Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We're gonna call this meeting of the finance and personnel committee to order. It is 06:05PM, and, we will begin the meeting. Everyone on the committee is here and present, and we will move on to the first agenda item, which is unfinished business twenty five dash one zero five four, Resolution approving a reorganization to the table of positions and classifications for the Department of the Mayor. Councilperson Slesnico.

Thank you, chair. I would move to not adopt.

Do I, do I have a second? Oh, there's nobody. There you need to push your button.

Oh, I'm sorry. Oh,

mover is council member, second by council member Jansen. Is there any discussion? Commission council member Sleznikow.

Thank you, chair. I think at our last FNP meeting, I tried to make the case that I really don't feel that this position is the way to go if we have any type of person in charge of operations. I was concerned that it was short circuited. There was a referral for thirty days. I honestly do not know what happened in those thirty days.

I did not hear, at least myself, that there was any public meetings to discuss this with the public through the mayor's office or another committee. So again, it's sort of a revisit of the last meeting. I just don't believe this is something that we should be adopting at this time, and that's why I made that motion.

Thank you, council member Sisico. Is there any other further discussion? Council member Kahlo.

Thank you, madam chair. I think some of the concern last month was on the less than forty eight hour short circuiting. And I think what I heard was that was done because we needed that as part of our budget talks, and that was the reason for that short circuiting. And I am not aware that I have seen this in any of the operating budget items that we have received yet, So that's a question that I have as well that if there is an answer to that, is that in the operating discussion now and will we see that at the Board of Estimates? And that is what I have to say on that.

Is there any further discussion?

Do you want me to respond to that? Or okay. Cool.

So the way this resolution is written, there's kinda essentially two parts to it. There is obviously for the budgetary piece of it, it's removing the communications director and then having the operations director. A portion of that salary, at least 50 over 50% of that salary would essentially pay for a portion of this operations director, and the remainder of that money would then come from, the revenue sources. And director Hawkins, I'll look to you to add anything if if I got that incorrect. So also I would add it won't be on the current budget cycle because, again, it's kind of a combined process.

Thank you, Mayor. I think just to add to it with the budgetary piece. So obviously funding for that isn't finalized at this point. However, our recommendation would be that half of that position will be funded through the general fund operating budget. The other 50% would be funded through as the mayor pointed out the enterprise revenue supporting funds depending on where that position if it were to be approved depending on where that positions would start either within a step one or step six by policy.

There could potentially be budgetary savings within the operating budget if they started at a step one somewhere around that step three or step four then we would start to be discussing additional monies needed through the operating budget. But again, that would all be done through the negotiating process during the hiring process, I guess. So it it does swing from there is some budget savings to needing additional budget money potentially.

So we really don't have a firm answer. Is that correct? I mean, it can be this and it can be this and it can be anywhere in between. I think that's what I heard you say. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Northwood.

I still will not I'm not going to vote in favor of not adopting because I think it's still important to have options. And I I don't know if I can refer it again for thirty days or not, but I just would like more information. Because I think not everyone is in support of the city administrator position. I know that there's public hearings happening, but I really do think that we need to have the opportunity to also consider this moving forward.

Council member Jansen?

So I think that timing is unfortunate in this. I think that it's it's almost like people are freaking out almost that they a decision has to be made today or this month. And I think that this is a impactful position that will impact the budget. You can say it however you want that it could not. But if if you're talking about eliminating position today just so you could have this position, then it seems to me we should have the conversation of that position probably needs to be eliminated anyway.

And we do have budgetary concerns, and we're gonna continue to have huge budgetary concerns unless something dramatic happens at the state level as far as funding from the state for municipalities. And I just don't see that changing anytime soon. And this does not seem well thought out. And, you know, we spent all this time talking about other positions, and I think that this is not the time to be just taking a slap at let's just add another position to maybe solve some problems. And I go back to all the years that we've had the mayor council system, and mayors have managed to supervise department heads and manage operations.

And I think we need to stick with that until we've really worked out all the other options. If this comes back in the spring, you know, I wouldn't be opposed to that. But I just don't see this as a a good option right now. It makes me very uncomfortable that when I look at the job description, I I could just find all sorts of issue with it. So I think we need to stick with the current situation and not be adding new positions. If nothing else, we should be eliminating.

Council member Northwood. I just

have a question about the position that's being eliminated. Some of those duties, am I correct that they're going to be in this position? They're going to be

Yes. So when we process through the different options and so on and so forth, making sure that that particular job duties and responsibilities was added into this position was definitely there. Also, just in an essence as an operation director, your job is essentially to be communicating both with community partners as well as constituents and department heads and counsel.

I'm going to get into this too as well. I don't I feel this is ill conceived. I think that we're at a point where we are going to have to be making some very, very hard decisions that we're going to have to explain to our constituents and to the City of La Crosse and adding a new position right now that we have heard really nothing from the public positively. If you're reading social media or any of the emails that we're getting, we're not being transparent enough with the public. And it is my opinion that we need to investigate different ways to maybe fund this or look within to see if we can find something to, do something other.

But, I think there's a lot of confusion. And the question I have is that, is there going to be a director of operations and the city administrator possibility, or is it one or the other? And if you

You me to answer that?

Yes, please. Please.

So here here's the reality. Right? At the end of the day, for me, as the mayor, right, my goal is to find solutions to issues that we have in the city. One of the issues that I'm essentially solving for is the fact that we have not looked at options of city administrator. We've only focused on this one charter ordinance, and that's only thing that we can talk about. So I am presenting yet another option, and there's probably more options. But at the end of the day, and until we can have a conversation about all the options and not just the charter ordinance, I think that is what says, hey, mayor. Start coming up with solutions. You said figure out how to pay for it. I figured out how to pay for it.

You said you wanted to know if the the position can be, continuous amongst mayors. Yes. This position can be continuous amongst mayor because it's a director position. As a director, as most of our directors, essentially, the council votes two thirds in order to let them go. Right? So this is no different. So just all the things that I've heard. Right? I said you know, people said, don't change the charter ordinance. We don't wanna change the charter ordinance.

How can we figure out how to have a city administrator without changing the charter ordinance? And essentially, this is again another one of those options. We're not changing the charter ordinance. We're still allowing for that professional management piece to be brought in as well as looking at, some of the other things that we wanted to talk about in terms of efficiency, etcetera. So I guess that I don't know if that answers your question.

Could it be both? I don't think it necessarily has to be. I think what needs to happen is that between a city administrator, director of operations, and figuring out what's a happy medium between the two. And I I guess that maybe I am somewhat as as a new person, I'm thinking if I introduce legislation that then creates the conversation and not necessarily just a, oh, no. We don't like this.

Get it out of here. When I've constantly been told numerous of times that we couldn't have the conversation about anything else. And so me introducing something new is me saying, I'm trying to find solutions and work with the council and work with department heads and say, okay. Here's another option. Why not look at it?

Councilmember Jansen? Well, to be honest, I don't see this as a solution. I look at the job description, and then I look at the mayor job description, and I feel like it's a lot of duplication. And I've seen, previous experiences when our lacrosse center director left and another department had just absorbed all those responsibilities, and that's worked really well. So I think there are other options, but I don't think spending more money and just spreading out the mayor's responsibility is how this comes comes across to me.

And, ultimately, the people of La Crosse voted for a mayor under the current job description. And so I don't think we need to rush to make changes, especially if I don't see how it's going to be impactful. And at this point, I do not see this position as being impactful and improving the services our residents or helping our bottom line as far as the budget goes. So

And, again, I will just say that I don't think this is in the best interest of lacrosse or the citizens in lacrosse right now. I think that we've heard on the record that, in the last election that people knocked on doors, and they heard that the city wanted a city administrator, and now we're changing the rules of the game. So I just think we're we're making a mistake. Is there any further discussion? We're gonna move ahead with the vote to not adopt.

And the motion passes four to two. Moving on to new business. Agenda item 20 five-ten 53, resolution approving a Wisconsin Department of Transportation Transportation Alternatives Program state municipal grant agreement to upgrade the 2nd Street cycle track. Any discussion?

Council Member Kahlo. Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Councilmember Kahlo, seconded by Councilmember Newberry. Is there any discussion?

Councilmember Kahlo. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question. I think Director Gallagher or is this in the CIP also? And will this be removed from the CIP then? I just can't recall because I thought we were funding this already. So I'm happy we have a grant, but could you give me the impact then on what maybe it was funded? Sure.

Thanks for the question, Councilor Raquelo. So what's before you is a state municipal financial agreement that just clarifies our obligation and the state's obligation. So since the TAP grant was awarded, the terms changed. We had to move the project out a year to 2028 from 2027. We reduced the amount of money because now we only need to cover the portion that we're going to match versus the entire amount. So this has some updated figures, but it is still in the draft of the CIB.

Thank you for that explanation.

Councilmember Jansen.

Director Gallagher, could you explain, the how much money is gonna need to be put aside for maintenance of this once it's completed?

I don't think any would be put aside. I think this would just get absorbed by our our own street crews. The nature of this project is to install a two foot concrete median rather than have the delineator posts that keep getting knocked down all the time. So this is really looking to reduce the maintenance. This would be nothing other than existing programs for miscellaneous replacement.

So what happens if a snowplow hits it or a car hits it?

The same as if we hit any other island or any other curb. We have to replace it.

Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll move forward on the vote. Motion passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 25 dash one one zero nine. Resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to sign state municipal agreement for a highway safety improvement project at the intersection of Mormoncooley Road, USH 14 And Burt Street.

Project ID, numbers 1641Dash03Dash07Slash77. Council member Jansen. Move to approve. Motion to approve made by council member Jansen, seconded by council member Northwood. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, we'll move forward on the vote. That passes unanimously six to zero. Moving on to, agenda item 25 dash one one one nine, resolution authorizing a development agreement for the Grand View Apartments project regarding a site assessment grant award from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, WEDC. Council member Slesnico.

Move to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Councilmember Slesnikow, seconded by Councilmember Kahlo. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Slesnikow.

I am really quite excited about this project. It is in my district. They're moving ahead very quickly. This grant allows, the developers to receive some funding for removal of lead and asbestos from the project. So I think it's really, like, a nice addition to try to give them a little bit of assistance when it comes to demo.

But this project is moving very quickly. I'm understanding that April time frame for actually having people move in, which I'm it really seems to be very accelerated, but work seems to be moving quickly. So, again, I recommend people adopt this because it's a little bit of addition, not a lot, but a little for the developer to try to recoup some of the costs on renovating an older structure.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll move forward on the vote to adopt. That motion passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda number 25 dash one one two eight, resolution amending appendix c, fee schedule regarding the temporary street privilege permits for portable toilets. Council member Slesnikow.

Move to adopt.

Motion to adopt by council member Slesnikow, seconded by council member Newberry. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Slesnikow.

I was just wondering. I I didn't see here on the information as to what the cost change actually is. I'm sorry if I missed it, but I didn't see it in the resolution itself as to what the previous cost was.

Sure. Thanks for the question, council member Cesnikau. The cost actually stays the same. Right now, we don't have a permit for this in the public right away. There's one for use in parks. This matches the same terms and cost as we currently charge anyone who wants to hold it for an event in a park in case they need to have that out in the public right away. It just makes it the same. Thank you for the clarification.

Thanks, director Gallagher. Councilmember Newberry?

Director Gallagher, when would that take effect? For the record, he says January 1. Thank you.

Sorry. Yeah. January 1. That would take effect when all the rest of the appendix c updates take effect, which you're gonna see, next month.

Is there any further discussion? Move forward with the vote. Moving on to agenda oops. Sorry. Motion passes six to zero. Moving on to agenda number 20 five-eleven 29, resolution authorizing installation of neighborhood safety street lighting at the intersection of 19th Street South and Jackson Street.

Councilmember Kahlo? Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Councilmember Kahlo, seconded by Councilmember Sleznikow. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll go for the vote. And that motion passes six to zero. Agenda item 20 five-eleven 30, resolution appropriating additional funds for sidewalk and restoration as part of the sidewalk citywide sidewalk infill program, CIP number six seven excuse me, CIP number seven sixty two.

Councilmember Kahlo? Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt by council member Kahlo, seconded by council member Northwood. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Agenda item 20 five-eleven 34, resolution to reallocate unused funds from completed capital purchases and or projects to previously approved and newly requested capital equipment purchases for the storm utility.

Councilmember Slesenko.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt by council member Slesenko, seconded by council member Northwood. Is there any discussion? Council member Newberry?

I broke it. My question is is can somebody explain this in English to me? Break it down a little bit? Like, in fifth grade?

Yeah. Thank you. The assistant superintendent of sewers, Luke Shipper, is on the call. He can speak to this in English.

Are you online? Yes.

Sorry. Can hear me now?

Yes. We sure can. Thank you.

Good evening. As far as I know, English is the only language I speak very fluently. Maybe, like, a sixth grade level. But so this, resolution for the stormwater capital equipment, reallocations, the simplified version is some stormwater capital equipment came in under budget, some came in over budget, and then some unforeseen costs came up. So we want to reallocate some of the excess funds from a few specific line items, use that to pay for the budget overages and a couple other line items and some of the unforeseen, expenses.

Thank you. And those are for twenty twenty five projects. Is that correct?

Several of the capital equipment items where we're taking excess funds and using it this year, I think a couple of them were from 2023 or 2024. So just kinda clearing out those excess funds and using it now.

Okay. Thank you.

To add to that council renew, Barry, most of these purchases either were from 2024 or '25. The only one that has not yet happened is the twenty twenty six one, number $4.47 for a street sweeper. All the others are existing ones, and then the third section in the resolution creates new ones, and all four of those would be for this year. And again, these are all stormwater funds. Just pivoting a bit on the use given, like Luke said, some coming in under, some coming in over and addressing additional needs.

Makes sense. Thank you.

So, director Gallagher, the 45,377, 78 in funding to cover the equipment needs is not new money. It's just money that you're moving around.

Yes. I didn't see what number exactly you're referring to, but, yeah, this is this is funds for just collecting up ones that came in under or other existing funds, project or purchase funds. So no new funds

It's just reallocating. It's under fiscal impact. It says additional need of $45,377.78 in funding to cover equipment needs.

Gotcha. Luke, I assume, could you confirm that would just come out of the the unbudgeted cash that would be storm funds on hand?

Yes. Yeah. That that is additional over, the money available from the under budget line items. So that would be an additional, $45,000 out of the stormwater cash.

Thank you. Councilmember Newberry.

While you're here, not to skip ahead, but is the same explanation for the next item on the agenda as well?

Yeah. It will be. And that would be Luke as well. He handles the storm collection as well as the Santa Geria collection, so he could speak to anyone on the next item as well. Okay. Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on the item we're talking about? We'll move for the vote. Thank you, Director Gallagher. And that motion passes six to zero. Moving on to Agenda Item 20 five-eleven 35, resolution to reallocate unspent capital funds from completed purchase and or projects to underfunded and unplanned capital equipment needs for the sanitary sewer utility.

Councilmember Kahlo. Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Councilmember Kahlo, seconded by Councilmember Klesnikow. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. That motion passes six to zero. Moving on to Agenda Item 20 five-eleven oh eight, Resolution Approving Loan Modification Agreement and Other Associated Documents for the Upper Floor Loans with Dale Berg, DBA, Generey doing business as, sorry, limited. This has been short circuited by mayor Washington Spivey on 09/23/2025.

Council member Kahlo? Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Councilmember Kalos, seconded by Councilmember Newberry. Councilmember Slesnikau.

Can we have someone from staff to sort of give us a synopsis synopsis of this? I would appreciate that.

Sure. Thank you for the opportunity. So back in, I think it was 2018, Mr. Berg took out three separate upper floor loans when he had three separate properties. So if you're familiar, he owns Dale's Clothing downtown, where also Patu Azul currently is in one of those spaces. So that used to be three separate buildings, so that's why there are three separate loans. Since then, he had some issues with the contractor and some issues with the loan, and there were a lot of back and forth, so he hadn't made some payments. And then now his buildings are all combined into one property. There have been a lot of modifications to the loan. He had to consolidate to another lender, and we subordinated to that.

So we just wanted to come before you with all new fresh, clean documents ready for him to sign, ready to get him back on track with making those payments and moving forward to paying off those upper floor loans.

Is there any further discussion? Councilmember Sleznikov?

Just a follow-up. If I was reading this correctly, it was that the person is behind significantly in payments. I was just curious how did that happen in the first place that we've gotten to this extreme amount being owed.

Yeah. So that had a lot to do with the issues that he had with his contractor, and he needed additional funds. So he was working with different banks. And it was a very complicated situation for him, a very stressful situation for him. We understand what he's been going through. And so working with his attorney, we've been working very closely with our attorney, So it was really just falling behind with those issues that he had with a previous contractor, so wanting to know he's ready to move forward, wants to complete his project and get everything back in line and commit to getting this paid off timely.

Thank you.

You're

welcome. Councilmember Kahlo? Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say thank you for all the work on this. I know this has been going on for quite a long time. It's come up in previous years and I know of the difficulties that had gone on with the contractor and Mr. Berg has put a lot of money into those buildings and I am grateful that the city is working with him, and I know that's why he got behind and then throwing COVID into that. So I'm happy and grateful that we'll let him get back on track and he can continue to do good things for the downtown.

Thanks. I second that. Is there any further discussion? Move on to the vote. And that passes six to zero. There's nothing on the, collective bargaining tonight. So with that, we'll call this meeting adjourned.