Common Council - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good evening, everyone. We are going to call this meeting to order at 6PM on 11/17/2025. Let the record reflect that all council members are present, and Crystal or council member Bedford is joining us virtually. Let us stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Pledge of allegiance. To the flag

of The United States Of America, it

is the republic for which it

stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

with liberty, and justice for all.

So to start off our, hearing today, I'll just kinda give a brief overview of what's going to take place. First, we're gonna start with a presentation by our finance director, director Hawkins, and then we are going to move into public hearing where people will be allowed at three minutes to speak. It's not a lot of folks here, but just so we still remain and understand that decorum is important, there are no signs allowed as well as we ask that you keep the chatter to a minimum. And then after we have our presentation and our public hearing, then we'll move to our budget and then into our amendments and then move with the regular scheduled agenda. So director Hawkins.

All right. Thank you, everybody. Was asked to put together a little presentation for you. It should be out there on Legistar for everybody as well as I did make hard copies for everybody and pass those out, so you should all have those. So if you'd like to follow along, we can start our 2026 operating budget journey as I like to call it.

And, oh, what a journey it has been so far. But I'm pleased to announce that I feel like we are right around the corner and about to wrap up this particular year's budget for us. So that being said, if your patience here on the screen, there's a little bit of a lag. Maybe we can do that way. All right.

So some of the content that I'll go over real quick is, again, this is kind of a high level overview of our budget process. There'll be a few different items in there statistically that we can discuss, but really wanted to give those, especially those that are new to the budget process, kind of a step by step where began this process and where we're about to finish it. So again, doing this

a

while, for those that haven't that have done it for a while, maybe you can attest to the fact that that first one is a little bit it's a lot of information. And once you get through that first one and we start getting into more of them as the years go on, it becomes a little bit easier for you. But again, we'll do the introduction. I'll go through some few of the budget restraints that we've talked about over the last several meetings. The budget journey, again, that kind of that step by step point A to point Z within the budget and then some future considerations that we always talk about as well.

So my introduction, again, the annual budget is about a six plus month journey process for us. Before the process begins, are two main municipal constraints that impact the overall budget. One limits the growth of revenue, operating levy and the

other limits expenditures. And that's all done through that expenditure restraint program that we've talked about before. So from a budget perspective, we know that our revenues are limited on a year to year basis and that there are pros and cons to exceeding those expenditure limits that are set by the states. And that's at ERP and we'll get into more

of that as we go through here. Next slide. Operating levy, again, based limits on the operating levy tied to the city's net new construction. And that, again, means and again, you've probably heard this several times, this is the value of all newly constructed or improved buildings and land minus the value of any demolished or destroyed buildings and land. And what we did here is this does tie into I don't know if you remember or have it up, it is also attached to Legistar.

But there is worksheet tied oh, shoot, I don't have it up, Sorry. Number seven in legislator, the operating budget reference sheet. It does tie that out over the last seven years within the presentation. I only did the five just for a fit. But I think what we're trying to show here is again our restraints that have been put on to us by the state over the last several years, tied to the net new construction.

You can see those net new constructions typically have been around that 1%. There's a couple of years in there down around that 0.68%. But those net new construction dollar amounts, that is that additional revenue that again that we get to potentially levy and use for expenses going into next year. Kind of like your house, right, when you get a pay raise at home or whatever, that is your pay raise for the city. And you can see that those have fluctuated anywhere from a high value 412,000 down to this year's net new construction amount of 251,000.

So not a lot of income that is allowed to be levied for budgets moving forward. And those are the restraints that we keep continually talk about that that we're hoping that not only you, but legislation, the league, all that kind of hit that up with our legislators in Madison to maybe take some of those restraints off so that we

can

continue to fund and operate at the level that our constituents have grown to approve and like, I guess. Next slide. Next on my slide is the expenditure restraint incentive program or the ERP as we like to call it. Again, we've talked about this before, but it's a state incentive program aimed to limit growth and expense by providing state funds when the municipal qualifies. Calculation for qualification is tied to the consumer price index or inflation and net new construction.

And again, you can kind of see that the expense budgets allowed increase fluctuates a little bit here and there, but it's all based on CPI and inflation rates. In 2023, we all know what happened with COVID stuff, prices just increased. So we're allowed to do that. But we're working under the guys this year again based on the directive that we were given from you to stay under the ERP limits and that's what we've done to present to you today in this annual operating budget. But you can see on the right hand column there, those additional revenue payments that are affected if we don't make those ERP payments.

They are significant dollars. So again, my perspective, very important that we do our best to continue to maintain receiving those ERP payments. And I can go and do it a little bit more later. But the kind of the fiscal impact if we don't have those dollars coming in and then how that kind of looks overall. This one I like, this is my next slide.

Kind of that budget journey, like I said, kind of step by step real high overview. Our step one again, budget parameter committee convenes that has by ordinance, we must convene that no later than July 1 of every year. Again, typically, the city, we've always done it sometime right around that mid to end June. And we have that step. Step two, departments prepare and submit operational budget request to finance.

That's done after we've convened the budget parameter committee. We have a time that we open up the request from departments to start submitting their information. We compile that information and then that moves us kind of in the step three where finance, the mayor and the department had sit down together and we come up with an overall original draft budget based on all the requests that the departments have submitted for us. Next, we move into step four, kind of our board of estimate meetings. If you remember those, those usually start right around that September.

October, we try and have another one. There is no limit on the amount that we can have or a minimum. We've typically always had two since I've been here. But, again, we could hold one every day if we really needed to. But the purpose of those, again, is to hold public hearings during that board of estimate time frame.

And then finally, step five, kind of the presentation of the proposed city budget right now today for our public hearing. And then this is the next the next slide is kind of just get into what those steps kind of mean for me. Budget parameter committee, again, it's required to convene, like I said, prior to July 1. It's comprised of the finance and personnel committee and the mayor. The goal is to set expectations for budget guidance.

This year, the guidance for 2026 was the meat expenditure restraint program, which again, did finally eventually get to that level that was expected of us, that guidance. Again, during that timeframe, the committee looks at anticipated estimated expenses and revenues that we can kind of control. I wouldn't say control. Some of those costs that we know are coming. We know that we potentially have employee salary and wage benefit increases.

We can kind of anticipate health insurance premiums, utility costs don't seem to be getting any cheaper and those go up. Property liability insurance, elections again fluctuate depending on the number of elections we have. So that's where if you remember back at our original budget parameter committee meeting, I think those numbers were anticipated somewhere in the ballpark of about $3,200,000 of increased expenses just for those particular line items. Our estimated revenues again are all based on a little bit of guesswork shared revenue, the use of fund balance. We know that the ARPA funding has been exhausted.

Losing that and then the use of general fund levy to whether or not we decide to use it or if it gets exhausted again from a previous year. But those are some of the things that put together that original worksheet. If you remember going back to that budget parameter committee meeting and that $3100000.03200000.0 dollars increase to expenses. The next slide, departmental operation budget requests again, at that point departments prepare their annual operating budget requests by submitting them to finance and we put them in a really neat kind of sheets that we then present to the mayor and myself and Dave and just kind of go through it line by line. You know, Operational budget consists of all expenses expected in the year, right?

I mean, we're talking personnel salary and wages, any trainings and conferences, software, computer equipment, utilities, contracted service. I mean, there's a whole line of things. But I've been pretty clear. We all know that a big part of our budget is comprised of the personnel salary and wages piece. And and we keep picking away at some of that other non personnel items.

And we can get into more of that, I suppose. Next slide, department requested budget review. Again, we're just looking at some real comprehensive review of department budget request. We go line by line. That's one of the jobs I do before we get in the mayor is I I just kind of do a a real comprehensive review of each budget, going line by line, comparisons of year after year to see if we're maintaining or or where we're at.

Again, kind of an example would be if we had a $5,000 line item for conferences or trainings and registrations, and I look back over the last three years and we've averaged 3,000, I'm gonna make make a note of that, and we're gonna bring that up during our meetings with the mayor and and determine whether or not that's still acceptable to have 5,000, or do we need 3,000, if that makes sense? So I we do go through pretty heavy line by line. And the reasoning for that, I think, is to try and present to you. We're not necessarily bogged down the committee in the process with doing it themselves, where we we can kind of take some of that workload off of off of you as as a council. So we're presenting budgets that are a little bit more summary than extended.

Ability to provide adjustments and recommendations again is another thing that we do when we're sitting in our one on ones and the goal is to identify opportunities for its reductions as it says. Next, we get to our Board of Estimates. That's where again we're conducting public hearings to obtain feedback from constituents, identify and prioritize city initiatives, review, analyze of department budget proposals, which would be leverage department executive input and drive budget decisions. And the goal of getting the budget as Board of Estimates is to provide guidance and direction for the creation of budget presented at the annual public hearing. Next slide.

Kind of took this one from a different slide that I went through in June, but future considerations again. State limitations on the city budget. Again, we've talked about levy limits, expenditure restraints, city assessed valuations, general fund budget and mill rate histories, one time revenues to balance budget, future needs to address the ending of contingency fund outside of emergency items and maintain general fund balance of required 20% per policy. And last but not least was a slide we thought I thought would be a good idea to put in there. I want to stress they're not per se actual numbers, but they're kind of a good representation of what we're trying to convey.

We're looking at revenues that again are flat over a five year period or fairly flat over a five year period. This is showing a pretty good increase within expenses over that same five year period and how that gap in between those two continues to get wider. And those are the restraints that we're having to deal with as municipalities within the state, right? Not just City Of La Crosse, but all over. I started out with $380,000 in revenue and $1,800,000 in expenses.

Those should tie to the annual operating budget in front of you and those differences between the two years. There's no real rhyme or reason or real big analytics on how I came up with the rest. I took 3% increase in expenses, 3% increase in revenues and came up with those year after year revenue increases and expenses. But the cumulative of it is really what I'm trying to focus on is the fact that as our revenues continue to stay stagnant, our expenses are increasing at a much more exponential increase than our revenues and we keep getting further and further apart. You know, when we talk about it having to go through the same exercise year after year, that is a reality that that we're in as municipals in the state of Wisconsin right now until things change.

My goal and what I've said to you before is trying to take that steeper expense curve and just level it out a little bit. I think we can work together to do that through the use of fund balance, through the use of additional taxation if we need to. And we and I feel like we can do it at at that buffer somewhere between that 2,000,000 and 2 and a half if we have to for the next several years and still be all right with the utilization of fund balance to offset some of those expenses or the use of taxation or a mixture of both. But again, to state again, unrealistic to think at this point we're going to cut expenses down below or get to those revenue amounts, probably not at this time. I mean, you saw how hard it was to get to where we're at right now.

If we had to do that year after year, it would be almost impossible. So but reiterating, kind of just maintaining in a a a maintenance mode that we're in. You know? Let's take care of the things we have, and we'll help get each other through the next few years until we can figure out solutions to an overwhelming problem that the that the the state of Wisconsin has as far as their levy limits and stuff. So other than that, that was kind of it. My next slide, just to thank you. And I guess if there's any questions on anything, certainly happy to.

Thank you, director Hawkins. Council member Troves.

Thank you for the floor. You said, I just wanna make sure I under I heard correctly, that we would be dealing with our gap through the fund balance? And then did you say annexation or taxation? Taxation. Okay. I figured that's what you said. And so when you say fund balance, aren't we doing that this year?

Correct. That has been proposed as part of the bridge between expenditures and what we need for revenues is to utilize, yes, some fund balance and some additional taxation through our debt service levy.

So we're doing that now, and you anticipate we'll need to do that for the next several years too?

I do. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Alright. Seeing none. Thank you very much, director Hawkins. At this time, I'll take a motion to open public hearing. Motion made by council member Mendel, second by council member Kahlo. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Alright.

That motion passes unanimously. We have two speakers currently. So we'll start with our first speaker, Vicki Markerson, municipality of residents La Crosse.

Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I know one of the last times I was before you was advocating for the Northside Pool staying in the capital improvement plan. And now we are here trying to save the pool and the library. Many of you know I work with the North LaCrosse Business Association. And so I am here to remind you that what happens tonight will cost millions to replace. It is a vote to remove some community assets that

are

vital. And I was talking to a realtor who said, I have people looking to move to the North Side and buy a home. And if you saw the headlines, where would you choose to live? These are incredible assets to our area. I know you've heard a lot of feedback, and so I intentionally tried to make my remarks, ones that perhaps you had not considered because I think you've probably gotten a lot of feedback.

And so I recalled, one of our beloved professors in this community from Viterbo, Rick Height, recently wrote a book, and it's called finding your third place, building happier communities and making great friends along the way. And what he talks about with third places are these neutral, welcoming places where people gather that are outside their home and aren't work. And in those places, trust is built, connections are made, and a sense of belonging is created. Those those are foundations of healthy cities. Libraries and pools are third places.

They promote equity, safety, and community well-being. I think in the conversations about the library, we forget about the technology and the access to technology that is free for people that do not currently have that access. It is a safe place for our youth. Job searches happen there. There's literacy support.

There are tremendous programs, and that strengthens our community connections. The Northside Pool, very similar. It is an equitable place where children can learn water safety. Families have affordable places to go, the youth are supervised, and the neighbors get to meet each other. When third spaces disappear, isolation grows, it decreases safety, and opportunities shrink.

Second, these places strengthen neighborhood stability and economic vitality. They are well maintained, they help property values, and they encourage families to stay. Third, cutting these services creates higher long term costs With rising expenses in law enforcement, youth intervention, emergency response, and social services, this has long term impacts. I remind you, what you do tonight has long term effects and will cost millions of dollars to replace. I encourage you to keep the Northside Library and the Northside Pool open to encourage third places where positive things happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Linda Cabanigro. Sorry. Can you do me a favor and hit that button on the mic? There you go. Thank you.

Okay. There we go. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. As a lifelong resident of North La Crosse and La Crosse in general, I would like to speak to the my opposition to the closing of the Northside Library and the pool. I did attend, the library board meeting a week and a half or so ago, and, it was disappointing that the decision that they had made.

To me, it's very apparent that people do wanna keep the North Branch Library open, and we need it to keep going for a variety of reasons, most of which have been addressed by previously by various neighbors and groups that have spoken at the meetings that preceded this one. The most important of these to me are providing a safe and accessible resource for all of the citizens of the Northside, but mostly for children and the elderly. There's no denying the accessibility of the main branch is a problem for these two groups in particular, safety being a huge concern. The library board talked about making a difficult decision to close the North Branch. In my mind, the difficult decision would have been voting to keep it open.

That would require digging in and working hard to find the funds and solutions necessary to save this important institution. Please do the hard work and save our library and our Northside pool. Don't take more things from the North Side and make it less attractive for new people to move in. When new people move in, the tax base goes up. Some of these problems may be solved. So thank you for listening, and I hope you make the correct call tonight when you vote.

Thank you. Motion to close public hearing. Motion made by council member Northwood, second by council member Newberry. I would like to move to unanimous consent if you are opposed or if dang. If you object to move into unanimous consent to close public hearing signify by saying nay.

Alright. Seeing none, unanimous consent. And moving to our first agenda item, which is twenty five zero six five one resolution approving the 2026 operating budget. So before we begin, I know that director Hawkins have some amendments that he would like to bring forth.

Mayor, do we need to do the

first agenda item, which is the fee schedule? Is it crucial to do those in order?

So they were not, so I did not do them in order.

Actually, so it may be pertinent to do the fee schedule first. Some of the amendments are tied to that fee schedule increase potentially.

Alright. So we'll do that first. Alright. Just to verify, I also checked. But in twenty five one three three one, resolution approved in appendix c of the municipal code for the city of La Crosse entitled fee schedule effective 01/01/2026. Motion to approve by council member Troll, second by council member Weston. Any discussion? Council member Goggin.

I'd like to amend the, fee schedule, and I'm looking at,

let me

get my note here. Keep on track. Right now, billboard companies who have these ginormous billboards all around the city of La Crosse and have years long, if not infinity, contracts pay $20 per billboard face. We don't have personal property taxes anymore, we don't collect those. And these billboards take up valuable, sometimes develop real estate.

I'd like to amend the fee schedule and raise this permit fee to $75 at at minimum, and then we can look at it again in 2026 after, more, we've only looked at one other community, and, but we could we could start there and move on from there. And if, again, it would generate revenue for the city of La Crosse. And, again, I'm asking to, take that permit fee from $20 to $75. It's reasonable. It's easy to do, and it does not hurt any, constituent in our city. Thank you.

So there's amendment on the floor. I'm trying to do you know which number that is? Sorry. Councilmember Gaga. If

you look at the fee schedule, it is okay. I don't know. It's in 11 it's in 111Dash36.

Okay. Thank you. And your amendment is to amend that to 75?

To to go from $20 to $75.

K.

And if I just may speak just so that everyone's sure, I can't take credit for this. A, member of the public brought this forward.

Okay. So there's an amendment on the floor by council member Goggins, second by council member Kahlo. Any other discussion? Councilmember Troz, because I'm assuming councilmember Janssen, yours is gonna be in the okay. Councilmember Troz.

I'm just wondering why this is only coming to us today and now and on the floor if the agenda and these items have been out for a while?

Would you like me to direct that to the council member? Council member Goggin, do you have a response?

Sure do. Just like anything, amendment we received last Thursday night when it's been on stuff has been in the on the agenda and on the floor. This just came to my attention. And in trying to find out the answers, I was given some information, but I wanted to do my homework and my due diligence. So I'm bringing this up, and that is why I'm bringing it tonight.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Alright. Seeing none, please vote. Alright. That motion passes 12 yes on one no. Council member Jansen.

I'm hoping that, someone from staff is able to explain, to the council as well as to the public. It appears that we're adding a permit for siding, that was eliminated, I believe, back in 2020. And now, it appears to be back in. So if staff could explain the reasoning behind that, that would be great.

Is there a staff member able to explain this item? Is there a specific staff member you are looking for?

I suppose David Reinhardt or Andrea Train.

K. I know Andrea is on virtually.

Hi. Thank you. We sat down and David and Tim and I sat down and went through all the permits that had been permit fees that had been eliminated or very incrementally changed over the last couple of years and made decisions to make those updates. I don't have the exact reason why that permit fee was eliminated in 2020, but in reviewing, looking at what we had taken out in the past that we felt should still be in, we added those back in. I can try to get an answer for you on why that was taken out in 2020, but in our discussions with staff, did not see a reason that at this point why that should be eliminated, and so wanted to add that back back in.

Is there a follow-up?

Thank you, director Train. I guess, from my perspective, there's put that back in. It's not a safety issue, and there was much debate when it was taken out years ago. And, obviously, at the time, we took siding off the permit list. We debated roofing, and roofing stayed because it was a safety issue. So that's my 2¢.

Will you be making an amendment, council member Johnson?

No. Okay.

Alright. Back to the approval of council member Weston.

Thank you, mister mayor. I have a newbie question that I just don't know the answer to. There's a variety of really, I haven't seen this full list. It's kind of hard to acquire at other times. So my question is about if there are other thing to council member Jansen's point, are there if there are other pieces that were like, why do we have this, or should this be changed, and it's not just a rate adjustment? Is this the only way to do that, or is there a way to just do that through the normal counsel process?

It's a great question. I'm going to toss that over to Sandra or to director of finance.

Amendments to the fee schedule can come at any time of the year. I think we've had maybe a couple during the new council member cycle. So it just depends on, you know, if new permits get added or if something maybe gets phased out, that those changes would kinda be made piecemeal. This time of the year, you know, we're taking a look at the budget, so we're kind of doing a whole bunch at a time. So that's kind of the difference.

Answers question? Alright. Thank you. Councilmember Troves.

Thank you. If we're voting on the whole thing, I actually see that there are a bunch of 100 eleven-36s, and I guess I'm not certain which one of those we voted on. And I apologize for my sloppiness in not asking this question originally. All of the one one three sixes? Which one did we raise?

One second. Sorry.

Matt said it's the the fifth one. So the $20 was amended to 75.

The off premises signage annual permit fee per face, that one? That's the one? Okay. Do you know how much money that would generate? No? Do we have any idea how much that would generate?

Inspections. May know more on how much.

K. And a follow-up? Alright. So the motion has been made to adopt by council member Tro, second by council member Weston. Seeing no other speakers, please vote.

And that motion passes unanimously. Alright. Moving to agenda item twenty five zero six five one, resolution approving the 2026 operating budget. So I'm gonna move to director Hawkins for to discuss the amendments needed.

Alright. Thank you. Ours are actually really neat this year because we're just really dealing with additional revenues that we have. So that's a good one. And then you can see there are three expense line items. It's just a little bit of housekeeping, but then that's out to zero. So that that, really has no effect on

Point of order.

Yes.

Don't, there's a motion to adopt the budget. Don't we, get it on the floor first before we start discussing amendments?

You're correct.

Sorry. I'll think question. I

that's I

clerk's office identified some additional revenues coming in with the passage of the updated fee schedules that shows there. Again, the police department, we we did receive additional support payments for the SRO officer. So that is now included in there pending the approval of this budget change and then some additional state revenue pieces there. So, again, like I said, really happy to present amendment to the annual operating budget based on nothing but really additional revenue. So that's fun.

The next piece of it that we didn't get to at our board of estimate meeting, but we do need to talk about it. And that other sheet of paper that you have is the proposed adjustments to the authorized FTE list. Police departments are asking for a reclassification of one of their positions at a total of $1,294.66 amendment to the expense line item there, and then the three new positions that the water and wastewater are requesting. So those are my two budget amendments that I would be seeking approval for today.

So, Sandra, just a quick question. For these amendments, we do I'm assuming just one at a time. So let's start with the operating budget changes and then do the positions. Okay. First amendment on the floor is proposed twenty twenty six operating budget changes.

Is there a motion to adopt?

Yes. You

got a question? Yeah.

Thank you. I just wonder if I was allowed to ask a question on this before I decide to make a motion on it or not. These increase in revenues, if we were not taking them to set the levy and the fund balance? Could they go back to their department? And then would we have extra money in the ERP to possibly fund keeping the pool and library open?

It's a good question. I kind of anticipated that being asked, but the short answer is, again, no. The ERP is strictly on expenses. So if we were to increase the expenses even with the additional revenue, we would exceed our ERP.

Right. But if the revenue goes to the police department, does that not decrease their operating expenses?

No. No. It will not affect their operating expenses. Okay.

Alright. Thank you.

Not not as far as ERP goes. I mean, they're not certainly would show a decrease in their net overall, but from the ERP perspective, no. It does not decrease their expenses. So it doesn't help in that matter. Thank you.

Alright. Is there a motion?

I have a You

had a question.

Point of clarification too.

Doctor. Go ahead. Doctor.

So on October 9, we had a piece of paper that had our police records manager reclassification included on it and two new wastewater positions. And so it seems to me what we had tonight is only one new position. I mean, I'm looking at the document. Do you know what I mean, director Hawkins?

Yep. Yep. And it was part of the packet. However, night got pretty late, and we never actually did get to these changes in the FTE list during that meeting. We approved the recommendation that was presented, but it did not include the approval of these updated FTE lists at that time.

Okay. I find that confusing. But okay.

It was it was in the packet, but it but it wasn't part of the it wasn't part of the motion for approval for the operating budget. Budget. It was a different a separate piece of legislation that never got introduced into the motion.

Alright. So back to the proposed 2026 operating budget changes. Is there a motion to adopt this? Motion made by council member Kahlo. Is there a second? And remember, we're not talking about the budget positions right now, just the the other one. Second by Council Member Podeski. Any other discussion about the proposed 2026 operating budget changes?

So we're just voting on the proposed '26 operating budget change. Just this sheet.

Just this sheet right now.

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.

Yeah. Alright. We're we're gonna do that separate. Alright. Seeing no other questions, go ahead and vote.

Alright. That motion passes unanimously. Alright. And the next one is our city of La Crosse proposed adjustment authorized FTE list for the 2026 operating budget. Is there a motion to adopt?

Motion made by council member, Kalo. Is there a second? Second by council member Pedusky. Any discussion? Alright. Seeing none, please. Council president sorry. Councilmember Janssen.

Could you explain, Director Hawkins, why this is based on 2025 wages and health insurance premiums when we're budgeting for 'twenty six?

At the time that h HR puts this together for us, because we don't have an approved 2026 wage scale approved at this time, we we only have the information for '25 to put it together.

Alright. Council President Dickinson.

I just think similar to the one prior to this. We just wanna make sure we know how many positions we're talking about and that we're clear as to what we are adding. Can someone just take the moment to define that for

In terms of the number of positions? Or Yeah. Okay. So so the police is a reclassification. Director Francine, are coming down? Okay. Look. I was ready. I I had it.

Figured you could tap me in, I could help. So for the police records manager, this is just a reclassification from a grade 11 to a grade 12. So that's why that's that minor adjustment there. As far as the other positions, it is one waste water maintenance specialist at a grade eight, one equipment operator one at a grade six, and one utility maintenance mechanic at a grade seven.

Is there a follow-up?

Thank you. I just wanted to be clear because have lots of papers rolling, and that's all I needed. Thanks.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other members or speakers, please go ahead and vote. Alright. And that motion passes. 12 yes and one no. Moving back to the 2026 operating budget. Councilmember McGoggan.

Is this the appropriate time for amendments? Yes. All right. I have two. Do you want me to do both at once or separately?

Separately, please.

Thank you. I'd like to amend the 2026 operating budget to fund the North Branch Library for 2026. The funds will come from the proposed workforce study, which has $75,000 allocated for it. As the library director and the library board have put together a plan to fund the North Branch Library until June 2026, this funding will keep it open for the balance of the year. It would also give La Crosse residents throughout the city a chance to keep having their voices and their ideas heard.

So how much?

I'm sorry. I did not say that. $50,000 of that proposed study.

So the amendment on the table is to remove $50,000 from the workforce study to the library. Okay. I actually okay. So the motion was made. There's a second by council member Jansen. So we're gonna open up for discussion. I just want to clarify something before we do this. This body can't determine whether or not the library chooses to open the Northside library. Am I correct in that? Please do. Director.

Thank you. Yes. You are correct in that this body sets the allocation. The library board would need to reconvene and discuss the amounts and make the determination to keep the Northside Library open to the end of the year, if that is what this body chooses to do with those funds.

Okay. Yes.

So my question would be to you, if there's funding and this council sets that as a priority and tasks you as department head to go back to the library board with that information, what would that recommendation be? What would the recommendation be from me?

Right. I would come back and relay the wishes of this body to that one. And, you know, I would state that everything that we heard from Director Hawkins would still be true. We would still have that gap going forward to 2030. We would still be pushing that decision down the road. And we would be back here again in August when we start doing this budget season again. But certainly, would convey all of the wishes of this group.

Councilmember Charles?

I actually had a question for director Franson.

Okay. Sorry. Director Franson.

Could you speak to the purpose behind this workforce study and what we might be losing if this money is reallocated here? And what would our benefits be for this workforce study?

Yes. Thank you for the question. So the purpose of the workforce study is not to evaluate employee wages. I know that that has been part of some conversation floating around. It is to evaluate, do we have the right number of staff to fulfill the services that the city currently provides to our our our citizens? We would find if there's operational efficiencies within the city related to our staff. Is there new technology we could implement, instead of having a staff person do a certain role? And it would ultimately look at, do we have the right number of people? Do we need to add? Do we need to reduce?

And it would help us identify that while also giving us a five year strategic plan to move forward. So we wouldn't be looking to make all of these changes at once. It would be a path forward so that we know what positions we need to add in the future or eliminate.

So it's a sort of an investment, and we would expect some return on that in terms of efficiencies or gaps or extra that we could smooth out. Yeah? Correct. I look at this

as a long term investment into our human capital with the city.

All right. Thank you.

Councilmember Kahlo.

Thank you, Mayor. Is this something that we could do next year? First question. Yes, we can do this study at any time. Okay. So we could do that the next year. And then my question would be, if it found that we had inadequate staff to perform the duties, what would this council do with a budget that doesn't allow us to increase staff?

Correct. Part of that is also looking at the use of technology. So it might not be that it is an actual human being that would be doing a duty to create an efficiency. It could be a use of technology. Now technology comes with costs, and I do understand that as well. But technology doesn't have the expenditure of benefits that we do have with all of our full time staff. So, yes, there there is going to be an expense, whether that is the introduction of new technology, if there is a recommendation for more staff, or a recommendation to reorganize certain departments.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Councilmember Goggin. Councilmember Jenks. Oh, you do? Okay.

Thank you, Director Framzen. And what if this study told us that we were too many people? That would, in fact, force us, basically, if we follow studies, to eliminate positions, correct?

That is something that our department heads would have to look at. That is a potential outcome of doing this study, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember Jen Hanson.

If we were to do this study, is it my understanding that our department heads do this overall already? They're evaluating if they need to, you know, change things, reassign, that kind of thing?

Yes. I would say that as positions become vacant, our department heads are looking at those positions and if they're necessary or if they can be reorganized or reclassified in a certain manner. I guess my commentary to that would be sometimes if you're used to certain positions for so long, it's helpful to have an outside source tell us if there's different ways to go about doing the job that we've done the same way for a long time.

Councilmember Bedeski.

Thank you, mister mayor. Rebecca, could you do part of the study with the 25 k that would be left and then finish the study next year? Could you choose maybe, say, utilities and do that part of it? Or police and fire and break it into two pieces for one year this year and one year next year?

I could evaluate that with I have not pursued an RFP with this yet, so that would be a discussion with a consultant, how they would prefer to go about it. An option of a different study that the HR could evaluate that would be an ask for next year is we do need to update our pay in class study. That is 19,000, so that would be within the 25 remaining with the 50 that is being requested. That would be another ask that I have coming in the future. As a reminder, we did a pay in class study in 2022 prior to my time with the city.

Part of what was adopted with that pay in class study is to do a market analysis of our wages every three to five years. So we are at that timeline where we need to do that. Otherwise, our wages will get behind with those of our counterpart. And then when we do go to do a future pay in class study, we may be seeing higher increases at that time by delaying it.

Okay. So you could put that money to good use then this year, the 25?

I could put that 25 to use. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember Manila.

Thank you, mayor. I'm just wondering from an HR standpoint standpoint, is this common practice? Is this part of, like, overall best practices in HR operations?

Yes. I do believe this is a best practice at HR. Okay.

And I would just like to add that I also pushed for this workforce study to be done because I think it is important to have the data to inform the positions that we are either creating or eliminating. So in doing the pay in class study, that's great. And we also have to look at our workforce and kinda see where we're top heavy, what other positions do we need, are we being the most efficient, etcetera. So just wanna throw that out there as well. Any other questions or okay. Councilmember Kahlo.

Thank I don't have a question for you. Thank you. Just a question. If this is approved and the library board says, no, we're not going to keep the library open, I would prefer that the money come back, they don't keep the 50,000. So what would be the way to phrase that in the amendment?

I'm gonna turn that one to legal or clerks.

I'm not aware of a way you can do that.

So we cannot, in the amendment, say it to it is contingent on

Under state statute, you have to adopt a budget. Once a budget is adopted, the only way to change that is through the amendment process by statute. There's a defined process to do that. There's not a way that I'm aware of that you can put those types of strings, given what you're looking to do right now.

Okay. Thank you. I had to ask the question.

Councilmember Gaga, thank you.

I was, going to ask that we could, my point of clarification would be that we would make it contingent upon the North Branch library staying open. But thank you, Attorney Matti.

Councilmember Troves.

Thank you for the floor. I will not be supporting this amendment. And I want to apologize to the library board, the staff, and the director for having your very hard and painful work disregarded by this body. And I know that it's not simply a question of how much money you have, but the painful work that the library board did to make the decision based what's on Point of order. Excuse me. I am just finished. Thank you.

Thank you. You said a point of order?

Yes. We are not here to chastise other council members or to call into question the motives. There's no motive here except to keep a branch of a library open.

Thank you. Council President Dickinson.

I will not be able to support this as well. I feel we are, using monies, trying to impart an emotional response to a situation, and we need to be fiscally responsible. Thank you.

All right. Any other speakers? Councilmember Kahlo.

Thank you, Mayor. I stated at our last budget meeting and I will state again that I won't be supporting any budget that supports closing the Northside Library or Northside Pool. So, I will be supporting this $50,000 and I would expect then, if this passes, that the library board would understand we could keep the library open for the other half of the year and try to come up with some solutions for 2027.

All right. Councilmember Jensen.

I'll be supporting this. I'd much rather be able to say that the money is contingent on the North Branch opening. But I do have faith that the public will continue to make their perspective and very clear. I think they've already done an amazing job sharing their feedback. I think keeping that library open for another six months is the way to go. Of course, the library board could obviously use this money for something else, but I think it's worth taking that risk today.

All right. Councilmember Mendell.

I really struggle with voting to close a library. And I think all of us have have a listen to the community's feedback and input. I certainly don't think anyone ran for office to close a library. I'm married to a librarian. This is very anti my whole being.

I'm wondering if we can hear from director Hawkins. My brain keeps asking, is there any way that we can keep these amenities without negatively impacting other parts of the budget? How would this impact ERP? And maybe it's you kind of reemphasizing how we got here and that this is not us wanting to close these third spaces, but the reality of where we are in municipal budgeting.

Thank you. Yeah. I I think to reiterate, I mean, we know, again, where we started in the budget process and the painstaking decisions that we had to make to get down to a point where we were under ERP. I presented to the mayor an opportunity or an option to be as fair and equitable amongst all departments when it came to those cuts. And, unfortunately, in this particular instance, the library had a 175,000 of that $2,800,000 that we had to cut overall.

But from a fair and equitable standpoint, that's where we landed. To say that we have room in our ERP right now to just throw it back into the operating budget, I'm not confident that we have that type of money at this time. We just barely came underneath the ERP dollars. I think we made it by about 26,000. And that again is giving us a little bit of breathing room if somehow calculations are not quite there. So I I wouldn't be comfortable moving that needle at this point.

Yes. So if we wanted okay. So two questions if you could, please. Can you explain again for us and the public what would happen if we don't meet ERP? And then second, if we wanted to maintain the library, since that's the item that we're talking about right now, we would have to figure out what services or departments or people to cut to maintain the services. So is that correct?

Yeah. I mean, there could be a dollar for dollar movement within within the operating budget if you wanted to to move money back into the library operating budget if you had another source or another another department or another avenue to remove expenses and do a one to one correlation. That's certainly an option but

Also, I realize that we just asked and clarified that the council cannot decide to keep the library. But just for sake of clarification in how the budget works. And then lastly, if we don't meet the expenditure restraint program, what happens?

So again, as we mentioned before, this next year's expenditure restraint program and as it was on the thing was about 1,600,000 We would be foregoing a potential $1,600,000 revenue source in our 2027 operating budget, which again will more than likely all things consistent, increase that gap for next year's budget discussion. It is an option that you can do. It's an option that the council fairly recently decided to do. But again, my recommendation at this point, knowing where we're at is not to forego that ERP. I think that income and that revenue is extremely important for sustainability for us over the next several years.

Anything else? All right. Councilmember Kahlo.

So just for clarification, we would be moving $50,000 from a $75,000 workforce study to the library, so we would still be within the ERP. There is no

Doctor. Correct. There's no negative impact Right. On

it's already it's already in the budget, the $75,000 So there would be no adverse effect to the ERP with moving this 50,000. Okay.

Thank No. I I think I was trying to clarify if you were to just add back in 75,000, say, into the budget

Okay.

Without an offset somewhere else or coming from somewhere else.

All

right. I was only speaking to this amendment. So thank you.

Councilmember Goggin.

I want to be very clear that no one's suggesting forgoing the ERP. And by finding the money that's already in the budget and just moving it, we are not affecting ERP at all. Thank

Any other discussion? Oh, Council Member Bedford. Apologies.

Hi.

Maybe this is a an off question. I know nobody wants to raise taxes, but is a a referendum an option to keep the library open without affecting the IERP, or would would that still like, if we put this in front of the city, could they vote to be like, yeah. Let's do let's do this, or would it still fall in this this area that we have where we can't spend the money without losing money?

So I'm gonna let director Hawkins answer that, but I am gonna reinstate that this body cannot determine what the library do with their does with their funding. So to put in perspective, we can give them $50,000 and they can say thank you. Let's go hire a position and not open a library. Not that they would do that, but I'm just saying it's an option. Director Hawkins, can you add to that or speak to that question too?

Yeah. Thank you. I think it's an honest question, obviously, especially as a new council member. But the referendum, if I remember I'm I'm trying to remember dates. But unfortunately, for this year's budget cycle, we are well past the ability to even propose a a referendum. Then I think the next referendum cycle that we would have would be for our November election next year, which then would be affected for our '27 operating budget.

I I suppose my question is, like, we one of the things that's come up is that this has been a continuing issue. You know, it's an issue that got rid of the south side library in my district before I got up here. And so it seems as if if a referendum is a solution that would stop this from coming back to us year after year and we need to wait until November to have it, that's a different story than if, you know, if that is not something that we can put in front of the people. It does that clear up that?

I let

me see if I can can help with this. Can you talk about the reason why a municipality would go to referenda? Or if if not, you director Hawkins, if attorney Maddie can whoever, whichever. Okay. Director Hawkins.

I suppose there are several reasons why a municipality would go to referendum. The main reason would be is that they need to generate additional revenue to cover their expenses. We know from a statistical standpoint, I I think I heard five of 12 referendums passed last year. So, again, those are very difficult, and they've been used under the guise of police and fire protection. But they do it because they have run out of the ability to levy for their expenses. They've run out of debt service levy, and their only other option is to ask the constituents to exceed levy limits.

So what I'm hearing here is that even if a referendum were to go in front of this the people, it would not necessarily change the situation where it wouldn't put some kind of special protection around the library.

If if the referendum was worded to use those additional funds to continue to fund the library at a certain level, but, again, twenties it certainly wouldn't help for six funding. The earliest that we could utilize those additional revenues would be 2027.

Okay. I just wanted to as somebody new coming in here, it is one of the things that I hear and don't necessarily understand fully. So I wanted to put these out here so that it's apparent that we are looking at what all of the options are. So thank you for for clarifying some of that for me.

Thank you. Council member Goggin. Oh, okay. Council member Mendell.

A follow-up question to council member Bedford. If a referendum would pass allowing us to exceed our limits, would it reset our sort of stunted growth? Like, we're forever stunted in our revenue, never going to be catching up to expenses. We see that gap getting bigger and bigger. Is a referendum like the only solution?

Are you asking is it the only solution to bridge the gap between expenses and revenue sources in a given year?

So, like, the struggle that we see every year is that our expenses keep going up and up and up and our services cost more and more, and then our revenue is not growing at the same rate. Right? It was in that graph that you showed us. And so is the revenue or excuse me, the referendum really the only way to be able to sort of reset that sort of stunted growth we've seen because we ask to hold the line every year?

I think it's one of the most popular options that we're seeing with municipalities, but there are other things that we do see other municipalities utilizing. Again, not a favorite fan of it but some municipalities have resorted to borrowing short on a very limited. You have to do at least twelve months in a day or thirteen months to call it long term borrowing so that you can levy for it. So we're seeing municipalities that are taking out short term notes for million dollars, $2,000,000, whatever they need collecting it through their tax process and then paying it off a few months later. And really what it's costing is additional interest charges to the taxpayers.

So we're starting to see that creativeness kind of go through. There are the referendums which again have been done. A lot of municipalities Again, I I've said it before, I think La Crosse has done a a fantastic job of of keep staying away from the use of maxing out or maxing to the maxing the debt service levy. Again, we just started utilizing that a few years ago. I think the year I I came here was the first year that we had to had to use that pretty much ever where other municipalities have already maxed that out.

So we're starting to get there. But again, I think we're we're still quite a few years away from having to necessarily do referendum if we start doing some some things and having communications as the mayor has been suggesting earlier on in the stage. So I think we're a little ways away from needing referendum dollars or worst case scenario again taking out short term notes to cover our expenses.

Thank you. Council member Northwood.

I appreciate the amendment, but I will not be supporting the amendment. I'm I think the workforce study needs to happen. We have a budget shortfall. This is why we're here. A workforce study will help us to make sure we have an effective, efficient workforce.

It will look for possible savings in the budget. So next year, maybe this isn't as painful. This is my first budget process. I think it needs to happen. As part of our responsibility to be fiscally responsible, we need to invest in things that can help us look at cost savings and help us be effective and efficient and to really make sure we continue to move forward and not have to make such painful cuts.

And I appreciate the loss of the library. I am the council member that sits on the library board. And I just I appreciate what's happening here, but I just can't support it. I do think we need to do the workforce study, and I think it's going to pay off better for us in the future so that we can continue to support our essential services and hopefully not have to continue to do such make such painful decisions. Thank you.

Thank you. Council member Bedford, is this question to the amendment, or is your hand still up from the last time?

This is a additional statement towards the amendment. Alright. I will not be supporting the amendment at this time. I think that there is enough willingness here if a fully formed plan comes before the council for us to get two thirds and pass by anything, but I cannot vote in good conscious for what appears to to not be a full plan, in place in front of me. So that's where I'm

at.

Alright. Seeing no others on the speaker list, please vote. We are voting on the amendment to move $50,000 from the workforce study to the library. And that motion fails with four yeses and eight no and one abstention. Councilmember Goggin.

Thank you, mayor. I'd like to amend the 2026 operating budget to fund the Northside pool to keep it open for the 2026 season. The funds would come from the workforce study, 75,000, plus $15,000 from the mayor's community enhancement grant. Because what would enhance a community more than having a pool in it? Do I state my reasons here, or do I wait for others?

I think, let's let's just wait. So it is made by council member Goggin. Was that a second by council member Bedford? How is that possible? Council member Bedford second this? Okay. Yep. How was that?

I

didn't press anything.

I well, I know that. That's why I'm confused right now. Was there a second by someone that actually can second that's present? Okay. Councilmember Jensen. Alright. Councilmember Goggin.

Thank you, mayor. We have muddied the waters with talk of a collaboration between the city and the La Crosse School District, and maybe it's a great idea. However, at this point in time, it's an idea of an idea of an idea of to make a plan. When asked on a scale of one to 100 where we are, a school official superintendent, actually said that right now, at this point in time, we are at 0.5. 0.5.

There is no funding, no budget, no plan, no agreements. And the earliest a true collaboration would come before the public in this council is possibly 2028. So we've also talked about how we got here. But by not funding the pool and I'm not talking about the repairs for the pool. I'm talking about funding to keep the pool open in 2026.

I've sat in these chambers for two and a half years, and I've watched, the money from the Northside Pool first be moved out to help fix the Southside Pool. There was never any talk at that time to close the North the Southside Pool even though there are two pools on the other side of La Crosse Street. Then we had money put back into the CIP to fund the repairs at the North Side Pool, and it was again moved 08/08/2024. So where are we? We're looking at no pool for the North End.

I'm not talking about the $90,000 that now is being talked about to fix the pool because we deferred it. I'm asking for $90,000 to fund the pool to keep it open for kids, young families, middle families, singletons, and seniors. Again, sitting in these chambers for two and a half years, this council has talked about affordability, equitability, helping those in economically tough circumstances. It astounds me that we are not all behind this. Thank you.

Thank you. Council member Weston.

I would like to ask director Odegaard some questions about the pool.

Director Odegaard, we need you at the front.

I have a few questions, director Odegaard. But first, I you know, I the first that this body heard that it was likely that the Northside pool would be cut based on the budget restraints, we didn't have an opportunity to hear why. Why the pool your department oversees a wide range of services for the city, and I would love for you to share why the pool is on the chopping block.

Yes. Thank you, council member Weston. So in our department, we have a couple different categories of what what I consider cost to the city. And one of the categories is a pay to play. Our senior programming, our adult programming, maybe the best case example would be, like, our boating, canoeing, kayaking facilities.

They all are designed to basically break even. And then we have another category that is more subsidized with tax dollars, and that's where you see a lot of the youth programs. And then, also, we have kind of everything else that we do with the marsh and the Bluff lens, you know, that's 2,400 acres, 70 some miles plus of paved and and dirt biking trails that don't bring in any type of revenue. And so those, unfortunately, are the categories that we have to look at for the budget cuts. For example, if we cut our adult softball program of $50,000 in expense, we're losing the 50,000 in revenue as well.

So we have to be very careful. In 2026, we're looking at I think it's just a hair under $600,000 revenue projection projection to the operating budget. So anything short of that, we have to make sure that, you know, we're not impacting that as well. So then when we look at our youth programs, we wanna look at what is our return on investment to that potential program and then also look at, okay, what is the number of participants that are being served? And so when we go through those, swimming pools are a major glaring expense where we're not receiving the revenue to go with it.

And so when we look at the three different pools, the North Side pool clearly comes with a much larger expense, not only currently, but in the long run per participant. So in 2020 sick or I'm sorry. In 2025, we had roughly a $120,000 in expense. We had $30,000 in revenue, which is a $90,000 expense overall. Then when we look at that's operational for seventy two days out of the summer minus any fecal or weather closures, you start looking at a really small amount of time that that pool's open.

That pool then, we wanna take a look. Okay? So the North Side Pool was averaging 53 people a day. So 53 participants a day, and that's through all of the programming there. In comparison to, like, Ericsson Pool is a 189.

Memorial Pool's a 119. So it just it sticks out. And then with our recent issues, especially revolving the capital improvement budget and the million dollars that we have now sitting in 2028, we're looking at 2026, 2027 trying to potentially keep this pool open. And I don't wanna I don't wanna paint a picture of of that it won't happen. It probably will be able to be maintained for 2026, but it's definitely not something that we can guarantee.

So when we look at, okay, we need to cut you know, our department was tasked with cutting $235,000. Well, that's a $100,000 chunk that we can take out from a facility that we're not real sure on its ability to operate now, and we're crossing our fingers with a million dollar CIP need that's now out in 2028. So, realistically, that is kind of what we consider as, like, the lesser of two evils. Any other program cuts that's gonna help us in chunks of money that size are going to be in a Special Olympics programs. They're gonna be in our other youth programs, which already part of our budget cut for 2026 was eliminating our tiny tots.

It was eliminating our youth baseball program. So we don't wanna, you know, hit those too hard. And then we look at, okay, do we not mow? Do we not plow? Do we not plant boulevard trees?

I mean, we have a 100,000 in our budget for boulevard trees, but that 100,000 only plants the trees that we get requests from the residents. So that's a real slippery slope when we start going back because every year, we're taking trees down. You know, trash, we could eliminate our trash pickup, but we take over a 100 tons of trash to the landfill just from, again, the 47 parks and all the trash cans. So we're really we're really stuck. And and so looking at the Northside Pool, obviously, Park and Rec department does not wanna close the Northside pool, but, again, lesser of two evils.

Yes.

Thank you, director Odergaard. I think you've done a great job of addressing the overarching question here, which is what are the city services we are willing to cut? Because that is the conversation that's on the table. We are cutting city services with this budget. End of story. And it's what is the what are those things? The second question I have for you is there's been a bunch of chatter about give us time. Let us fundraise. Let us find a private investor. What happens if we can get people to donate in a fundraiser that can keep the pool open? Can you talk about if that is an option? Option?

Yeah. I mean, I've fundraising is an option. But in this case, I think it's a very short window. So in our world, come January, we have to have our contract signed with Burbach or Carrico Aquatics. We have to have all of our chemicals ordered.

We're starting to hire staff for the pools. With three pools, we're gonna operate with around 50 lifeguards. Two pools, we're operating with about 30. So that dip that's a big when we're sending out, especially to our returning staff who kinda get first dibs on coming back. And, again, I just I personally, and for our department, have a hard time I would have a hard time accepting that money without being able to guarantee that then the pool was gonna be open.

So we have a leak in that pool. One of the main things we have to have fixed is the liner. We have a leak in that pool that right now we fill all of our pools so that we protect our mechanicals and our and and the piping and everything throughout the course of the winter. That pool has to be refilled three to four times. It's an estimate, but we're losing roughly around 300,000 gallons a a month in that pool of water, which sounds like a tremendous amount, but that was far that's far less than what we were losing in in Memorial Pool before we redid Memorial Pool.

So when a pool has a leak, it loses a lot of water. So, you know, now that leak will be fixed again. You know, we we caulk it in the fall. We'll caulk it again here in the spring. Caulk just doesn't, you know, it just doesn't hold up. That's why we need to have this fixed. But last year, we had the pool heater go out. That's a 10,000 replacement, which is fairly common. But, again, you know, so if we take funding through donations, sponsorship, I I don't feel that we can, you know, give them a guarantee that I I feel that those people would wanna have, if that makes sense.

Council member Goggin.

Wasn't the, community allowed to fundraise for the veterans pool?

Yes. They were, council member Goggin.

Thank you. And then follow-up on that. You stated that you couldn't you know, if if money was raised privately, you couldn't make the promise to the people. Shouldn't we let them decide what they wanna donate their money to and if they wanna take the chance?

I would say I would say yes. However, I also think that it would be my assumption that the council would wanna be very careful in how they proceeded in that direction. You know, to your point, Veterans Memorial Pool, they raised money, and we built that pool. I had spoke to the council at that time against building that pool. And this year, we had $400,000 in the 2027 CIP because that pool needs a new liner.

That pool was built in 2019. So my point is swimming pools in Wisconsin, especially outdoors, are extremely expensive. And three pools in a community of our size is not something that you will find anywhere.

I understand that. I've heard that. So when you're talking about usage, were the all the Boys and Girls Club kids that went every day counted?

Yes. As a matter of fact, the the 53 a day average was highly resulted in that way because we lost all of our park and rec camps, and we requested the YMCA and boys and girls boys and girls club camps to utilize the North Side Pool.

Okay. And then how about the seniors that use the pool for the water aerobics classes?

If they paid when they entered, they were counted.

Okay.

That count comes right out of our rec track.

Councilmember McKaylo.

Thank you, mayor. So a question for you, Jay. When we had the money in the CIP to fix the North Side pool, and then it became evident that it was going to be moved to fix the South Side pool. Had we fixed the North Side pool and now the South Side pool so if this was reversed, would you be recommending closing Ericsson?

Yes, I would.

Okay. So it really was just that we fixed Erickson first, and now we're even in more of a pickle. So now you're requesting to close that, to close the North Side Pool?

For for the budget saving that we need, yes. Okay. The same as in '29 well, it's about 2017. I I requested that we didn't fix Veterans Memorial Pool either. So

Thank you.

Council member Newberry.

Hi, Jay. Thank you, mister mayor. And, Jay, I don't have a question for you specifically. But I I just wanna go through. We've done a little bit of history statement. Maybe you can fact check me. Maybe that'll be your purpose here. But I I just wanna be clear on how we got here. You talked about the 2018 council that approved went against your recommendation to build the Veterans Memorial Pool. It was a $3,250,000 allocation.

We ended up costing about four. I would suggest that they prioritized because of they prioritized that pool over other pools because of being new and being the asset that's gonna be along for for longer. So I wanna be clear that I'm not criticizing any decision for the people that have to make it, and they're just responding to community demand, like we're doing today. But the decision had downstream consequences that we're dealing with now seven years later. And another reason why we need an administrator, I think an administrator would have been able to show us the the cost, the long term cost effects, trade offs, councils past and present, make decisions based on immediate pressure rather than sustainable strategy.

I agree with you that we can't afford three outdoor pools. We couldn't in 2018, and we can't now. Funding the Northside pool for one more year doesn't change the math. It only delays the inevitable. I I don't wanna make the same mistake same mistake for prioritizing short term pressure over long term sustainability. I don't think it's a good way to run a government. Thank you. Council member Troost.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Is it accurate to say that we used I mean, the money that we used to repair Ericsson was dedicated to repair Ericsson. We didn't use money from from the Northside Pool to repair Ericsson. Is that accurate accurate or not? It's something that I've heard, but I I don't I don't know if that's true.

So we had a capital improvement, budget request in for the north side pool first. Yep. We also had a a capital improvement request in for Ericsson the following year. We had a cave in in the mechanical room at Ericsson, which was which was deemed as an immediate fix, And so we had requested that those two flip flopped. And so Ericsson was done first

Okay.

Because Northside was still operational. So the whole idea was, well, we'll we'll close Ericsson, we'll operate Northside and Memorial, then we'll close Northside, and we'll operate Ericsson and Memorial the following year. And then we had that capital improvement request for the North Side get moved out to twenty twenty six, and now it's been moved out to 2028.

Where it sits, like it's there, it's waiting for when we're ready. Okay. And then didn't we, like, accelerate our plan to do repairs at Copland Park, and we have 3,300,000.0 set aside for next year to do all those repairs at once in Copeland Park?

Correct.

So we'll finish that next year?

That's the plan.

Hopefully. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilmember Goggin.

Do the repairs or the site improvements at Copeland Park have anything to do with keeping the Northside Pool funded for 2026? Will one thing operate independently of the other? There will be no I guess what I'm saying is there's no question that the site improvements are funded for Copeland Park and that the pool funding the pool does not in any way put that in consequence or danger?

Those were separate capital improvement requests. Council member Jansen.

I can't believe we're having this conversation again. So when I hear the pool is leaking, I just need some clarification because we heard that about Memorial Pool, and then we found out it was also about the filter system and the amount of water that goes into the gutters and how it's not siphoned and repurposed. So could you just clarify that for everyone?

The the leak in the north side pool is in the liner.

Is that 300,000 gallons, does that also include the water that's going into the gutters and pulls is comes out when someone gets out of the pool and all of that as well?

Yes. It would be I mean, the leak is the leak, so we I mean, we don't differentiate. But the the amount of water that's coming out of the North Side pool is well, now we have memorial or pool with a problem with the leaking liner as well. So that one but nothing nearly like, so the water bills don't line up, I guess, is what I'm saying. And and where you can really notice it now is in the winter where we're filling it up, and it just keeps going down. Or we don't have to fill the other two pools but the one time.

Well, it seems like the memorial thing goes back to a quality control issue, so we'll keep that into another topic, I guess.

Councilmember Kahlo.

So I have another question now. So I know there's been talk about a collaboration with others to build an indoor facility. But in your opinion, as the park director, I mean, is that anything that's going to even at its quickest, could that move forward by, say, 2028? And so my question is, can we keep this pool open just to see, you know, see if that comes through, then maybe we can make a different decision about the pool. We could close the pool and support an indoor facility.

But is that realistic? Might that collaboration be something that might be a reality? Or where are we on that right now? Because it has been talked about that it's kinda full steam ahead and moving along.

Well, I would like to think that the collaboration is definitely still a path forward. I think the collaboration with the school district, I I look at that as something that's much different than the neighborhood Northside Pool. That collaboration could spawn a a benefit to the entire city as a whole. I I don't personally like mixing the two together. You know, I guess I'd like to clarify as a parks director, we we don't wanna close, as I said, the North Side Pool.

We wanna keep the pool open. And if the council can find the money to keep the pool open, then let's keep the pool open. But when it comes to what our budget cuts are not only this year, but subsequent years, as director Hawkins said, I'm more I'm more concerned with how am I gonna cut $250,000 next year and the year after. And I wanna be prepared so that the community and and the people that use our facilities and our programs are have the least amount of impact that we that me and my staff can bring to those people. And if that means making some of these tough decisions with this Northside Pool,

then that's what I feel is is my my job. K. So my follow-up is if this council tonight says we will move this amendment and we will fund this pool, you you you are fully in support of keeping the pool open. It is only because of the budget cuts. And so we have the money here. We found a way to fund it without exceeding our expenditure restraint program. So you're you will be happy to reopen that.

The budget is what is bringing me to to you with a proposal to close the North Side pool.

Okay. So now this priority rests on the council tonight.

Council member Goggin.

Director

Odegaard, I'm not exactly sure how to ask this, but god forbid this fails. But does that mean, like, if somebody stepped forward tomorrow or in the neck before December 31 with pry with $90 private, would you would you keep the pool open next year? I mean, I'm not asking anybody or suggesting that there's somebody out there. But if we don't move this forward tonight, I just can't even understand why we wouldn't move it forward tonight. But I'm just wondering is because once the pool closes, what are rewind my tape.

Once if we don't keep this pool funded for 2026, what are the options that it will ever open again?

So to your first question, I would need to sit down I would wanna sit down and have a conversation with the donor before I answer yes or no. To the second question, pools, especially in Wisconsin, if they are closed for a year, they're very hard to reopen. And that's that's a reality that we learned with Memorial, where you go from a fix to a much larger issue later. When a pool is not operational, that's when bad things happen to a pool. So when you fire the pools up in the spring, that's where you find what happened over the course of the winter.

And when you don't have pool water in the pool and it's not operational for for a calendar year, things just get worse, like the leak that I speak of currently at the North Side. And it was the leak at Memorial that really was, you know, the it it degrades the under structure under the vessel. So it's like an ant farm.

Council member Mendel.

So I'm hearing that if we find the funding, which this is what the amendment is proposing, we found the funding, But you're stuck on supporting this because you know that over the next years, you're gonna have additional funding cuts because that's just the state of the city. So we're gonna have another few $100,000 cut from just your budget potentially next year and then the next year and the next year. So if this passed, then what would your sort of scenario be next year?

Specifically for the Northside pool? Specifically for the Northside pool, I guess that would come down to a conversation with the donor or donors as of whether or not they wanted to fund the pool again. My recommendation would once again be to close that pool along with whatever the other 235, $250,000 cut is. And and, again, so that's where I I'm very focused on what is a prepared response over the next three, five, who knows how many years where we are able to maintain as many services for the citizens as we can with the budget that we have. And maybe I'm misunderstanding director Hawkins, but what I'm hearing and what I'm seeing is there's not gonna be a difference next year in the cut that the council's gonna ask the parks and rec department to do.

So that cut is in addition to this year's. So at at some point, it's very hard for me to advocate with all of the other facilities, all of the other programming, all the other responsibilities the partner rec department has. It's very hard for me to advocate for the North Side pool. And I don't even like saying North I I don't look at it as North Side, South Side. I understand that's the way it is, but I don't look at it that way.

I mean, realistically, we should have one pool in this community, and it should be more of an aquatic center type. That that was what the experts came and and expressed to us in thousand seventeen with the study. But, you know, that's neither here nor there.

Councilmember Newberry.

Director Odegaard, we haven't had a one on one yet, but I just wanna do a little q and a with you really, really quick. So I went to college in Indiana University, the number two football team in the country right now. That's for you, Gary. The, that's in Bloomington, Indiana. That's Southern Indiana. Climate's a little different. Every every apartment complex in a college town, about 80,000 people, comparable to here a little bit. We're a little smaller. Every single one has an outdoor pool in the apartment complex. I moved here twelve years ago from Virginia.

Even further south, every single apartment complex has a outdoor pool. The market has outdoor pools. Do you know how many outdoor pools are generally available to the public in the city of La Crosse that aren't municipal pools?

No. I do not.

Thank you. The answer is one. It's Saint Valerie's apartment on the South Side. There's one free market pool that's outdoors. I think that the climate is, has a lot to do with that. So I I'm I'm getting a little sleepy here, guys. We can debate all night. It doesn't change the math. We can't afford three pools. We can't afford facilities with declining usage in an inclement environment. Do we wanna pass a responsible budget, or do we wanna keep having the same conversation that we've been having for months? I'm ready to vote. I would like to call the question, please.

The question has been called, and there are there's one more speaker on the speaker list. Alright. There's nonspeakers on the speaker list. Alright. The question has been called. We will now I need a second. Need a second. But

Just a point of clarification. It says 25,000. My understanding was it was 75 from the workforce, starting 15 from the community enhancement grant. Is that correct?

Yeah. 25 right now. Don't rush it.

I'll correct it. Thank you. Okay.

Is there a second? Second by council member Weston. In a call to question, there's no discussion. We just vote. Correct? Alright.

Point point of order on that. Does that have to pass by a two thirds vote, or is it simple majority?

Two thirds. Two thirds. Alright. Please vote. We're voting to call to question or voting to vote, just so you know. Yes.

Point of order. Mister Mayer, can you please repeat that? We're voting to we're voting to see if we are ready to vote on the question. Yes. Got it. Thank you.

Are you ready? Alright. Please vote.

Crystal, we're waiting on your vote.

Yes.

She did a thumbs up. Alright. That motion passes. 10 yes and three nos. Moving to the vote on the amendment.

So at this point, if you vote yes, you're voting to move $75,000 from the workforce study and 15,000 from the community enhancement grant fund to the north side pool. Please vote. And that motion fails, four yes and nine nos. Are there any other amendments? Councilmember Kahlo.

Thank you, mayor. Well, I was, stopped from speaking on the past amendment. I think not many of us got to speak on it. So I am going to speak now on the operating budget. With removing funding for the library and removing funding for the pool, I'm disappointed.

I'm heartbroken that this council isn't seeing fit to fund those neighborhood amenities that our residents rely on. We have heard from hundreds and hundreds of people. They want the pool open. They want the library open. They're not happy with this operating budget as it's presented.

And I think our responsibility is to our residents. It is to our residents who pay our taxes. They fund these amenities, and we should be funding the pool and the library. And as I have spoken every time, I will not vote for a budget that closes the Northside Library or the Northside Pool. So I will be voting no on this.

I think we need to go back to the drawing board. Let's get a better budget. And our priorities that this council has should be the priorities of our residents. When we say we want a 2% cut across the board, maybe that's not what the residents want. Maybe they want some funding cut from a different department, but we haven't asked that.

But we have heard where they wanted the money put. And I have heard loud and clear where the taxpayers and our residents, our citizens who elected us to do this job, where they want their money put, and it is to fund the pool. And it is. It's a small amount of money. And we have an obligation next year to maybe do a better job earlier, and I thank the mayor for mentioning that we're going to get on that right away.

And I think maybe next year we'll be on top of it a little bit more, But we should be funding those things so we can get it together next year. And I would just hope this council votes no, and let's just go back, and let's support funding the pool and the Northside Library.

JUDGE Councilmember Goggin.

JUDGE We've heard in this chamber that we've all listened to the public feedback, and I just have to blankly disagree with that. The public is speaking loudly and clearly about what they want, not only in the hundreds of emails that we've gotten. Social media is just packed with opinions. And if you go through and count just the people that live in La Crosse and you can tell who lives in La Crosse and who does not, who are taxpayers they are overwhelmingly telling you, and they're outraged, that we're not listening. We are losing the public trust.

And I would suggest that we go back and ask ourselves, how did we get where we are? And you know what? We've gotta face the fire, face the fury of the citizens of La Crosse, and say this is where we are, and we will not let this happen again. But we're we're gonna have to tell you a lot of tough stuff. We're gonna have to try to lead you out of this, but you've got to hold us accountable.

And we were elected to represent you, not to take private agendas, political interests, special interests, and special interest groups. This is just unconscionable. And I'm sad, I'm disheartened. I'm frustrated. But, you know, I want the citizens of La Crosse, Wisconsin, the taxpayers, the people that have been overwhelming communicating with me via phone, in person, that I'm still listening, and I'm still trying. Thanks.

Council Member Weston.

I will be voting to pass the budget as is, and I commend the city staff who have done incredibly hard work in thinking through how things impact the community. While I appreciate there's a great deal of sentiment about listening to community members, I, as council member Mendel said, nobody asked to be elected to close things like pools and libraries. I'll also say that on a daily basis, not just in the last few weeks, in the last six months, what I hear most about is please make city hall more efficient with the staffing that exists. Please bolster our police and safety. Please address the streets over and over again.

I hear streets and potholes and put money into that. Don't take money away from our arts board. The the real tragedy of this current budget conversation, I think, is the general public has been sold a false dichotomy. Do you want a library or no? Well, the answer is yes. Do you want a pool or no? Well, the answer is yes. The actual question is, here is your menu of city services we have to cut. Where would you like those things cut? And that is not the conversation that has been sold to the greater community, and that's also frustrating.

And so these are incredibly hard conversations. I value and I need to I think, as a city, we need to be thinking about what are those things that only we can do. We aren't paying private contractors to pave our streets. There are opportunities to swim in the city, and that's where I'm centering this. And I I it's hard decisions, but I appreciate the staff's work and time. Thank you.

Councilmember Newberry.

Thank you, mister mayor. I I understand that people have strong feelings about these facilities, and I I do respect that. But good governance requires us to make decisions based on data and professional recommendations, not emotional appeals. I think what the taxpayers want from us is a balanced budget that maximizes return on investment and focuses on long term sustainability. That's what I think they want.

So I also wanna clarify the budget process a little bit where we started tonight and and thank the people who got us here. As a member of the finance committee, I can tell you that we set the budget targets. The staff and the mayor worked for months to build a budget that met those targets by maintaining essential services. I wanna thank the the staff and the volunteer citizen oversight committees for their service and and time and effort into the into this work for those recommendations. They've given us a budget that reflects our priorities, and more importantly, it reflects the realities of our financial situation.

The finance committee is responsible and accountable for these targets. Staff advise us on their professional expertise in each department, and the decisions are ours. It's not an easy budget. I think it's a responsible one. We all wanna say yes to everything, but leadership means making hard choices about where limited resources will have the greatest impact. And that's what this budget does. Empathy matters, but empathy without discipline is not leadership. Thank you.

Councilmember Janssen.

So this is my eighth operating budget. And we've talked for eight years about making cuts, good cuts, that would actually have a lasting impact. And we have continued to really not do a very good job of that. And I don't think I think there's so much room for improvement in this current operating budget. It's it's very sad that we're cutting services to one particular portion of our community.

And for me, the the biggest concern is, yes, we do have other library another library. We do have other pools. So for those of us that don't live on the other side of the marsh, imagine sending your children or you figuring out a way to get there if you don't have a car or if you're a small child. And that, to me, is frightening. You know, I I think back to when I was a kid, and my mother made a big deal out of us taking the gravel road three miles.

We couldn't take the highway. So and imagine biking on a gravel road that just had a new tons of gravel added at the beginning of every summer. But I digress. Let me get to my point. We have room to make additional cuts. And so I'm going to break my norm, and I'm going to make an amendment today that I did not put on the agenda. I'm recommending that we eliminate the communications coordinator position, and all those funds that would be saved go to the police department. And I'll retain the floor if someone seconds that.

The motion on the floor is to eliminate the community coordinator position. Is there a second? Second by council member Goggin. Council member Jansen.

So I say this because I think we need to focus on safety. And if we're not going to provide the services, we need to make sure that people can get to those services fashion. I supported a community the communications coordinator position several years ago. It has not met my expectations. And I believe that we will do much more good by having more money in the police department.

Believe that reason we one of the reasons we created the communications coordinator position was to do a better job of communicating with our residents and getting more people involved. We've achieved a lot. But I think that we could save a whole lot more money by hiring an intern or maybe get an intern for free to do some of the same work. I've also seen where, when originally we hired this position, the idea was that they would be doing all the press releases and all that. And now what I've seen over the years is that every department is just back to doing it themselves anyway.

And the mayor's office, this person does most of obviously does all of their communications. But we can get by. So if we're going to look at what's the best use of tax dollars and how are the residents going to benefit the most, then I believe that eliminating this position and putting more money into the police department, whether it's overtime, Hopefully, maybe they can get additional positions filled. But I think this is a much better use of taxpayer dollars.

Any other discussion? Councilmember Mendell.

I really like the council to go back to the discussion on the operating budget. And when many of us ran for office, we were told to never throw staff under the bus. And that has happened, and I'm disgusted. I know people are mad, and this is emotional. And here we are pitting against one another. And I think it's wrong. I think that this council needs to get back to decency. Yes. There's disagreements, but we can do that in a civil way. This is not what I want our community to watch and our staff to look at us kind of horrified.

-Councilmember Kalow.

-Well, I don't have a lot of emotion in this. This is what we do every year. This is my seventh. Oh, are you on eight already? I think this is my seventh. And on this amendment, while I just heard of it, I was on counsel also when I approved this position. And I would agree with my colleague that what it has turned into was not sort of what I imagined. And I wanna say that's not throwing anyone under the bus. It's what the position is. It's not the person in the position.

So I appreciate the person in that position very much. But I think I would agree that if this is what we're looking for and the community wants safety, that we should reallocate that money then to the police department. So I will be supporting this. It was a surprise, and, but, yeah, I'll support

it. Council member Troz.

Thank you for the floor. I don't care for amendments on the floor that are significant like this. But I also think it's inappropriate to add more money to the highest departmental budget in our city, and the proposed budget is $14,900,000 I just want everyone who's listening to know that the police proposed operating budget is $14,900,000 They are fully funded in compliance with our requirements to have maintenance of force. They have, under the collective bargaining agreement, some assurances. And I think this is not the right place to put money.

Any other speakers? Councilmember Johnson.

I'll just clarify. This is not about a person. This is about a position.

Any other speakers? Ask someone that, you know what? Nope. I'm not gonna do Please vote. Crystal? Oh, Crystal.

I am sorry. I did have I'm hearing that it is not falling to that this position is not meeting the expectations, but I'm not hearing any specifics. What expectation was I I don't know the expectations. I wasn't there at that meeting. So if I could get a little bit more of an explanation on that, I am otherwise kind of feeling a little bit like the rug has been pulled out of me because I don't necessarily know what even what what's going on here.

I I usually wouldn't do this, but if it's okay with you, council member Bedford, I'm gonna ask that we not actually answer that question because I don't think it's appropriate to have this conversation the way that we're having this conversation. I think that if individuals if individuals

That's fine. I I'll leave that as a a statement then, and I will not be voting on I will not be voting for this right now. If it comes ahead of me later and I have more time to look into it, possibly. But right now, this is I don't know what I would be voting on.

Thank you. Councilmember Podeski.

Thank you, mister mayor. First, I just want to say I to be pointing fingers at each other, we voted on an operations manager where this job was going to get cut, and I don't remember anybody pointing fingers and yelling at people. Second of all, I'm just not in favor of making that decision on somebody that I don't know enough about what goes on in that position. So I won't vote for this. But I just want everybody to remember, I didn't hear an uproar about eliminating this position over the operations manager. Thank you.

Councilmember Northwood.

Just for clarification, is this a position that is ending in December or not? I'm just asking. I don't I'm just trying to recollect from all of our discussion. Is this position already off the table for the 2026 budget?

No. This position is not off the table for the 2026 budget. Okay. I didn't When we did the operation when I put in the operations director position, it was to take this position, add funding to it, and then, essentially, we write it to the operations director.

Thank you. I just wanted clarification. I do know that we had a discussion. I just wanted to be clear. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Trose.

Thank you. I just kind of want to reiterate that amendment on the floor like this, this is why we're having these questions, because people don't know what's going on. And so I like it when I have some time to make my decision.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Seeing none please vote. And that motion fails with three yeses and 10 noes. Alright. Back to the operating budget. If I remember correctly, council member Podeski, you were on a speaker list last? Yeah. It is.

Thank you, mister mayor. Obviously, I'm very much in favor of keeping the pool and the library open. However, unlike the people at the Alamo, I know when it's time to run. And in this case, I mean, I appreciate everybody's fight, but we're not gonna have the votes, and I think we should be unified on a budget. So I will be voting yes. Thank you.

Councilmember Schlesnikau.

Thank you, mayor. And this is directed toward Director Hawkins. I would like to know for the public and just confirmation for staff, I mean, for council members and staff, how much of the reserve fund is being used to try to bridge this budget?

I'm gonna find that answer for you here right now.

Is it the allowable expenditure increase?

I believe right now with the fifty-fifty split, it was 1,077,000.

And I guess a follow-up, how much is currently in the reserve fund?

After some approved resolutions utilizing the funds and we still have a resolution going through the December cycle. If you remember, we were also looking to utilize $2,000,000 of fund balance to offset some of our health insurance fund. With those assuming that are passing, I believe we're still at about 21,500,000.0 ish in our fund balance.

And I think I brought this up in the past, and I think you alluded to it earlier that unless we are more aware and more diligent in our operating costs, I mean, this is this is to bridge a gap. Are you anticipating again that we will need to be doing this in the future? And, again, how far in the future where we truly don't have a balanced budget, we're using reserves to try to to make that happen. But I personally get very concerned with that, especially if a situation arises where we need those reserves and we're gradually bringing them down.

You know, think every year is good questions. Know, again, from my perspective, budgeting is a lot of guess work, a little bit of education. We certainly know moving forward that yes, we're going to need to continue to utilize some of our fund balance and our ability to use our debt service levy to bridge those gaps moving forward. And it goes back to what I was saying before is I'm comfortable that we can sustain over several years if if we're right around that 2 to maybe 2 and a half million dollar mark where we're continuing to do kind of a fifty fifty shared split. Now, maybe there are some years where we do a little bit more on one, maybe it's a sixty forty.

But I'm comfortable at least at this point to say that for several years moving forward, utilizing about 2 to 2 and a half million dollars one way or the other, think is sustainable until, again, we come and collectively figure out or try and figure out some solutions within our budget. Right? What we're gonna do? Where priorities are gonna be landing with the council and what services and things we're gonna do.

And I guess if I could one more follow-up. With that scenario and increasing costs moving forward from year to year, somewhat stagnant revenues unless by chance the state is incredibly gracious and decides to give us more in the way of shared revenue, which I'm not holding my breath on, we'll be coming back again year after year to look for potential cuts moving forward. And I just wanted to make it very clear for the public that we truly haven't had to do that anywhere near as much as we're doing it this year. And, unfortunately, this is more the scenario moving forward rather than the onetime thing that just happened to happen, and it won't be something in the future. So I know we've had a lot of discussion about a Northside pool and a Northside library, And and I love libraries, and I grew up in polls.

But, again, I'm not quite sure how we can get over having that type of expenditure and knowing next year, we probably will encounter the same thing if we tried to keep them going from year to year. And I was at the listening sessions for both the library and for the poll and know what you know, that that residents in that area had some definite I mean, very large concerns, I mean, history there. But I think as was mentioned by one of the other council members here, and we were trying to do our due diligence with fiscal responsibility, and it's getting really difficult. And it's gonna going to come down to, you know, what do we absolutely need and what are wants. And, again, as someone else had mentioned, I think it's really important that residents come forward from this point on and let the council and council members know truly what are their priorities.

Without knowing that, it's difficult for us to do that. And I think moving forward, the mayor and department heads are going to need to work regularly to try to figure out how we can become more efficient, what improvements perhaps it was mentioned about technology moving forward, other things. I mean, we have to be really proactive because the money is going to be very difficult to try to come up with that balance. And and I I really like to feel that the council is doing a good job for the public and so that the public is aware. This is incredibly challenging.

I do not take this at all lightly, and I don't believe any of the other council members do. It's getting to be very challenging, and I just feel that the public does need to let council members and the mayor and others know what is truly important. So moving forward, when this happens next year, hopefully, we have even better idea as to where we need our priorities to be. Thank you.

Councilmember Goggin.

Thanks, Mayor. There's been a lot of chatter. And we've been told that we're mad. I just want to speak for myself. I'm not mad. That these are emotional appeals. I'm not emotional. I'm basing my decisions and my leadership tonight on the overwhelming community response. And I want to make sure that the public understands that if I can find anything positive in all of this, is that the public has been engaged. They came out strong, and they came out loud.

And I, as a and I we're also told that we're empathy without discipline is not leadership. I'm gonna just say we are cutting services to human beings. People want city hall to run more efficiently? Probably. But not at the expenses at the expense of services to real human beings.

The vote's on the record, and I'm just gonna say one more time, we we have talked to the city. We or the residents. We have heard from the residents, but I continue to want the residents to stay engaged, informed, and just keep telling us and guiding us because I just I just feel terrible that we're not doing the right thing.

Councilmember Kalow.

Thank you,

something that Director Hawkins and I talked about, I think it's important that the entire council sort of hear and understand

McKaylo. Because I haven't heard it yet. And we talked about the reserve fund, the fund balance, our savings account, whatever we call it. And it's if you say we have 21 and a half million roughly left, that you told me that is not money in the bank. So we don't have a savings account that we can just go to. And could you just explain a little bit? Because I didn't understand it, so I am probably pretty sure that others don't understand either.

Sure. I'll do my best here. So, yeah, as we talk about fund balance, it's it's not necessarily liquid cash that's available that we can just go and withdraw. You know, it's some of it's wrapped up with other assets that we have that are not so liquid. So it's just numbers on paper, really, at the end of the day.

So a lot of it is in assets. Right? So we can't just go pull them out if we need them.

Not necessarily. No. I mean, we could sell the asset for cash. Pardon? Sell the asset for cash for liquidity.

Right. Right. And there are some things we can't sell. But, yes, we could. But, yeah, that was something I didn't understand that a lot of the fund balance also was in assets. So and if you have a business and you know what assets are, then it's a little different than having a savings account and having it readily available and liquid.

Councilman Patros.

Thank you for the floor. I want to correct a number that I gave a moment ago. The police department budget was $14,900,000 as of September 4. But as of October 9, which is what we're discussing now, it is at $14,300,000 So I had the wrong number, and I wanna make that correction. Thank you. 14.3.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, please vote. No? Sorry. Councilmember Janssen.

I just wanted to point out that I'm not comfortable utilizing our reserves for fixing our budget. I believe that every residence, every business, every non nonprofit, we're all expected to have a certain number of months of reserves. Just recently, a consultant told me a nonprofit should have at least six months of reserves. That's cash. That's not assets that you're going to sell.

So I don't support taking money out of our reserve funds. There'll be another situation like COVID. And for those that were around during COVID, those were those were hard cuts that were made. What we've done with this budget, these aren't the really hard cuts yet. We haven't gotten there yet. There's a lot more to come. Thank

you.

Alright. Please vote. And that motion passes with 10 yes and three noes. I wanna take this time before moving to our next agenda item to thank every department head for the work that, y'all did on this particular budget. Our directors really made sure I mean, we had some really tough conversations, in our directors meetings, to get to this point.

And so I just wanna say thank you all, and thank you counsel for acknowledging the work that our directors do as we hire them as experts to be able to handle their budgets. So thank you very much. Moving on to our next agenda item.

Mayor?

Yep.

Real quick here. One of one of the other pieces with this is not only the operating budget, but to approve the annual levy Okay. Through the resolution, which actually then also the resolution does approve or adopt the general operating budget and the other enterprise funds as well as the, again, the 2026 operating levy, which I do need an amendment done because of the changes that we've approved tonight.

Alright. You said a lot. I know. I'm sorry. Let's break that down.

Alright.

So we need to vote on the levy?

Well, so the resolution is a resolution that approves the operating budget along with the other budgets within the city. It also approves by statute the levy amount moving forward, but we do need an amendment to that because of the amendments that we had with that were approved here tonight. So I need to give you the number that I need. That $42,000,009.13 $3.78 there should be, my math is correct, $42,691,312.

You got this on?

Amendment that I would need approved. But, yeah, I think by statute or by ordinance, we do need to open public hearing back up one more time. Right? Yep.

Attorney Matti, help us out.

Since you made amendments to the budget, I believe we have to have a second public hearing as well too before final adoption of the budget.

Okay. Yes. So director Hawkins made amendments that passed, and then the other amendments failed. Yes. That is that is correct. So let me I just wanna make sure we do this right. Alright. So we have to open up for public hearing, and then I'm gonna come back well, no. We're gonna first approve the mill rate. Okay.

Okay. Motion to

reconsider made by council member Northwood and second by council president Dickinson. Any discussion? Everybody understands what needs to happen? Awesome. Alright. End vote, please. And that motion passes unanimously.

Alright. So then I I would need a motion to amend the resolution, and that sum of 42,913,378 needs to be $42,691,312. So

motion was made by council member Mendel and second by council member Northwood. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Hold on. That was a lot of just put 42,000,000 in it.

K. Please vote. Alright. And that motion passes 11 to one. What was the other amendment?

That that was the only amendment on the resolution. It was just the dollar amount. So I guess the next move would be second public hearing. Alright. Yes.

Will anyone from the public wish to speak? Oh, wait. Need a motion to open public hearing. Motion made by council member Newberry, second by council member Northwood. Please vote.

Motion passes unanimously. Is there any other members from the public that wish to speak? Seeing none, motion to close public hearing. Motion by council member Northwood, second by council member Newberry. Any discussion, please vote.

Alright. That motion passes unanimously. We're good to go to the next one. Right? Alright.

Motion Not Yes.

Main motion As as

amended. Yeah.

We're now voting on the motion as amended. The alright. Council president Dickinson and second by council member Weston, please vote. And that motion passes 10 yes and three nos. Alright.

Moving to our last agenda item, twenty five one one two six resolution adopting the twenty twenty six council meeting calendar. Motion made by council member Gaga, second by council member Northwood. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Thank you all very much. Very tough topic and tough discussions tonight. This meeting is adjourned.