappropriated bond funds and then we use those funds to reduce our borrowing for those years.

Now those funds can be used for reduction of borrowing in years coming up or they can be used for funding of new projects. And that's what we're doing here is we're not looking to go to market right now to borrow more funds to do this. We're going to use funds that we've already borrowed for if the appetite of this body is to move forward. Obviously, like I said, I don't want to spend money even 32,000 on on engineering design work if, again, the appetite is not to include a million dollar project in next year's capital improvement either. So that's kinda why here.

If it gets voted down tonight, then we will not be presenting project for the 6th Floor renovation. If this gets approved tonight, then you can expect to see it on our twenty seven to thirty one capital improvement plan.

Thank you.

Council member Weston.

Director Odegaard, would you mind coming back up? I understand you're not an engineer or an architect. However, I've as the maintainer of this building, I'm wondering if you could ballpark for me when we look at some of these renovation projects that have happened or have yet to happen. What percentage would you say is deferred maintenance that we're going to need to do versus like, it would just be nice if we had new carpet and could move some walls?

I would I hesitate to put a percentage on there, but the deferred maintenance is pretty minimal. The remodels that we've done are actually better utilizing the space than they had designed it for back in the seventies. So one of the main pieces as as you go through the floors is what I call the open vestibule, the shared area on each floor. And again, that's where right now, that's no longer a needed space. So that offers much of that added and it usually comes down to office space or comes down to conference room space in the remodels.

And that's where specifically to the 6th Floor, the mayor's office and the HR office is what would be kind of encapsulating that open area in the lobby for the 6th.

If I may, can I ask one more question, doctor Odegaard? Or doctor director. I elevated you. You're not an engineer, just a doctor tonight. Director Odegaard, I understand. As someone who's been part of a number of million dollar renovation projects in other entities, I understand that the first stage is this getting the plan, right, the engineering, architect plan. I also hear you and director Hawkins say, we can't move forward with getting bids out before we do a plan. Is the reverse also true? Can we do a plan and get here's ideally what we would be looking for and then not commit to moving forward with that in the next year?

Maybe if director Gallagher wanted to offer up one of his engineers, you know, but, obviously, I we generally don't go down that road just because we need the specialty expertise of those particular architects to walk us through, like, what can be done and and still be match still be following the code and, you know, the other Mhmm. Building it in the other codes that we need to have.

Sure. But if we went through this architectural plan and we paid for a plan of how we were going to perhaps renovate the 6th Floor, and let's say we come back and we're like, actually, this is going to be a $2,000,000 project. We haven't earmarked that. We don't have that. We also don't have to follow through with the next step. We will have plans, and we could say this now that we have plans and the engineers' information, we would say, now we have a better understanding of what the project would be, and we simply cannot do it.

I guess what I would offer up is you can get close. We've dealt with this occasionally when state funding is yanked off of a project and we have to halt the design. To Director Odegaard's point, if there are certain codes that you have to meet or certain permits that you have to get, you don't want to complete 100% of the design. But you can generally get to 80% or 90%, put it on the shelf in quotation marks. And then when you do commit to that and you have a better idea of the ballpark, you have to include a little extra to get it going again. But you'd have a better better estimate if the appetite in a future year was was more so than now.

To that point, though, and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the design and even, technically, the million dollar request is not necessarily permanent. Right? Because we're requesting that 32,000 based on what this particular firm is telling us, but that all depends on how we utilize this particular firm as well. Correct?

Correct. So the the propose or the the the quote that we received would take us to that bid document. Now we can minimize that again. So if if, for example, we decide, yeah, we're gonna just do the mayor's office in HR, then that all those numbers are gonna shift to a lower dollar amount. I think the thought process and and, again, I would defer to director Hawkins, but the thought process was put it out there as an entire six floor remodel and then, you know, walk it back if necessary.

Alright. Thank you. Direct sorry. Councilmember Newberry. We just given everybody titles tonight.

Director Hawkins, I think. Six months ago, could read this pretty easily, but it's something changed last month, and I need a little help. Director Hawkins, how are you? Why my question I've I've two questions for you, I think. Wasn't this a part of the regular CIP process? I think you maybe started to answer that a little bit, but framed differently.

Probably just a timing issue. We just started the 2,731 capital project process. Those were due by February 15. So just the timing aspect of it that we were not able to get it in.

Okay. So at the same time, you're looking at this this extra borrowed money that is unallocated at the moment. And what could you what can you knock off the list right away? Right? What's achievable with that amount of money?

Can I chime in on that? Go for it. So a a large part of this too was as we're looking at the 6th Floor, we've talked about that empty space. And we said, well, what are the plans that we can utilize this space? So when talking to HR, so Rebecca Franson and the other directors on that floor, it was, okay.

We've been talking about the 6th Floor renovation or remodeling. And I said, well, let's bring that back up. And specifically because it's CIP time, this is the best time to have that conversation. So then as those departments were meeting, as we're talking, we then met with that particular well, we met with city staff first, so the gym director, to talk about what are our options. So then they brought this firm that has been doing a lot of the renovations. And so then we said, okay. Let's meet with them. Let's talk about this and see, you know, what the needs are. Well, one of the things that was a little bit of a challenge, I would say, for those departments was to kinda, so to speak, reimagine that space. Right?

Because when we do the renovation, we wanna do an entire renovation, not just one office here, one office there, or whatever that turns out to. But we would at least wanted to start that conversation. And we wanted to start it now so that it actually falls within line of the CIP process.

Okay. Thank you. And so all of that makes sense. I guess I just wanna clarify what you just said, mister Mayer. And Yes. The request is to add this to the next CIP budget or to the current one to spend the money?

The next one, the one coming up that will be approved in August. As as it mentions in the staff report, construction proceed in 2027.

I I guess I'm I'm just confused about why we're talking about it right now and not in a couple months.

Because we wanted to get the designs. So I don't necessarily think we need to approve this as a CIP project right now. We just need the funding in order to get the designs done so we would know exactly how much it cost so that we can say, this is how much we need in the CIP for 2027 to do this renovation. Does that clarify that for you? It it

does quite a lot. Thank you.

Council member Buduski. Thank you, director Hawkins.

Thank you, your honor. I think we're putting the cart way ahead of the horse on this. I think this is a discussion we should be having later this year when we know if we have an administrator or not because I don't know why we're gonna design a floor plan without considering where he or she will be having a place to sit down the road. So I will be voting no on this, and this would be a good good discussion this fall. Thank you.

Council member Bedford.

Thank you. I had I went up to the 6th Floor earlier today. I had some conversations. I think I missed HR, but I was able to sit down with, director Hawkins. No. Hawkins. There we go. Thank you. Try not to use first names. And I was able to get a little bit of a tour of the lawyer area back there, which reminded me a little bit of when I worked in retail, and I would get a 40 foot schematic, and I'd have 10 feet to to put it in, except for all of the things that they so nicely had organized were things that are things that, you know, other people shouldn't be seeing, things that are confidential.

One of the things that was brought up is that there's not a conference room up there for legal to use, and that causes some issues, nothing that they aren't capable of dealing with. But I wanted to highlight that because a lot of the conversation has been about HR and the mayor's office. And while I agree with Councilmember Podeski that, for me, I think that this should probably wait until we get that city administrator or operations manager, and maybe we push this back another year, I I just wanted to highlight that as a a need on the 6th Floor that we also have, and make sure that the people were aware of of that as well, not just for the mayor's office.

Councilmember Jensen.

I won't be supporting this. It is not a priority. In nine years, I've never heard anyone say, we absolutely there's all these problems on 6th Floor that it needs remodeling. It's more of a want, from my perspective. And I don't see the benefit the taxpayer is going to get by us spending this money right now come up with a design and then, in the future, spending $1,000,000 or whatever it's going to take to remodel.

I cannot sleep at night even contemplating that concept of supporting that. So I think that there's a lot of uncertainty as far as the structure of city government conversations coming forward. And yeah, just it's not even an option, in my opinion.

Councilmember Goggin.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm just going to go out and say this is a terrible idea. The constituents are talking to us and telling us, we've closed a pool. We've closed a library. We don't have large item pickup anymore. We can't find a way to pick up leaves. We're just being told over and over again that we're not listening. And we should listen, and we should be better stewards of the taxpayer dollar. We heard that earlier in a conversation. And I just wanna say emphatically that I will not support this.

Thank you. Council president Dickinson.

I feel like I'm ready to vote. I would like this design to go through. What I would like to be clear is that we reiterate what the motion is on the floor so that we understand our vote when we do so. So, it is a motion to deny that is on the floor. So, if you vote yes, you're supporting that denial. If you vote no, you would like to reconsider some other option. Yes. Thank you.

Any other discussion? Alright. Seeing none, please vote. And the motion passes with 12 yes and five no. Moving on to our next agenda item. 26 dash 021. Wait. Hold on. Sorry. Wrong back.

Consent agenda. Getting better. Moving to our consent agenda and the following items, the following consent agenda will be approved with a single voice vote based on the recommendation recommended actions unless an item is removed at the request of the mayor or a council member. At this time, is there any request for any items to be removed off of the consent agenda? Council member Podescu. Thank you, your honor.

And I know me and the consent agenda, so it's a bad omen. But I thought when I abstained last week, but I found out from our city clerk that that has changed in the last few years and abstention when there's a clear vote on the other side. It actually does does not stay out of the consent agenda. So for that reason, I am taking out twenty six dash zero one four three and would like to retain the Floor.

Twenty six dash one. Thank

you.

Are there any other items that anyone would like to remove off of the consent agenda? Alright. Seeing none, we'll start with agenda item twenty six zero one four three. An ordinance to amend subsection one fifteen dash one ten of the code of ordinance of the city of La Crosse transferring certain property from the local business district to the planned development district general, allowing for the construction of a mixed use development, including residential and commercial uses at 2415 State Street. Motion to adopt by council president Dickinson, second by council Troost, council member Podeski. Thank you, your honor. And I

know it's been a little hypocritical because nobody has been more vocal about the, pigeon condo out there off of Losey Boulevard. But so much has changed on this as far as now we're gonna have parking on Farnam, which is gonna push any traffic going south. They're gonna cut through the neighborhoods. Originally, when I went to Kmart in twenty or '21, it was three stories. Sure.

When they applied in '22, it was five stories, but it was three stories when they had the meeting at Kmart to show the public what it would look like. There's just too many reasons, you know, going against this. I go by Green Bay Street a lot, go into Central. I look at that beautiful pocket community where the naval reserve used to sit. I know that the developer had talked that there would be 22 houses. He didn't think they would sell. I really believe that that would be a beautiful spot for those 22 houses. I think they would sell. So that's I don't wanna sit here all night on on pulling another thing off the agenda, but I will not be supporting this. Thank you.

Any other discussion on this item? Council member Jansen.

Thank you for pulling that, Gary. I too will not be supporting this. I I do support the whole idea of the zoning, but, because I don't believe in a five story buildings on that lot, I am gonna vote no tonight.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Seeing them, please vote. So the motion to adopt, if you vote yes, you are in favor of this item. If you vote no, you are voted against it.

That motion passes nine to four. Moving to our consent agenda. Seeing that there are no other items to be removed from the consent agenda, motion to adopt by council member Mendel, second by council president Dickinson. At this time, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously. I would just use this time to say that thank you all council members for this meeting.