Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We're gonna call to order the, finance and personnel commission. All members are present in the, council chambers except for Roseanne Northwood. And, we'll start with the and she is excused. We'll start with new business, 25Dash1087. Resolution living special charges for services performed in 2025. Can I have someone from staff just come up and just sort of explain how this works so people don't think that they're getting charged for something special?

Good? Yep. Alright. Alright. So this is a yearly resolution that's done to authorize the use of special charges.

Typically, these charges are gonna be any unpaid improvements like it states in the staff report there, but curb and gutter, street and alley sanitary sewer, water mains, any delinquent utility bills, things like that that by statute, we need authorization to be able to put that on the tax roll or the individual tax partials. So year a yearly thing, but it it has been a great mechanism for municipalities to be able to collect unpaid or delinquent utility bills and and special charges and things of that nature over the past. So

Thank you, director Hawkins. Is there any, discussion? Any questions from I see no questions. Council member Jansen. I would move to approve. We have, council member Jansen moves to approve and seconded by council member Calo. Any other discussion? We'll move forward with the vote. That passes unanimously. Moving on to 25 dash 1089.

Resolution authorizing a hazardous materials contract between the city of La Crosse fire department and Dairyland Power Cooperative. Are there any questions or discussion? Councilmember Mr. Lejnikol?

Thank you, chair. I wonder if our fire chief could give us an overview about what's involved with this. And I'm also curious, there is financial remuneration for this. Does that go up annually to try to cover costs? Because I'm I know we're just very cost conscious, and I wanted to make sure that we are definitely cover the expenses we're incurring for this.

Good evening. Thanks for the question. This has been an ongoing relationship, and this is just an amendment to the current contract. The money that is exchanged is just reimbursement for our actual expenses. It's not a contractual amount.

And that does change year by year, but we try to align it with our contracts with the state of Wisconsin for the hazmat radiological side of things, and those are on five year agreements. I think what's confusing about this is that we are the response agency for that site and for the state of Wisconsin when it comes to radiological incidents. This is special training where we go annually down to the site and do specific things regarding unique hazards that they continue to have. Their spent fuel rods are still stored on-site there, and that's basically what this is about. So this is in above, in a way, a farther reach for us above the contracts we currently have for training because we're trading off-site and for a private entity that owns that property. So that's why we need the agreement.

And did I hear you correctly that La Crosse is a responder for the entire state? Yeah. We're a

type two regional asset for the state of Wisconsin, has made regional response side of it. So if there were an incident down there, we would be dispatched appropriately for that, being that it's a radiological area or site or potential for that. Secondary to that, we also have a separate contract as radiological response team for the state of Wisconsin, and there's only two of those fire departments in the state that respond in that capacity, at least have that con contractual obligation to. So we have many reasons to be down there. I hope we never have to go, but at least we get reimbursed for the training that we do have to prepare for that.

And how many actual sites are there in the state of Wisconsin that you might be asked to respond to? There's only two.

However, that does not exclude any other incidents that may occur by transportation of radiological materials.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Can I have a motion? Council member Jansen? Move to approve. Council member Jansen moves to approve, seconded by council member Slesnikow.

We'll call the vote. That passes unanimously. Moving on to 25 dash one two two three, single audit with independent auditors report as of 12/31/2024. Any discussion? Council member Jansen? Move to approve. Move to approve by council member Jansen, seconded by council member. Any further discussion or questions? Seeing none. I'll call the vote.

And that passes unanimously. Moving on to 25 dash one two four five. Resolution authorizing the application and committing to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation Transportation Alternative Program, otherwise known as TAP. Grant funding for the King Street Greenway and Ranger Drive protected bike lanes. Any discussion? Council member.

Thank you, chair. I'm wondering if I can ask Jenna Dinkle from planning to come up and just give an overview of what's involved with this resolution. And approval of said resolution, what will that allow to happen?

Thanks, councilmember Celeste Nico. So this resolution before you is for approving us to apply for the grant funding for the transportation alternatives program. This allows us to apply for the funding. That doesn't mean we received the funding yet. And this is for King Street Greenway and Ranger Drive retrofit or protected bike lanes.

It was approved by our bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, And the King Street Greenway will be from 3rd To 7th Street and will be that final completion for the King Street Greenway. And Ranger Drive includes protected bike facilities, additional sidewalk on the northwest side of the street, and rapid flashing beacons to help kids safely get to the Boys and Girls Club and Logan High School. And they are both tier one projects as part of our bicycle pedestrian master plan.

Councilmember

Jansen. Jenna, for those that maybe don't know more of the details on the funding and maybe public listening, could you explain how the funding because when you see that initial price tag, you, like, freak out.

Yeah. So as part of this grant application, we would be eligible for up to 80% of eligible costs to be reimbursed back to the city. So I did break it down on the construction costs and what the design costs are in attachment to this resolution. And it is also currently in our twenty twenty six, two thousand thirty capital improvement plan. Both of those projects have been included, and so the match is already allotted in our CIP.

Councilmember Sesnikau?

Thank you, Chair. I did want to thank Jenna for all the work that she puts into these grant applications. Again, this is to apply for the grant. There's no guarantee that we get them. They are definitely competitive, but both of these areas are high priority within our bicycle pedestrian master plan. I personally have heard a lot about Ranger Drive, you know, in the North, in the North Side, for safety near the high school, both for bicycles and pedestrians. So that has made it a high priority. And trying to finish the the King Street Greenway all the way down to the to the western edge of the city is also a high priority to try to finish that East West Corridor. So, again, thank you for the work on that.

Is this the appropriate time to ask about some of the numbers on the bid tab, or would that be a a thing for engineering?

Well, you can ask, but it might be a thing for engineering.

Okay. Being that Ranger Drive is, like you know, I can look out my front door, and there it is. It says that there's line number seven says that they're gonna remove 50 trees. There at best, there's 12.

Yes. I noticed that too. That would be a question for engineering. I am not exactly sure where they're getting that estimate from.

Okay. And then when we go down to tree replacement, it says 20. So has anybody talked to forestry well, again, this probably I'm sorry. I'll just ask it. Has anybody talked to forestry about keeping what we can do to maintain some of these mature trees that provide a lot of shade canopy

Yeah. So

and cooling for people on their bikes and walking?

Absolutely. Yes. So I had actually added in the tree replacement after talking with our Parks Department. That was just an initial conversation, so we have some kind of funding allotted for tree replacement. But this will be a continued conversation with our Parks Department to make sure that we saving any trees that we can or still getting some kind of tree canopy on that road. Okay. And are the protected bike lanes going to be

on both the east and west side?

Yep. It wouldn't be like a cycle track like we see on 2nd Street. It would be raised bike lanes on each side

of the road. Yes. Okay. So in so in looking at that, when you drive down Ranger Drive and you see these mature trees, isn't there a way to save them?

That might be an engineering question again. Okay. But I I would sure hope so. Okay.

Councilmember McKayla.

Thank you, madam chair. I don't Jenna, this might not be for you either, but we've there's already been considerable amount of money allocated towards the King Street Greenway, but I only see a $100,000 in past. But I thought we had already allocated money from Front Street to 3rd. Are some of the pieces of this missing?

That will be another engineering question. I did verify with them that they have funding from Front To 3rd Street to make sure that I wasn't duplicating efforts with this application. So I know that they have funding somewhere for that, but it's just not reflected in the CIP report.

I know we have approved that funding, and I have asked several times when the project was going to be completed because I think it was supposed to be started last year. But if no one's here from engineering, I'll just check with them next Thursday at council. Alright. Thanks, Jenna.

Are there any other questions? Any other discussion for Jenna? Thank you, Jenna. Could I ask director Odegaard to come up quick? I'm just I I'm very concerned about the trees, I think. You know? So is there anything you can add to this about you know, there's 12 trees, and then we're trying we're saying we're gonna remove 50. But are you aware of any of these discussions?

Well, I would I guess what I would like to share with the council is the parks department, we can't save mature trees as in dig them up and and move them somewhere else. So then it it really would go to the engineers on the project and how they design that. That's outside of forestry department's purview. We will have input. I know Leah Miller had talked with Jenna.

I believe it was Leah. And we will give our recommendation on what types of trees are replaced, what types of trees, where they're planted, how many, that type of thing. But when it comes to actually saving the trees and I say that because there are a lot of people that think, you know, we do have the big shovel back that can go in and dig up smaller trees and replant them. But when you're talking about mature trees, like specifically on Ranger Drive, that's not an option. Either the design goes around them or they have to be removed.

And that's what I'll be clear as well. I'm not talking about digging them up and putting them someplace else. I'm talking about, is there a way that we can save them to the place they are and still do the project? And if you guys is that a discussion that you have with them? Or is that just an engineering decision?

We will we attend the engineering monthly project meeting. And so that's something where we'll give, again, kind of our recommendation. From a forestry we're gonna try to we're gonna recommend to save any mature tree possible just because having that mature tree canopy is so important to the city. And we spend a lot of money planting trees and and caring for trees. So, you know, we always anything that can be done.

But, again, depending on the width of the bike lane or width of the road, sidewalk, and I'm not familiar with the design on this, there are trees that just have to be removed. So that would be a question for engineering. And obviously, we we will give input when we get to that point. Unfortunately, that's always after the project has already been approved.

Okay. Thank you, director Odegaard. Any other questions for director? Thank you. Is there any further discussion or questions? Oh, yeah. Well, can I have a motion on this item? Commissioner or Councilmember Selsnikov?

I move to approve.

Motion to approve by Councilmember Sesnikow, seconded by Councilmember Kahlo. Any other questions? Councilmember Kahlo. Thank you, madam chair. I just want to add to the concern about the trees and mention, before my time on council, when Cass Street was reconstructed, there were some very large, beautiful honey locust trees that were set to come down.

And the Board of Public Works took the request up to save those trees. And they were saved, even though one third of the trees were cut down, and they were told they might not survive. And I'm happy to say they are still beautiful and huge and create this amazing canopy where there were no trees from 9th Street all the way to the river. So those two trees are still there. So even if the plan says they need to come down, I still think that there are ways, and Board of Public Works at that time decided it was worth it to save those trees. So I want to put that out for anyone who's thinking of trying to save a tree. Thank you.

I'm just going to state that there are numerous questions for engineering and no one here to answer them. So I just think even some of the funding, there's questions, and there's just nobody to ask. So I'll be voting no on this. So with that, we'll call the, vote. So this motion passes with three yes, one no, and one abstain.

Abstention. Excuse me. And we'll move on to, item number 25 dash one two four six. Resolution approving amendment of ticketing agreement between the City of La Crosse and Ticketmaster LLC. Is there any questions or comments?

Councilmember Jansen? Move to approve. Motion to approve by Councilmember Jansen, seconded by Councilmember Sleznikow. Councilmember Sleznikau, would you like to speak?

Thank you, chair. I'm wondering if director Odegaard can give us an overview of what exactly happens with this amendment, how it's changing to try to bring it in alignment with, you know, other facilities in in the country.

Thank you, council member Sluznickol. I was not the brains behind this, but I'll do my best. I guess, in short, sometimes when you play chicken, you win, sometimes you lose. And I think here we won. The the reality is Ticketmaster gets a lot of bad rap, but it is the monster in the industry for a reason.

We had been in contract with them since 2009. We challenged their contract, wanted to shop it, see what else we could find. Upon doing so, in short, I'll give you some of the the benefits. First off, for the customers, instead of paying an $8 flat rate for their tickets, matter what the ticket price was, now it's 15%. So a lot of our tickets for especially smaller events are gonna be 15, 20, you know, maybe $30.

So before, they were paying a flat rate of $8. So now you're paying 28 instead of 20. Now they'll pay, what, $3, I think it is, on a $20 ticket. So it it helps out the customers, which ultimately helps us out because they're figuring that into their budget if they're choosing to to buy a ticket through us. Another big one is we're we're gonna have a a 2.46 credit card percent credit card rate, which is outstanding.

I think our finance director would agree with that. When you when you look at their sponsorship, pay what they paid the center in the past was $77,500 dollars a year. Now that's jumping to 15,000. So we've doubled that, which obviously helps. So we get a $32,000 hardware credit, so that would be for ticket scanners, any type of computers that we use, and this has all been run through IT to make sure that that works with them as well.

And so through the course of a normal year, this should be roughly about a $75,000 increase. If you use the numbers from last year and the year before, roughly around $75,000 increase to us on our ticket rebate. So our ticket rebate before was 30% of ticket. We got back. Now we'll get 37%.

So in short, it's it's we're gaining. Ticketmaster still has, you know, hooks, but we've also found that so many of the promoters and this is what if you followed it at the federal level at all, there's so many promoters that are tied to Ticketmaster where if you have if you don't go with Ticketmaster, you lose those promoters and you lose the shows that they carry. So for us, this is a big win. It's a five year contract. So, you know, we will have the option to shop it again.

My assumption is at some given point in time, some of these other companies are gonna probably grow and figure out, you know, how to challenge Ticketmaster. And at that time, you know, we'll just keep shopping it. But, I think a lot of the pressure that has been put on Ticketmaster publicly is is a result of what, you know, we're seeing here with a much better financial deal for us and the consumer.

Well, thank you very much for your work and whomever else was involved with that. It sounds like this is definitely a win, you know, for lacrosse, for customers, for the lacrosse center. It's nice to hear that occasionally that we're actually moving in the right direction rather than losing more and more in the way of funding. So thank you.

Still great to go to our ticket booth, though you don't have to pay any of the fees. Thank you.

Is there any other discussion? I'll just shout out a little something for Jared Flick who works so hard on this. So we'll move this forward for the vote. This motion passes unanimously. Moving on to, item number 20 five-twelve 52, resolution approving subordination request for permanent financing by Haven on Main LLC regarding TIF development agreement.

Any discussion? Councilmember Sluznickol.

Thank you, chair. I'm wondering if someone from would this be a finance question, or it would be an Andrea question thank you so much just to give an overview of why this is necessary in this particular case.

Sure, thank you. So this is the Haven on Main project. They are currently under construction. So once they finish construction, typically developers will then change their financing to permanent financing. So permanent financer is asking for subordination from the city for those loan documents. This is pretty typical. We've already subordinated the construction financing. So, yeah, just asking for approval to be able to sign those documents for their subordination.

Councilmember Newberry? Move to approve. Motion to approve by council member Newberry, second by council member Jansen. Any further discussion? Okay.

We'll move forward with the vote. And that passes unanimously. Moving on to item number 25 dash 1254. Resolution approving a development agreement with Badger West LLC for a multifamily development located at 12th And Badger Streets. Council member Slesnikol.

I guess this is another case where it's unfortunate that engineering isn't here because I have an engineering related question. I guess I can put my question forward. It stipulates here that the work would be done unto the specifications of the engineering department. I'm just curious how closely our engineering department actually evaluates this, the planning, the design, and implementation of these utilities and roadways. So I guess in that case, I I may abstain from this one just so we make sure it's not on the consent agenda, and we can ask those questions.

Councilmember Newberry?

I move to approve.

Motion to or move to approve by councilmember Newberry, seconded by councilmember Sesnikow. Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. This motion fails with one yes, one no and three abstentions. With we have we are moving into closed session, so I'll read the the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin statute one nine point eight five parent one parent e to formulate and update negotiation strategies and parameters.

Following such closed session, the committee and or council may reconvene in open session. Can I have a motion to move into closed session? Motion moved by councilmember Kalow. Seconded by councilmember Slesnikow. We are in closed session.

Oh. Could we have a vote on that going into closed session by a hand raising? Unanimous consent. We're on the board. Whatever. Motion passed.