Aviation Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order at 10.05 a.m. on September 8th, 2026. Let the record reflect that Director Gallagher is excused from this meeting and all other Board of Public Work members are present. I'll take approval of minutes from August 31st, 2026. Motion made by Council President Dickinson, second by Director Train. Any discussion or corrections? All right, seeing none, all in favor, please signify by saying aye or raising of the hand. That motion passes. Moving to our next agenda item. The 25-1196 Bidder Proof of Responsibility. There are no bidder proofs of responsibility today. MOVING TO THE NEXT ITEM, REPORT OF QUOTES FOR WELL HOUSE 13 CHEMICAL REHABILITATION. HEY, DEREK.

GOOD MORNING. AS IT SAYS IN THE MEMORANDUM, THROUGH various testing with water quality investigations in every single one of our wells. It was determined that Wellhouse 13 has an unstable biofilm, which each one of our wells has its own biofilm, but this one just reacts more with our chlorine that we do. So it actually, to get the quality that we want, we have to add more, and it affects If we don't do this, it keeps affecting our disinfection byproducts, which we did have a high rise with them last year. So fixing this well as a primary well that we don't have to add the extra chemicals to is prudent and in the best interest of the water system.

Thank you. Any questions from... Is this money coming from the utilities, or do we need to borrow for this or anything?

No, this can be accommodated in the operating budget for the water utility.

Hi, in reading through this, it says, and I'm kind of quoting here, certain wells will need to be chemically rehabilitated. So I'm wondering, how many do you feel will need to be chemically rehabilitated and any more this year?

Not any more this year. This one was the most pressing. Well 21 will also be another one that will need a different chemical rehabilitation. But it also depends on with our capital improvement, our... as we set up for our capital projects, if we're able to get well 21 in for well casing replacement sooner, then that would be the preferred method because the ultimate fix to all this is to replace the casings and the gravel packs to each and every one of our wells.

Yes.

So is this going to be like the average cost per well?

For this type of chemical rehabilitation, yes. And preventative maintenance cycle and it is more expensive because of the amount of chemicals that we actually have to put in it and the process to do to be able to inject that to be able to treat the gravel pack and the surrounding aquifer

Because my concern is that as we've told the public that we're raising water rates, that now we're looking, and again, I don't mean this to be, I'm trying to figure out how I want to, I don't want it to look for things we need to do. I want it to be that we need to do things, not want to do things.

No, this is definitely a need. So what this is really reflecting with this unstable biofilm is each one of these wells, this one in particular, well 13, is 70 years old, the casing and the gravel. So that's all original from when they installed it in the 50s. And those type of life cycles for those well casings and the gravel pack is recommended to be 50 years. We're already 20 years over it. So same with well 20, that's already over 50 years old, or 21, excuse me. Most of our wells besides well 25 are older wells. Well 19 is the one that does have the most recent casing replacement, so that one does not need it. But many of the other ones are of the age that they need their casings and gravel packs replaced.

So for well 13 and eventually 21, why would we just do the chemical and not just replace the gravel, the gravel pack?

The gravel pack and casings, so on a high-end estimate, to replace the casings, it's $500,000. So we need to plan it out a little bit more strategically and line them out.

It's expensive to maintain water.

It is very expensive.

Well, thank you very much. Any other questions from board approval? Director Trang?

Derek, it says you've got three quotes. Is this the quote? I didn't see the other two quotes on there. Is this the lowest quote?

This is the lowest quote.

Okay.

Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve. Second by Council President Dickinson. Any other questions or discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please signify by saying aye. Raise another hand. That motion passes. Move on to our next agenda item, 260925, construction contract final payments. There's only one in there for a utility service on 10th and King. Are there any questions about this item? Seeing none, is there a motion? MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DICKINSON IS THERE SECOND SECOND BY DIRECTOR TRAM. SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE OR RAISE ANOTHER HAND. AND THAT MOTION PASSES. What's our next item 26 dashes 0, 9, 3, 4, annual development agreement compliance report and determination for Gundersen quick trip and Riverside center developments.

Hello, I can go ahead and give you an overview of that would be helpful. So just as a reminder, every year we do, as part of our development agreements, we do an annual compliance review. We do that over the summer. And particularly given our TIF agreements, we're obligated to send our TIF payments in September of each year. So we go before the boards that originally approved the development agreements or at least served as the recommending body. on an annual basis to approve those payments to be sent out. So the ones that are still relevant to the Board of Public Works are the development agreement we have with Gundersen on their main campus, as well as the Riverside Center, and then Quick Trip. And so I'll go ahead and go through just the memos, some of the highlights that were attached to the agenda, starting with Gunderson. So just some of the main requirements that we have for our TIP agreement, of course, is for them to reach their minimum assessed value guarantee. Gunderson's requirement that was set for them as of 2010 was to have $25 million worth of assessed value, and their base value is now at $48 million. So obviously have... OVERWHELMINGLY MET THAT REQUIREMENT. THEY ALSO HAD A JOB REQUIREMENT AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE 2500 JOBS CREATED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF TIT 14. WE RECEIVED THEIR JOB REPORT AND SO THE HEAD COUNT FOR ON-SITE EMPLOYEES IN LACROSSE IS 5,400 approximately. For FTE employees, it's 4,300. The average hourly wage is over $52. We required at the time, they had to have at least our base wage, which was $15.30. So obviously meant that. They also can include remote employees for their organization but that have home addresses in the city of La Crosse. The average hourly wage for those employees is over $34 and their head count is 189 and FTE is 182. So again, acknowledging that they have to hit 2,500 jobs. Those are for jobs for folks who actually work on site in La Crosse or live in La Crosse and work for Gundersen. So as part of this, the payments that need to be issued this year, part of theirs, this is a very complex deal. I think it's one of the most complex that we've had for our TIP agreements, but it does have a parking ramp that was obligated not to go tax exempt or they had to pay a pilot. So there is a pilot issue payment that's issued for that. This project has been throughout my time with the city. And so the cost for that pilot is $208,945.03. When we calculate the payment that's due to the developer, it would be $1,004,850.29. So the recommendation is that we would collect the pilot that's owed to the city, and then we would issue our payment. I should also mention, too, I didn't do this all myself. This was in collaboration with our finance and legal department. So this memo was actually written by the legal department. So we work together as a group. If there aren't any questions, I'll move on to the next one, which is Quick Trip.

Any questions?

All right, continue. So Quick Trip, this was for their bakery expansion and dairy and freezer expansion. So we haven't been making our payments to Quick Trip for over five years now. They've received their TIF payments. They were required to reach $4.5 million as of tax year 2011 for their bakery. That is now valued at $19.5 million. For the dairy and freezer expansion, they were required to reach $5 million as of 2016. That expansion, that building, that property is now valued at just a little under $19.8 million. So again, have overwhelmingly met that. They also had a job requirement, 100 new FTE employees for both the bakery expansion and the dairy and freezer expansion. We did receive their certification last month for their jobs that comes from Quick Trick Deluxe. They had 900, between those two facilities, 910 full-time employees and 153 part-time. So again, have very well met that requirement. We do have the ability to issue a third-party job audit should we feel that was necessary or desired. As staff, we don't feel that's really needed. We feel that what they've provided us feels legit to us and we're not concerned. So our recommendation on this one is just to leave that be and no payments are needed. Any questions on QuickTrip? Okay, and then the last one is the Riverside Center. So this one is a three-phase project. This one also has job requirements and tax guarantees. So for the first phase, that one was required to meet $11.4 million every year. The improvements for this one actually were below, or the assessment for this one was actually below that required guarantee, and it came in at $9.9, just $10 million essentially, $9. $9,957,200 is what that assessed at. So for the other two phases, phase two has an $8 million tax guarantee. That is currently assessed at $10.8 million approximately. And for phase three, that one has an $18 million tax guarantee, and that one is currently assessed at just under $20.7 million. So given that they fell shy of the phase one tax guarantee, The pilot that's due to the city is calculated at $26,452.27. However, given the payments that the city is owed to the developer, what we owe them is $374,857.89. So when we net those two together, the money that they owe us and the money we owe them, that comes out to $348,405.62. And so that's the payment we recommend being issued to them. Or excuse me, let me keep going. Sorry, I forgot the job part. So that's regarding just the tax guarantee for their jobs. So they were required to create 2,000 jobs and maintain them for 10 years. That was in 2016, started in 2016. After we did the 2022 compliance review, they had a significant job decrease in And that drop, their job count dropped below that number to 1,237 jobs. So COVID played a significant component with that. We did issue them a one-time deficiency pilot as payment that was, as it was outlined in the development agreement, that was somewhat significant because each job that they don't miss, they don't create and maintain, they're required to pay $3,500 per job to the city. They've maintained, they did okay the last couple years. However, for 2025, they did drop below that number again and now are at 1,232 jobs, or five jobs short of the last amount. So when they dropped below the 2,000 and got down to that 1,237 and paid that deficiency payment, that reset the number that they had to hit every year. So as a result of that, we take five jobs times 3,500, that's 17,500 that's owed to the city for that deficiency payment. So if we subtract that out from the payments that are owed, the final amount that the city owes the developer is $330,905.62. Our recommendation on this one is to go ahead and to submit that payment. I will also just say that we accommodate what the developer requests, depending on if they want those payments separately. So Gundersen always likes the pilot and the city's payment to be done as separate transactions. With this developer, they prefer it to be as just one net payment. So that's why they're included that way on the staff memos. So with that, our recommendation is to go ahead and to submit or to issue these payments and process these payments to the developer and to the city. And then also, if it's comfortable with all of you, to forego the job audit for a quick trip.

I do have a question for the Riverside Center. How did they determine their employees? Was that... Did they just give us that information, similar to Quick Trip?

Yes. And the same thing, I guess, I should say with Riverside, if we wanted to do a job audit, we can do that as well. They submitted a whole, like, screenshots even of their payroll information that's signed by their legal team to affirming that the information that's provided is correct. So I think I felt comfortable with that information. There is a staff burden, too, and we've had a new job audits before. Not to say that you shouldn't do it just because of that, but just something to take into consideration, too, that there's a cost of time and money.

And this is for all three buildings, right?

Yes.

Okay. Council Member Gallagher.

Did I understand you to say now that with those, that all three buildings, they've been reset to the new number?

So each time that they, for the job account specifically, yeah, so how the developer's development agreement is stated is it was originally $2,000. If they drop below that in any year, they have to pay the penalty, and whatever number they came in at and they paid the penalty for is now the new number they have to reach. And so now after this year, once they pay the penalty, they'll now be at that 1,232 that they'll be obligated to meet moving forward.

Thank you. And similar to Quick Trip, does remote workers, or no, Gunderson, does remote workers count in this as well?

This one, I don't know if we specified. I'd have to actually look at that one. I do know with Gunderson, we actually called out because of the nature of the work. And then when these developments were done, all three of these agreements are prior to COVID. So life has changed a little bit. But I think because of the nature with Gunderson, it was specifically called out that... They had to be in La Crosse, and then just given the nature that Gundersen 2 serves the region, but they had to be at their La Crosse location, or if they were remote workers, that they had a home address in La Crosse.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? All right, seeing none, is there a motion? Director Trey? Move to approve based on the staff recommendation, Director Trang, second, Councilmember Gagan. Any other discussion or questions? All right, seeing none, all in favor, please signify by raising your hand or saying aye. And that motion passes. All right, moving on to our next agenda item, 26-0937. JSI Street Privilege Permit requests for fiber conduit placement on the southwest corner of 3rd and Cash Street. Any questions for staff? Council Member Goggin.

I'm just wondering when this project will start, and I'm hoping it's after October 1st.

They're looking to start as soon as possible. I'm happy to bring it up to the contractor who's doing the work to work around Oktoberfest and just not be in the vicinity during the weekend. During that weekend, I should say.

should be a really quick thing i this this project should just be a day or so that they need to do this work i was just thinking about the safety of the uh police department and the people that are around that area not so much the actual vest itself thank you can you let us know when they plan to start

Oh, I can't let you know when they plan to start yet because they need this permit and then they also need an excavation permit before they're allowed to do anything. So it hasn't been scheduled yet.

No, I was just saying, can you let us know? Oh, sure. Yes.

Yeah, definitely.

Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, is there a motion? Director Trang? Motion made by Director Trang, second by Council President. Thank you very much. Seeing no other discussion, all in favor, please signify by saying aye or raising of the hand. Sounds good. Moving on to our next agenda item, 26-0939, public right-of-way policy for Oktoberfest parade. For the good of the public, anyone from staff want to come explain this process? They said it's a clerk thing.

I believe there's a memo attached. This is an annual approval of the right-of-way policy for Oktoberfest.

Council Member Gagarin.

Just from different things that I've heard from the public, is it possible to post this on the city's website, the city's Facebook, La Crosse Police Department Facebook, Park and Rec Facebook, and maybe push it out to all the neighborhood associations?

That's a lot. I think there's a way to do that. We can work on that.

I just think so many people coming in and not having all the access to information we have that this would maybe solve a lot of problems for the police department.

Okay. So planning to take care of the neighborhood associations. Can you work with Sheree to get something out on the website and on our socials?

Yes. Cork's office can work with Sheree.

Thank you. Motion to approve by Director Train, second by Councilmember Goggin. Seeing no other discussion, all in favor, please signify by saying aye or raise another hand. And that motion passes. Oktoberfest is on its way, folks. All right. Happy Monday and have a great week. Meeting adjourned.