Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We're gonna call this meeting of the finance and personnel committee to order. It's 6PM on 09/04/2025. Everyone is present in the chamber or online, and the first order of business is unfinished business, and then we're gonna do it a little a little different. I'd like to see by unanimous consent to open public a public hearing, a public discussion, and then we're gonna move the agenda item back for closed session till later in the meeting.

Can I get that? We'll be opening up public discussion, and I have one person speaking on oh, a couple of people. So my first person is Virginia Cryer. Hello, miss Cryer. If you could state your, municipality, and then you'll have three minutes to speak. And and please hit your button, the little person talking button.

Does that work? Little person talking. That's me. Alright. I just I basically said a bit last time and last year also, so you've seen me before.

I think you know my story. Or and those of you who don't, it's basically that we we were on a sublet without our knowledge, and we found that out the week before Easter last year. The city had, made a decision in January to, remove all property from this land, and we weren't aware of any of it. In the meantime, we've had a lot of people supporting, helping me try to understand. And I've done a lot of research, too.

And basically, I want to cooperate with the city in any way I can. I I love Panel Crick. I I believe in supporting the city. But I also know that leaving where I am, losing my lease, it would be a a major disaster for us, you know, at my age and with all the investment of the years. We've been there been there for since 2006.

So anyway, with that said, I just want to say that I was hoping, you know, for re an extended lease after last June. It looked good for a while, and then, Rivercrest, basically non renewed us. And, at that point, I was waiting to be evicted from the city because I had heard nothing else. And then so when we were approached by attorney Matti to consider a lease for us, I was very happy and happy with how that was going. And even though it was a limited lease, it would serve the purpose of giving us some time because last year, had two months to consider it, which we couldn't do that.

Just tonight, the only reason I'm up here is because I want to let you know that I got an email yesterday from Will Heschler, and it's called Proposal Update. And it's different from what they presented at the April or I'm sorry, August. And so I don't know if you've all seen it or if you're aware of it. And it's basically, talking about a a different, type of sale that would be the eastern part, would be sold to Rivercrest, and they would lease they they would lease, our, Western end from the city. And there's a lot more in here too, but, I was under the understanding that we got referred to this month instead of August was because there was no, they wanted to consider what Heschler was proposing.

And I've heard nothing in the last month, so I don't know what you all have considered. I have no idea. And so I'm kinda asking. I know I can't, you know, know what you're doing in your chambers and stuff, and I don't really wanna know either. I just want you to know that a lease for us is our best and really only practical solution. Thank you. I we appreciate your time. And Thank you. Thank you.

And we have Linda Coleman online.

Yes.

And if you could state your municipality, and you have three minutes to speak.

Thank you. I am Linda Coleman. I'm a resident of Bayfield County and practice law up in Bayfield County and surrounding counties as well. But we also represent Juniper Partners, and I'm here on behalf of Juniper Partners. I appreciate the statement that was just made.

I would note that Will Heschler, Managing Director of Juniper Partners, is also on the meeting via Zoom. And one thing that I think Juniper Partners has been very mindful of is wanting to keep the residents of the parcel in question as informed as possible. And so Ms. Cryer referenced receiving an email, and and that was in an effort to try to maintain transparency and communication with these residents because we we fully understand that there has been a lot of trepidation and and uncertainty created for these folks. And so we certainly hope that can can come to a swift end.

I would just note that we have made a proposal to the city. We feel very positive about the proposal. In that proposal, it adopts all of the components of the lease terms that the city wanted to see as far as we are aware. And so to echo what I just said, all of the concerns of residents, the Juniper Partners wants nothing more or less than what the city has asked for in those leases and is perfectly happy to adopt all of those terms to ensure stability for those residents to the greatest extent possible. So as I said, we feel very positive about the proposal, and we're hopeful that the council can give it due consideration. And I am available to answer any questions also if anyone had any.

Thank you, Ms. Coleman. Okay. Next up, have Marlene DeWald. Ms. DeWalt, if you could state your municipality, and then you'll and press your speaker button, and you have three minutes to speak.

On Alaska, Wisconsin. And I my daughter is Laura Filbrick DeWalt, who is one of the residents. And unfortunately, our family has not been updated on any changes in the resolution by the city. However, we are aware of the proposals that Will Heschler is currently working on. This matter needs to be settled in ways that benefit the resident group.

They have never done anything wrong but have suffered greatly. Has progress been made in one and a half years? Where I do see a glimmer of hope is that perhaps now some new negotiating is happening. Two of the residents will possibly again be part of the mobile home village. That seems sensible and would be good news for them.

Very importantly, the other three residents need the assurance now that they have a lease, that they are assured of this. However, I do believe that discussions need to continue beyond that point. The remaining residents can and should be heard speaking with the mayor, their representative, and other key people. The ten year lease can be problematic for some due to their ages and circumstances, and they should not lose the value of their homes ever. They should not be penalized in any way with additional and unfair costs.

Last year, in June, I stood before this committee and another one, and I asked a question that has really not been answered and continues to haunt me. Why aren't these residents living next to the Pammel Creek Canal said to be in very grave danger of flooding and disaster when apparently no one living on the other side of the highway along the Pammel Creek Canal seems to be in any danger at all. Along that five mile canal are residences, walking and biking path, parks, people out walking, out visiting, walking dogs, exercising, children playing. It is truly a positive feature in lacrosse. Many residents are even within that 100 foot buffer zone.

This makes no sense and is not fair. That question needed to be answered a long time ago and needs to be answered now during a follow-up time for more discussion. The residents and other key people can continue problem solving so that these people can again feel secure and do not lose the value of their homes that they have worked so hard to attain. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I just want to reiterate that we moved the public hearing up or headed first, but the agenda item itself will be moved to the end of the agenda. So can I see unanimous consent to close public hearing? So thank you. Public hearing is closed.

Moving on to new business, 20 five-nine 26, resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to sign state municipal agreement for the citywide traffic implementation utilizing the SIGNAL and ITS stand alone program, parentheses, project ID numbers 3007Hundred-eleven-sixty4, end parenthesis. Can I have a motion to, put this on the floor? Councilmember Jansen? Move to approve. Can I have a second?

Thank you, Councilmember Kalow. Is there any discussion? Any discussion? We'll move ahead with a vote. And that is passed unanimously.

Moving on to twenty five dash zero nine two seven, resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to sign state municipal agreement for the citywide traffic implementation utilizing the signal and ITS stand alone program, parenthesis project ID number 30007Hundred-eleven-sixtyFive) for the installation of ProWag compliant pedestrian push buttons. Councilmember Kahlo? Motion to approve. Can I have a second on that? Motion to approve by Councilmember Kalos, second by Councilmember Jansen. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Slesnikol?

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say that it's so important that we move forward with these accessible pedestrian signals. I have heard from those that have, visual disabilities that it's so important, again, that they have that ability to understand when it's, safe to to cross and the auditory indication for such. So I'm happy to hear that our community is moving to transition, away from just the press buttons to the, ProWag, accessible signal. So again, thank you for making that happen.

Thank you, council member. Any other discussion? Move ahead with the vote. And this vote passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 25 dash zero nine two eight.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to sign state municipal agreement for the citywide traffic implementation utilizing the signal and ITS stand alone program, parenthesis project ID number 3700Dash11Dash66, to replace emergency vehicle preemption, EVP, at 42 intersections on connecting highway. Council member Jansen? Move to approve. Can I get a second? Move to approve by council member Jansen, seconded by council member Northwood. Is there any discussion? Council member Slesnikol?

Thank you, chair. I'm wondering if there's someone from engineering that can explain this, a little more thoroughly, not only for council members, but also for the general public what this actually will do.

Thank you, Director Gallagher.

Thank you for the question, councilwoman Slesnikow. The EVP systems are part of our traffic signals that have been in place for about thirty years. What they do is they allow, typically, the fire department vehicles to, communicate directly with the signals so that the signals know which way they're approaching when they're on their response routes, and they can typically then immediately cause a change in the signals to accommodate quicker response. They can give green lights to, the fire the fire trucks.

Thank you.

Are there any is there any other discussion? We'll move ahead with the vote. And that passes unanimously. Moving on to item number 25Dash0972. Resolution approving a twenty year lease extension with JF Brennan Company Inc. For the property located at 300 Saint Cloud Street and a portion of the property located at 2002 Marco Drive. Council member Jansen?

Move to approve.

Can I get a second? Council member motion to approve by council member Jansen, second by council member Newberry. Is there any discussion? Move ahead on the vote. And that passes unanimously. Item number 25 dash zero nine eight four, resolution approving Green Island Tennis Complex use agreement between the City of La Crosse and the Coulee Region Tennis Association. Council member Northwood?

I move to approve.

Can I get a second? Motion to approve by council member Northwood, second by council member Kahlo. Is there any discussion? Council member Sleznikow?

Thank you, chair. So my understanding from the staff report, this is actually to formalize the agreement with the the Tennis Association, in addition to what had already been formalized with UWL and Aquinas. Is that correct?

Yes. That is correct.

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? We'll ask for the vote. And this passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 20 five-nine 90, resolution appropriating utility funds for utility design as part of the WSDOT reconstruction project 7575 Dash 09 Dash 01 State Highway 16 La Crosse Street from 7th Street to 12th Street. Councilmember Jansen.

Move to approve. Can I get a second? Thank you. Motion to approve by Councilmember Jansen, second by Councilmember Northwood. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 25 dash zero nine nine five, resolution moving funds from CIP number 561, City Hall Plumbing Repairs bathroom to CIP number 563. Excuse me. I jumped ahead one.

I'm gonna back up, reroll the tape. So agenda item number two five dash zero nine nine one, resolution appropriating additional TID and utility funds for professional services as part of the Causeway Boulevard reconstruction project, construction administration and expense inspection. Councilmember Jansen?

Move to approve.

Move motion to approve by councilmember Jansen, seconded by council member Kahlo. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I will call the vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Now 25 dash zero nine nine five, resolution moving funds from CIP number five six one, City Hall Plumbing Repairs slash Bathroom to CIP five sixty three City Hall Windows Air Seal Replacements.

Councilmember Kahlo. Motion to approve. Motion to approve by council member Kahlo, seconded by council member Jansen. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote.

And that motion passes unanimously. Agenda item 25 dash zero nine nine seven, resolution approving sponsorship agreement effective 09/01/2025 between Marine Credit Union and the City of La Crosse. Council member Jansen. Move to approve. Can I get a second?

Council member Jansen, motion to approve, seconded by council member Kahlo. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. That passes unanimously. Agenda item 25 dash zero nine nine eight.

Resolution authorizing the use of capital improvement project funding for the Downtown Neighborhood Association Paint and Fix Up grant program to include Washburn neighborhood. Council Member Kahlo? Motion to approve. Motion to approve by Council Member Kahlo seconded by Council Member Jansen. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, we'll call the vote. That motion passes. Five to well, yes and one abstention. Moving on to agenda item 20 five-ten zero two two, resolution improving transfer of tax incremental District 18 funds as a contribution to the redevelopment authority for acquisition of property for River Point District. Council member Jansen.

Move to approve.

Motion to approve by council member Jansen, seconded by council member Kahlo. And I'm seeing council member Jansen, would you like to discuss?

I would like to have our planning director come up and just give a brief overview.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this item. So this request is for the council to transfer funds to the redevelopment authority for the Redevelopment Authority to acquire a property. This is a property that is in already exists in the Tax Increment Financing District for River Point District. It's a part of the River Point District redevelopment plan, and it's a part of the plan development document's plan. So it was expected that this would be a property that would be a part of the River Point District development.

When it came on the market, it wasn't something that we were expecting. We weren't aware that it was going to be on the market. So when we found out that it was, we knew we'd have to act quickly. So at the advice of the Chairman of the Redevelopment Authority, we did submit an offer to purchase for this property. The purchase of it is contingent on approval of the Council and approval of the Redevelopment Authority.

The Redevelopment Authority did approve at their meeting last week that they would want to acquire this property if the funds were transferred from the Council to the Redevelopment Authority. So the funds are coming from Tax Increment Financing District eighteen, which is the overlay district of River Point District. And those funds come from other funds, other TIDs, as donor TIDs. So there are several other TIDs throughout the city that the council approved that those could donate their funds to TID18, since TID18 is a new TID, so it doesn't have sufficient funds on its own. But that is an eligible expense.

So the eligible expense is the transfer to the redevelopment authority for the purpose of the acquisition. So if something were to happen with the acquisition of this property, we wouldn't transfer those funds to the redevelopment authority.

There any other questions for Director Train?

Councilmember Jansen? Director Train, could you, explain this from a perspective of a resident that knows nothing about TID and TIF and how that's going to impact them?

Yes. So this will not have any impact on their taxes. It's not an additional expense. It's not a borrowing. It's cash that's already available in the TID to be only specifically used for projects in the TID or transfer to the redevelopment authority items like that. So this is cash already available. It would not affect their levy or increase their property taxes.

And since this property is already in a district, could you explain how it's not impacting their people that are donating towards our tax base?

Sure. So when a property is in a TID, we are committing to a certain level of a tax base when we create those TIDs. So basically, the contribution amount freezes when the TID is created. So all of the properties within that TID will continue to pay the same amount of taxes, although any increase in that property value, those taxes would go into the TID. So with the city acquiring that, it will drop or the redevelopment authority acquiring the property, the tax base or the tax of that will drop, but the commitment of the funds in that TID remain the same to the other taxing jurisdictions. So there would be no change based on the acquisition by a nontaxing entity.

Council Member Slisnickiall?

Thank you, Chair. Director Trane, it looks like on the staff report, if this was actually acquired and you would have a three acre parcel or approximately three acres. Do you have an idea of what potentially what type of development would use such a parcel in that location?

I do. That's a great question. So looking at some of the other parcels that are in River Point District to give you an idea of what three acres looks like. So currently, the MSP building that you see that's built and there are people living there, that sits on 1.89 acres. There's also under development the War Eagle along the river, and that sits on a two acre parcel. The parcel just to the west of the Drift List, the MSP project, that's about a 2.7 acre parcel. So that's one of the larger parcels in River Point District. So this would be comparable to that.

Council Member Kehlo? Thank you, Madam Chair. So we transfer the money to the redevelopment authority. They sell the property to a developer. Do we get that money back?

No, that's part of that contribution. And then that would stay in the bank account of the redevelopment authority. And the point of that would be for them to have their own funds to not have to come back to you. So they did purchase a property just across the street from this parcel a couple of months ago, and there were two vacant lots there, and they did have their own cash to be able to pay for that property, so we didn't have to come to the redevelopment authority for that. And then ideally, we will get River Point District underway, going self sustaining, and then be able the Redevelopment Authority would then be able to move on to another project around the city and have cash available to be able to acquire property and redevelop that as well.

Are there any other questions for Director Train? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the vote. And that passes unanimously.

Moving on to agenda item 25 dash one zero two three, resolution to allocate additional funds previously encumbered for Pamel Creek Repairs, parenthesis, CIP numbers one six eight to miscellaneous dash 25 dash zero zero two, parenthesis, res twenty four dash one four five two. Council Member Kahlo. Motion to approve. Motion to approve by Council Member Kahlo, seconded by Council Member Janssen. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, we'll call the vote. That passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 25 dash one zero two seven, financial statements with independent auditors report as of 12/31/2024. Council member Jansen.

Are we moving to receive and file on this one?

Yes. We are. Motion to receive and file by council member Jansen, seconded by council member Kahlo. Is there any discussion? That you know, could we have the finance director come up and just give us just a bullet point about what we're doing here?

Sure.

Always put me on the spot. All right. So obviously, know by state statutes every year we have to go through an annual audit through an independent audit agency. Again, this year, I do have to give kudos to finance staff. We had a financial audit again that came back with zero deficiencies within our annual audit. Very proud of the work that they did. I won't take any more credit than deserve than what they did. But again, we had a great audit. It does show good financial strength within the city on paper. So I guess I'll answer any questions about it.

Wish, I mean, we maybe could have had our auditor online today to answer any other additional questions, but Are there any other questions for, Director Hawkins?

Council Member Slesnikow?

Thank you, Chair. Chad, just again, wanted to echo what you had just said. I think we're very fortunate to have a top notch financial department under your leadership and to get these reports coming back with no deficiencies, really lends credence that we're we're doing our best to manage our finances, effectively and, you know, being physically physically prudent in how we approach this. So, again, thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. That passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 25 dash one zero two eight, resolution approving subordination request by Havenon Main LLC regarding TIF development agreement. Councilmember Jansen?

Move to approve. Can I get a second? Council Member Northwood. Motion to approve by Council Member Jansen, second by Council Member Northwood. Council Member Kahlo. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could I have, Director Train, would you, for folks that don't know what all this means, can you just really quickly describe what subordination means and how it's used and is

it used regularly? And just give us some brief 101.

Sure. So typically, subordination request comes from a bank where they want to be in first position on any financing for a project. So if the project were to go in default, they want to make sure that they're going to get their money back first before anybody else. And because the city does have a development agreement for this project through the tax increment financing development, they had an agreement that they want us to sign as well. It is very typical that we will agree to subordinate to be in second or third position position to a bank.

We understand that's how it goes. They won't finance a project unless we agree to that. So this was approved by the ECDC unanimously at their last meeting. Stefan was very involved in the discussions with Julie as well with The Haven to make sure that the document that we're signing still protects the city as much as possible. So we did feel comfortable moving forward in bringing this to the council.

Thank you, Director Trane. Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. That passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item two five dash one zero five four, resolution approving a reorganization to the table of positions and classifications for the department of the mayor.

Can I have a motion to get this to the floor? Councilmember Slesnikow?

My motion to deny.

Motion to deny by Councilmember Slesnico, second by Councilmember Janssen. Is there any discussion? We have a request for public input. So can I see by unanimous consent, show of hands, to open a public hearing? Public hearing is open.

Our first speaker is Elaine Yeager. Could you state your name and municipality, and you all have three minutes to speak.

Thank you. Elaine Yeager, City of La Crosse. And as of today, I was opposed to this because I believe that several of the new faces that we have, had ran in support of looking at hiring a city administrator. And so I guess my confusion is, is this replacing that, with this position? Are we still looking to do a city administrator?

Both positions are highly paid, I guess we'll put it that way. And so it was just it was just a misunderstanding on my part. Maybe I'm missing something, but I I just didn't understand. So I was very much in favor of us looking at a city administrator position because the goal there was to create efficiencies and streamline processes, and that seemed like a very valuable goal for us to have for the city, for our community. So for me, to be in support of this, I would just need more input, more information.

So that's my position, and I would like for you guys to just consider that, if you could. So thank you.

Thank you. Kenneth Johnson? If you could state your name and your municipality, and you have three minutes to speak.

Yep. Thank you, chairperson Grogan. Kenneth Johnson from La Crosse the City Of La Crosse. I'm standing here in opposition to twenty five one zero five four, the resolution of the of the table of positions and classifications of the Department of Mayor. First and foremost, what you're asking for here is to appoint a a person or a position to coordinate the operational duties of the office of the mayor, do research on behalf of the mayor, stand evaluating city plans on behalf of the mayor.

Do the operation supervise department heads, administrative staff members, as well as individuals throughout the this this whole city. You're ask asking to appoint someone to work closely with this council. You're asking someone to be appointed to facilitate the operation of the of the ordinances within the city. You're asking for someone to collaborate with the finance department to develop a a budget. No dis respect, your mayor. Your honor, these are your responsibilities. This this is what the city elected you to do. This is what you're getting paid to do. To farm this out to somebody else is not it it's thwarting

your duties as the mayor. I need you to direct your comments.

Oh, I'm I'm sorry. No.

I I

I'm terribly sorry.

That's okay.

But in this situation, this is not just let's just use a round number. The the you're you're trying to take a position or eliminate a position that is $79,000 to create a position between 143,000 and $188,000. If you've ever run a business, if you've ever gone out on your own, whether if you run a government entity or whether if you've done a private industry, let's just use brown, $175,000 A $175,000 position is not $175,000 We are blessed with our city benefits to our employees. You're looking at an additional approximate 60% increase revenue when it comes or an additional fund, I should say, cost, not revenue, cost to the city for a 175,000. You have your pension plan.

Add another 6.9% for that. You have your health benefits.

You're looking

at another 30,000 for that. Health, dental, insurance, deferred comp. All of those things come into it. So you're you're you're looking at an additional approximate $90,000 on a conservative on a 175,000 position. You're looking at a quarter of $1,000,000 to do what we've elected a mayor to do. I'm I'm sure the city council and and and on top of it and and I I all of you, each and every one of you have taken such great time and effort debating the city administrative position. I've been watching each and every moment in on in your broadcast and reading the the newscast on this. It's a it's a great idea in the sense of let's talk about it. You pushed this out into February. I believe is this February?

I believe it is. Until you wanna take a look at it further. I think it's best to look at this position as the city administrator position, continue on your course to go to that February date, and take it up there. I don't think this kind of backdooring a new position into the city is not the proper way of doing it. For that, I stand opposed. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? With that, I'll look mayor, would you like to speak on your request after I close public hearing? Could I see unanimous closing public hearing? Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. Alright. So I just kinda wanna provide a little background to get to where why we are where we are right now and what this position really entails and to also kinda, I guess, highlight various misconceptions. Alright. So first and foremost, when I ran for office, I adamantly talked about the desire of having a city administrator.

When I was elected, I talked about hiring a chief of staff and or some sort of position that allows to help with some of the professional management of the city. When going back to the first city administrator meeting that I attended and people said, hey, mister mayor, we wanna hear from you. What do you want, etcetera, etcetera. I came forth to that working group with a proposal. That proposal, one, did not require a charter ordinance change.

It was really just adding essentially a city administrator. I got feedback from council members, some that were in support, some that were not in support, and basically said, you know, this essentially if this position is gonna be serving under the mayor, then we need to call it something different. Right? So then I went back and I said, okay. Let's kinda think about what are the issues that we are addressing.

One, the charter ordinance change was something that a lot of folks were questioning because they wanted the power to stay within the mayor, stay in the mayor position who was an elected official that the city has said, we want you to run the city. Right? The second thing was folks who talked about wanting to have more of a professional trained individual serving alongside the mayor to assist with the day to day operations. That is what this position essentially entails. Another piece was having a position that works with counsel.

Again, that is what this position also entails. Another thing that was brought up was needing the continuity across mayors by having a position that essentially works in the city that either serves along mayors, assists council, etcetera. And, again, that's what this position entails. So there's kinda like my goal is to find solutions as mayor, and that is what I found here, a solution that essentially handles all of the things that we've questioned or that I've heard from both citizens, council members, department, etcetera. And then on top of that, we talk about the price.

So the original proposal was about $250,000. The second proposal was around 2 something as well. And this proposal is actually at a $195,340, which also includes health insurance and all those FICA, etcetera. The thing that I did with this particular position is by looking at, okay, what how can we essentially reconstruct the mayor's office to allow for this position to exist so we know that the communications coordinator position is roughly about, let's say, $79,000. And so we're assuming that money as well as then checking into, which is not uncommon for various salaries to be piecemeal, so to speak, together by various revenue generating sources, which is essentially what's happening here.

So, I guess I'll take any questions or, whatever from that. But, essentially, that is, yeah, the position in a nutshell.

Are there any questions for the mayor? Councilmember Kehlo. Thank you, madam chair.

Mister mayor, my question is what what do you envision then for this working group that has been in action since late twenty twenty four regarding a city administrator?

Great question. Well, this is a completely different piece of legislation. So I think that the council would decide what happens with that.

Do you have a follow-up, Councilmember Jahoe? Councilmember Jansen?

So am I understanding correct then that you're not taking position on whether or not we should pursue a city administrator?

I didn't say that. The question was what do I perceive will happen with the working group? And, like, I'm leaving that to this council.

Well, then my question is, do you still anticipate anticipate do you feel that we need a city administrator?

I would assume that if this position was to go into place that this would serve as, so to speak, could argue a pilot to the city administrator if it was necessary.

Council member Slesnikol.

Thank you, chair. I'm not sure that this is actually a question for the mayor. The city administrator working group has been working, as council member Kahlo had mentioned, since last fall at the direction of council to evaluate the potential hiring of a city administrator. The requirement for the charter ordinance, as the mayor had mentioned, yes, is in place. But the reason for the charter ordinance is to have the city administrator be an independent body within the organizational chart and not under the mayor.

And I know when the mayor came to the city administrator working group to present his proposal, I think a number of of the council members on that working group expressed their concern about wanting independence of that city administrator having it not under the mayor's office. And I think that's really what you know, in this discussion, another main concern and the reason for the formation of a administrator working group is public engagement. And here we're debating a an agenda item that was short circuited with an agenda title that mentions nothing about an operating director, operational director, city administrator, anything. I guess I was really taken aback that the mayor had tried to take this workaround and try to get this position and bypass the work that the city administrator, working group was doing as well as bringing it back to council in February and try to bring this under his office. I I I don't feel that this is something that really, needs to be discussed at the February 2026 meeting.

We just had a board of estimates meeting today with concerns about operating budget, and here we are adding someone prior to actually coming up with what our operating budget should be for next year. This is an additional charge, and this is what we really should be doing if we're going to be having a special council meeting about budget. So, again, my motion to deny is because I don't think this is appropriate, especially at this time. And I think this is more of a discussion with council as well as having the opportunity for the public to weigh in. The city administrator working group is finalizing public engagement sessions with the public to discuss the original, public, or city administrator, ordinance as well.

I'm sure this will be part of the discussion as well now that the mayor has introduced this, but I think the public should have the opportunity to weigh in on this and not try to take it and move it through in a short circuit and not give the public more of an opportunity to talk about this and to hear what options there are for the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilmember Newberry.

Thank you, madam chair. I just wanted to to note, I think that the reason that I I'll speak for myself, but I think that the reason that the independents and not under the mayor is such a concern isn't about what this mayor will do. I think that this has to be planned and organized structurally for what a mayor that we don't like, I guess, would do. And so if to me, I think it's fairly predictable if the mayor can hire and fire a person of the salary as soon as there's a change, I think that they would get rid of the person, and that would defeat the continuity argument. I'd so I'd I think the independent part is important, but I also hear and understand and share the thought for concerns about how fast the committee is is moving.

And if we'll be ready in February, I sure hope that we are. But I just wanted to to share my thoughts there.

Council member Northwood.

I have a question for the mayor. So the salary that you have, how much of that is unaccounted for, and what is counted for? And then I have a follow-up to that, but I'll leave it there.

So based on the salary range provided, it can be unaccounted for roughly 5,000 to $20,000 that would end up coming out of the operating budget. But all the other funding would essentially be what's already funded for the current position as well as, again, pulling from some of the revenue sources that we currently have.

So to be clear, then 5,000 to $20,000 would be added to the budget that we're talking about and preparing for?

Correct.

Okay. My follow-up question is for and maybe it's for the committee that's been working. The estimated salary for the city administrator is around $2.50, $2.40. Is that capped, including benefits and health insurance, or is that on top of that? Is that the base salary and then you add all the benefits on top of that? So the discussion that we had earlier, we're adding retirement, we're adding additional funds, and do have we had any discussion on I mean, that's also going to impact the budget in a significant way. That's my question.

I guess I would ask, is that a question for the HR? Or is that Okay. Could we have Director Franzen come up?

Thank you for the question. So the number that's been provided for city administrator with that range of $258,000 to $267,000 that does include benefits, taxes, pension, that would be a total compensation number.

Is the number that the mayor provided, the $195,000 and I can't recall the rest of the numbers, is that all encompassing as well?

Just to be clear, that's referring to the director of operations?

Yes. I'm

That does include that's total compensation. So that is, again, WRS contributions, health insurance, and taxes.

Thank you. Any other questions for Director Franzen? Councilmember Sleznikol?

Thank you, chair. Director Franson, is this a is this a standard position? I mean, there are a number of different options listed in the job description. Is this something that is a common commonly found position, you know, when you're out there advertising for this within that within that salary range with those type of specific job descriptions? Is that something that's typical for municipalities?

It is somewhat typical for municipalities, but not in the state of Wisconsin. Based on my research, there are other states and other municipalities who have implemented similar positions given different creative titles. So this job description, I've provided examples to the mayor of what other cities are doing, and that's how this was formulated. But no, this is not common in the state of Wisconsin, but it is in other states.

And when you mentioned that other states, are they the same size municipalities as La Crosse?

They vary greatly. So it can be small communities to large communities. So I can't give you an exact answer because it does vary so greatly.

Thank you. Are there any other questions for director Fransen? Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Councilmember Jansen.

So I won't be supporting this. I believe that we have time. We don't need to rush into anything. We've done a lot of homework as a committee, regarding the city administrator, and I think the public deserve plenty of time to research this, learn more about it. I'm sure there are tons of people out there that have no idea that this has even been proposed because it was short circuited, and there there are definitely times where short circuiting is is necessary.

In this particular situation, I don't think we need to to rush to make a decision, and I think that the city administrator position should be thoroughly vetted, and the public input sessions are already being scheduled. And I believe that there's no reason the public cannot provide us additional feedback on this proposal as well if they like this idea. But I think that we need to follow through with the city administrator position, make a decision, and then if this was brought back at that time, fine. But our city will continue to operate as it already is without this additional position. The city does not have the money, in my opinion, to be spending this much on a position that is actually reporting to the mayor.

And there's just there's just too much that that I disagree with, and I've my phone has been ringing off the hook since this was posted, and I have yet to have anybody call call me and say, hey. I love this idea. So there's no reason to jump into it.

Council member Kahlo. Thank you, madam chair.

I understand the intent that the mayor has bringing this forward. However, the short circuiting and speed of it, I have some concerns regarding, and I would prefer that the citizens had a little more notice, as the council had a little more notice to get feedback from our constituents and even for us to look at this a little bit more and compare this to the city administrator. During committee week, we don't have a lot of extra time to do a lot of investigating. We already had a full schedule. And so my trepidation is the speed of this as well.

So I will most likely be supporting the motion to deny.

I would like to just state that getting this information on Tuesday afternoon without the ability to do a lot of research on it and to find out kind of the ins and outs and having worked on the city administrator working group for since the inception in 2024, it concerns me that this legislation is trying to circumvent the the process. And my concern is the city of La Crosse. And I just think that we need to figure out a better way to get the public involved and to find out what they want because, again, we just went through an election cycle where we've been told that the the people that are voting were interested in discussing a city administrator. So I would like to and my also, a concern I have is the the I don't think that this position should report to the mayor. I think it's important that there's an independence and a to to assure the continuity between changes at the top of the government.

So with that, is there any other further discussion? Seeing none, the recommend the recommendation is to deny, and I'll call I'm sorry. Councilmember Northwood?

I just want to say that I will not be supporting the recommendation to deny this. When I was running, lots of folks were talking about the city administrator position. One of our first meetings was we talked about, and we had the opportunity to move forward in work and be able to implement something in February. Instead, we extended the work group. We will not have someone in position in February 2026, and there has been a lot of support to have another position. I do think that at our meetings, people do have

the opportunity for public

comment. No, not everyone comes. Not everyone is notified for those as well. But I think the folks that do want to speak, have been getting commentary from. And I just think we really need to get something in place. I also like that the budget, it's covered in the position except for a small portion of it. The other, moving down the line, if it is you call it a city administrator, you call it a director of operations, whatever the title is, they'll be doing duties that are needed for the city. And the idea that the position is mostly covered is really beneficial to our budget and what we've been working on. So I will not support the motion to deny. Councilmember Kahlo.

Thank you for a second time. I omitted something I wanted to say. We had a meeting this afternoon on the budget, and Councilmember Slesnikau alluded to that. And we are looking at we are over budget by $4,670,000 and we're talking about cuts that we need to make. And I think we all take that duty to our citizens very seriously.

And in good conscience, considering that, I think it's really important that we are not, at this point, adding a new position when we are talking about that departments may have to cut staff. And I don't want to see that happen. So, in good conscience, I think that we need to wait and see what our budget looks like and let the working group make its decision on the administrator.

Is there any further discussion? Mayor.

Thank you. So there's been a constant kind of mention around the short circuit, so I want to address that. And the reason that this particular item was circuited so we can have the conversation around the same time that we're having conversation around budget. So with that being said, do it at what you will. But there was not a vindictive plan to overthrow the city administrative working group.

It literally was you all asked for what I wanted. Because keep in mind, I was not the mayor at the time that that charter ordinance was presented. And so this was me bringing another piece of legislation to have a conversation and to ensure that we looked at multiple sides and not just one. So thank you.

Councilmember Jansen.

With that, I think it's important too that the public understand that the city administrator working group was specifically told that they were to stick to their, that particular resolution regarding a city administrator, that it wasn't an option for us to start brain brainstorming other ideas, such as a chief of staff or director of operations. So in that sense, I think it's a good idea that we now have two different resolutions that could be best in public.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion to recommend to deny, will take the vote. Motion to deny passes five to one. Moving on to agenda item 20 five-ten 70, resolution declaring official intent to reimburse expenditures from proceeds of borrowing through the State of Wisconsin Environmental Improvement Fund for the Sanitary Sewer Hagar and Pammel Creek Lift Station projects. Councilmember Jansen.

Move to approve.

Motion to approve by council member Jansen, second by council member Northwood. Is there any discussion? Council member could we just have director Gallagher just come up and give us a just a brief snippet of what this is about?

Sure. Thank you for the the opportunity, chairperson Gagan. So this was short circuited just because it's a matter of timing to get this approved before the end of the month. We didn't know about this until about a week ago. This is part of the process to apply for and to receive funds potentially for two sanitary lift station projects here in the city of La Crosse that are already in the CIP budget.

And if I can just follow these are these are the three things that the three stations that we've been talk well, two of the three stations we're talking about currently? This is two

of about five stations that we've been working on, but two that have not been been put underway yet. We've been going through the design and study phase so far but have not moved into construction.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Motion to approve has been done. Can we call the vote? That motion goes through unanimously.

Agenda items 25 dash one zero seven one and excuse me. And 25Dash080 will be meeting in closed session. The committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin statute 19.1 parent one parent e to formulate and update negotiation strategies and parameters to following such closed session. The committees and or council may reconvene in open session after we conclude. The resolution 25 dash one zero seven one is the resolution approving agreement with the town of Middari concerning fire protection services.

And agenda item agenda item 25 dash zero eight zero nine is the resolution approving mobile home leases for residents at Rivercrest Drive North. Can I get a unanimous, show of hands to enter into closed session? Thank you. We will be adjourning into closed session. K.

I'm gonna call this meeting back to order, and we're going to first agenda item that we're gonna discuss is 25 dash zero eight zero nine, resolution approving mobile home leases for residents at Rivercrest Drive North. Is there any discussion? Oh, excuse me. Can I get a motion to get this on to the floor? Council member Jansen?

I would move to approve the amended resolution.

Can I get a second? Council member Northwood. Move to adapt by council member Jansen, second by council member Northwood. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, move to vote.

And I will abstain.

This motion passes with five yes and one abstention. Moving on to agenda item 25 dash one zero seven one, resolution approving agreement with town of Madari concerning fire protection services. Councilmember Kahlo. Motion to approve. Motion to approve by Councilmember Kahlo, second by Councilmember Northwood. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, call for the vote.

Again, I will abstain.

This motion passes five to with five yeses and one abstention. With no other business on the agenda, I call this meeting adjourned.