Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening, we're calling the meeting of finance and personnel to order at 6 p.m. on Thursday, September 3rd. All members of the finance and personnel committee are present in chambers. Moving to our first agenda item, unfinished business 260-545, resolution approving assignment of parking assignment at Market Square parking ramp from Cameron Park Condo Association to Freehill Capital. Note, the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 19.85 to formulate and update negotiation strategies and parameters. Following such closed session, the committees and or council may reconvene in open session. Council Member Jansen.

I'd like to move to refer this for 60 days to allow our staff to... have discussions and negotiations with the new owner of Market Square Building?

Motion to refer by Council Member Jansen, second by Council Member Calo. Is there any discussion? 60 days. Council Member Jansen motioned, Council Member Calo seconded. And just as a matter, we have a speaker. If we're referring, do we still open public hearing?

I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that. Okay.

Could I have a motion to open up public hearing? Motion to open by Council Member Kalos, second by Council Member Northwood. All in favor, raise your hands. Any opposed? We'll open public hearing. Nicole Frank, would you like to speak? It appears that Ms. Frank isn't in the council, so we will. Could I have a motion to close public hearing? Okay, motion to close by Council Member Northwood, seconded by Council Member Calo. All in favor, raise your hands.

Any opposed?

The closed session is closed. Okay, new business. Oh, sorry. We need a vote on the referral. Move forward with the vote by showing of the hands. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Now we'll move on to new business. 26-0841, resolution amending appendix C, fee schedule regarding fees relating to fire prevention. While we're waiting, let me just explain that we're not using the normal vote cast because we don't, our system isn't up. So we'll be doing this by voice and hand. Thank you. Okay. So resolution, I'm going to just repeat it. Resolution amending appendix C, fee schedule regarding fees relating to fire prevention. Council Member Newberry?

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Council Member Newberry, seconded by Council Member Slesnico. Any discussion?

Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote.

All in favor?

Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously.

Next item is 26-0859, resolution approving a change in project scope for the La Crosse Center basketball floor project. Council Member Jansen. Move to adopt. Move to adopt by Council Member Jansen, second by Council Member Slesnico. Is there any discussion? Council Member Slesnico.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to thank the La Crosse Center staff for looking to save money when we can do a renovation rather than a full replacement. Anytime we can do that and improve the longevity of our infrastructure at a lower cost, I think that's a win. So thank you for the work on bringing that forward.

Seeing no other discussion, we'll move forward with the vote.

All in favor?

Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Next item is 26-0869, resolution authorizing the termination of the lease between the City and La Crosse and Girl Scouts of Wisconsin Badgerland Council Inc. for 2710 Quarry Road and authorizing the acquisition of the building.

Council Member Slesnico. Move to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Council Member Slesnico, seconded by Council Member Northwood. Is there any discussion? Council Member Calo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Will this, then I assume it will become City of La Crosse owned again and will be surplus property? Or I guess I'm wondering what the next step is.

Mr. Tussoni, you have an answer for us?

Yes, I do, thank you. So yes, if approved tonight, the building would then become property of City of La Crosse. Our intention would then be to come back the next month, the month after, declare it surplus property, go through an RFP process and eventually sell it. We could also, if this does become City of La Crosse, we could also have the option to lease this space as well.

Okay, thank you. Any further discussion or questions? Seeing none, All those in favor? Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Next item 26-0871 resolution appropriating additional funds from tax incremental district TID number 11 to the Civic Center Park project CIP number 778. Council member Jansen. COUNCIL MEMBER KALO. I'M SORRY.

I WASN'T GOING TO TAKE BARB'S SPOT.

A MOTION TO ADOPT. MOTION TO ADOPT BY COUNCIL MEMBER KALO, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER JANSON. COUNCIL MEMBER JANSON.

I'D APPRECIATE IF STAFF COULD KIND OF JUST GIVE A MORE UPDATE. ARE WE CHANGING THE PROJECT OR IS IT JUST COMING IN THIS EXPENSIVE?

Good evening. Thank you. We put this project out to bid. We got one bid from Fowler Hammer, and because it is tied to TID 11, the contract has to be under contract by October 12th. Normally, we'd have probably taken this back out to bid in order to get those funds under contract and use TID 11. There was not enough time to do that, and the bid came in way over. You know, we put this project together probably three, four years ago. Cost of construction just keeps going up, so.

Is it feasible to take anything out of it to keep the price lower?

If we can award it, I can value engineer some of the money out of it, but we really can't do any of that until we award it. Thank you.

You're welcome. Councilmember Newberry.

Thank you, Chair. Just to be clear, what was approved the first time was $450,000, and this is going up to $815,000, is that right? Correct. So it's the $450,000 plus the $365,000? Correct. For a total of $815,000? Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all.

Council Member Cessna called. But I thought I saw a second amendment for $414 plus some thousand dollars. Where does that work into this?

That number came from the finance department because we've already spent some of that $450. We had to increase that number in order to award the bid, to get the full amount to award.

So we're actually looking to approve the second amendment.

Correct. The second amendment that's listed in legislature. Second resolution.

Thank you.

Council Member Calo.

Oh, and I don't have a question for you, but then I would make a motion to amend and it would be the And I don't have it in front of me, but it is amending to $414,103. Yeah, amendment number two. So I would make that motion.

Council Member Calo, motions to amend and seconded by Council Member Slesnickal. It's of the proposed amended resolution for FMP number two. It's attached in the file. Kalo and Slesnico. Any discussion? Council Member Newberry.

Thank you. Sorry, let me pull up my calculator. So that brings us up to $864,000. Is that correct? Okay. Okay, thank you.

Council Member Kalau.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a lot of money, but I believe And I think I've stated this often, that I think it's important that the money stay in or close to the TID when possible, because that was why the TID was created. And I think we heard from Parks that this park, and it's a connection between the river and downtown, has not been updated since it was built in probably the early 80s. So, this isn't borrowed money. This is money in the TID that should be used for this and yes, it is a lot of money, but I am going to support it.

Council Member Sussinko.

One additional note, and thank you Council Member Trost, the amended resolution has the money coming from TID 17, not TID 11. So I just wanted to make sure that people were aware of that, that that was also part of the amendment number two. And I guess if Director Train can just confirm that that is fair game for this, I would appreciate it.

Yes, it is. It's something that Parks and Finance and Planning went through to make sure that we would appropriately use the funds from TID 17. And this is a reflection of what Dan talked about during the Board of Estimates meeting with the change in increment from that has gone down from this year to next year. So just making sure that we've got enough cushion and all these tits, we just adjusted some of them from TID 11 to TID 17.

Thank you. Council Member Jansen.

Director Train. So if we asked parks to go back and get additional bids, the money would then still be available to take out of TID 17. It would just be the original money that would not be available anymore.

We just looked at the additional amount of the 400 for this amendment. We didn't look at it as if it was the whole package. So I wouldn't have that answer for you right now.

Thank you.

So the vote is for the proposed amended resolution for FMP number two. Is there any further discussion? All in favor?

I was just going to say that I'm going to vote no just for the purpose to keep it off of the consent agenda next week for further discussion. If there's more information that needs to be found out between now and then. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Newberry. So moving forward with the vote, all in favor? Those opposed? That passes five to one. Next item on the agenda is 26-0886, resolution awarding a three-year contract to Kony in the amount of $434,164.24 for preventative maintenance service for all city escalators and elevators.

Council Member Jansen. Move to adopt.

MOTION TO ADOPT BY COUNCIL MEMBER JANSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER NORTHWOOD. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCIL MEMBER SELEZNIKO.

I'M JUST WONDERING WITH THIS, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WHEN THIS CONTRACT COMES UP, THIS GOES OUT FOR BID OR ARE THERE REALLY NO OTHER COMPANIES THAT CAN HANDLE THIS OR WHAT WAS THE REASON WE'RE SPECIFICALLY GOING WITH THIS COMPANY AGAIN?

Thank you. So for a service agreement of this size, our purchasing policy doesn't require us to go out for a bid. It recommends that we go out for quotes. So we did reach out to four different vendors for quotes. We did receive quotes back from three of them. So in addition to KONE, we received a bid from Otis and Schindler, and we went with KONE as the cheapest and best option.

So were they actually the least expensive of the bids?

They were, so they were, the highest bid was Otis. Schindler's base bid came in lower, but there was add-ons that they didn't, to do with state testing, were not included in their bid. So if we factored those in, it was, what our purchaser told me was it was higher, ended up being higher than Kona.

Thank you.

Councilmember Newberry.

Thank you. Do you know how many escalators and elevators the city owns that need preventative maintenance? I do not have that off the top of my head. Does anybody in the room know?

Okay, thanks.

I was just gonna say, it's actually part of the document. If you scroll through, there's a whole list of the various pieces of infrastructure.

Is there any further discussion? Thank you, Deputy DeGiro.

Moving forward with the vote, all in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to our next item, 26-0892, resolution creating and reallocating existing unspent funds for new capital improvement project for the extension of sanitary sewer service to three city of La Crosse parcels that cannot currently reach sanitary sewer infrastructure per municipal code on the west side of Sunset Lane. Council Member Northwood. Move to adopt. Motion to adopt by Council Member Northwood, second by Council Member Jansen. Is there any discussion? Council Member Slesnico.

I'm wondering if Director Gallagher can just describe what's going on here. And I believe I read in here that there still could be assessments to the property owners for this reconnection. I just wanted to confirm that.

Sure, so what's going on here is that due to the elevations of the road of Sunset Lane, some of these properties are kind of up at the crest of it. When the sanitary sewer was installed, it drains away both ways. So there's really no way for us to extend the main that's in the street to get there. This would be an extension of a main that's actually off the road behind the properties that would then allow these properties to meet code by not crossing other property lines and connect into this extended main. I don't have a final answer on assessment, but I didn't believe that there was going to be any, because typically it's only when we put a new main into a road that there would be assessment. I think this would just be additional infrastructure that the utility would own, but I could get a final answer on that if you'd like.

I'm just curious, and I'm sure the property owners are curious on that too.

Yeah, this is basically at the request of a property owner who wants to develop a lot up there on Sunset, but can't connect to sanitary now.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? That motion carries unanimously. Next item is 26-0893, resolution reallocating existing unencumbered TIF number 11 funds for replacement of failing brick sidewalk in the 500 block of Main Street. Council Member Kalau.

Motion to adapt.

Motion to adapt by Council Member Calo, second by Council Member Northwood. Council Member Calo.

Oh, I wasn't going to ask you yet. I was going to amend, but you probably should stay up there because you might have a question. I would like to move the amendment, proposed amendment on legislature. It is, and I know it's very hard to see, but it is changing it from 20,000 to 40,000. It is not 420,000 or zero. So I would like to move that amendment first.

Motion to move the amendment by Council Member Calo, second by Council Member Northwood. Is there any discussion? Council Member Calo.

Director Gallagher. You're already there, I'm gonna let you have the floor.

You can just explain what this is in case people aren't aware. I was gonna say, if there's no discussion, that's great, I'll go sit down. We presented the option to Council Member Calo to replace the brick. that's currently in the sidewalk area to the boulevard area. This is one of the streets where for ADA compliance, we're looking at flipping the brick in the sidewalk. So when that was presented and it looked like it was roughly double the cost, that was the suggested amendment. So this would cover both the sidewalk portion and the boulevard brick.

Council Member Jansen.

So it kind of insinuated in the report that there's a variety of things that caused this. So it appears one of them was previous work. How long ago was that work?

I don't know how many times that area has been maintained. I know this was one of the first areas streetscaped dating back to possibly late 90s, early aughts. And so it could be that this was related to settlement around the building or foundation issues. But what became apparent when we tried to replace a few bricks was that the area was just too large and it needed to be, you know, a larger fix.

Council Member Kalil.

I don't have anything for you. Thank you, Director Gallagher. I just want to point out that the original bid was to just take out the bricks and then the whole sidewalk would have been concrete. And I think some of us can recall this happened maybe last summer downtown on 2nd and 3rd. And a lot of the business owners were very upset that the option wasn't to put the brick terrace in. and Director Gallagher and I have been talking for a couple years about their department wanting to flip that because that maintenance of that brick on the sidewalk is so hard. So I just thought it best instead of tearing it up later to add brick on the terrace that we do it all at once and the cost was pretty nominal compared to having to rip it up again.

Any other discussion? Move forward with the vote. All in favor? On the amendment, this is on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment? Any opposed? Seeing none, the amendment passes unanimously. Then back to the original resolution as amended. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask for the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes. Next on the agenda, 26-0896, resolution reallocating existing unencumbered TID number 11 funds for additional funding for the King Street Neighborhood Greenway from Front Street to Third Street South. Council Member Calo. Motion to approve. Motion to approve by Council Member Kalos, second by Council Member Selesnico. Any discussion? Seeing none, move forward with the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to 26-0899, resolution authorizing increase in court costs for municipal citations. Council member Jansen.

Move to adopt.

Council member moved to adopt by council member Jansen, seconded by council member Northwood. Any discussion?

Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. All in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to 26-0900, Resolution Authorizing Renewal for the Wisconsin Urban Search and Rescue Emergency Response Services, 2026 to 2028 Agreement.

Council Member Slesnico.

Move to adopt. Motion to adopt by Council Member Slesnico, second by Council Member Calo. Any discussion? Council Member Slesnico.

I'm just wondering if Chief Schott could just give us an overview of the emergency services that the City of La Crosse Fire Department provide, just so we have a handle on what type of scenarios might come under this purview.

Appreciate the question. We've had a longstanding relationship with the state of Wisconsin dating back to the early 2000s in regard to the training that we receive specifically for low frequency, high impact rescue type situations. So people that get stranded on the bluff, people that are in confined space incidents or in structural collapse. So what this contract does in the spirit of things, there's a little bit of a trade off. They allow us to come to their training at the REACT Center at Volk Field, and we supply the staff for that. They in turn provide the hourly contracted rate, which is the change in this contract, which went from $55 to $60 an hour. So the state... Trains and pays us the hourly wage to send our employees to get certifications in swift water rescue Technical confined space all the disciplines that allow us to provide a higher level of service here in our specialty disciplines so this is just a Renewal if you will of that relationship and honestly There's some differences in how the team is deployed now with EMAC agreements, which is like mutual aid for other states. And if you've been paying attention to what's going on around the nation, the amount of flooding, collapses, natural disasters has increased the need for these teams to be stood up and deployed. So we've had people deploy in the last contract year, and I think that probably will continue. But fortunately, the state does reimburse us for that.

Thank you, Chief, for bringing up the current situations that we're experiencing in the last few years related to extreme weather and flooding. And I can only imagine that deployment may increase as time goes on because we're seeing very large events where it requires emergency personnel to become involved. So thank you to you and your team for making yourselves available to help not only our community, but potentially others.

Thank you for that mention. And for all of you, I hope that we aren't deployed, but we will be ready. Thanks.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, as for the vote, all in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to 26-0901, resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $13,805,000 in aggregate principal amount of general obligation promissory notes of the City of La Crosse, La Crosse County, Wisconsin for the purpose of completing certain capital projects in and for the city and purchasing certain equipment for the city, prescribing details of said notes and the form of note, authorizing the award of said notes to the purchaser, therefore levying taxes and related matters. Council Member Jansen.

Move to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Councilmember Jansen, seconded by Councilmember Slesnico. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, one will forward the vote. All in favor? Opposed? That motion passes five to one. Next item on the agenda is the 26-0936 resolution authorizing the appointment of an interim director of finance effective August 25th, 2026. This was short circuited by Mayor Washington Spivey on 9-1-2026.

Council Member Slesnico.

Move to adopt. Motion to adopt by Council Member Slesnico, second by Council Member Jansen. Is there any discussion? Council Member Newberry.

I just have a quick question for Director Franzen. As you're coming up with your last question, what is the difference, other than the fiscal impact of the difference, which is in the documentation here, what's the change in roles from Deputy Dan to Director Dan?

It is allowing him to receive the compensation for the position in which he will be performing, making sure we compensate appropriately. It will also allow him to receive the vacation benefit of city executives and recognition for his hard work.

Absolutely. Thank you. I was just curious.

Any other questions or discussion? Thank you, Director Franzen. Seeing none, we'll ask for the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Item 26-0824, resolution approving an amendment to the development agreement for the driftless apartments and townhomes. Note, the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 19.85 to formulate and update negotiation strategies and parameters. Following such closed session, the committee and or council may reconvene in open session. Do we feel a need to go into closed session? Motion for a closed session. Director Trane, would you like to weigh in on this? Do we need to go into closed session? Director Trane. Oh, excuse me. Julie, I didn't see you back there. Julie Emslie.

We don't feel a need of staff necessarily to go into closed session unless you wanted to dive into this issue. It did come out of ECDC. We had extensive discussion on this item in ECDC, and it did come out with unanimous approval with a recommendation to approve for this going forward.

Is there anything about the resolution that you want to explain or expound on?

I guess I could just add, this really came about during just annual compliance review for this development. So again, this is the Driftless apartment development that's over at River Point District, the apartment building with the surrounding townhomes. And it just came of note that there were a few items in the development agreement that needed to be addressed. And we did that collaboratively working with the developer. It's outlined in the amendment. But the three topic areas are just... correcting the minimum assessed value guarantee date, treating land as increment, and then also how the deficiency pilot is treated. So those are the topics that are in the amendment are clarified.

Thank you, Julie.

You're welcome.

Council Member Jansen.

Given that, I would move to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Council Member Jansen, seconded by Council Member Northwood. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask for the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes unanimously. Next item on the agenda is 26-0825, resolution approving a development agreement with Copper Rocks I, LLC, Copper Rocks II, LLC, Copper Rocks III, LLC, and Copper Rocks IV, LLC for a mixed use development at 2415 State Road. Note, the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 19.85 to formulate and update negotiation strategies and parameters. Following such closed session, the committees and or council may reconvene in open session. This meeting was short circuited by Mayor Washington Spivey. Director Terrain, would you like to speak to this issue or would I defer to Julie as well? Thank you, Julie.

All right, so just as a reminder, this is a three-phase development with mixed use that's going at the former Kmart site. It's proposed to have 214 apartments and 33 townhomes, 163 garage and 136 service parking spaces, as well as 25,000 square feet of commercial space and 3,000 square feet of community and amenity space. The developer submitted a TIF application, a formal request, January of 2025 and we work with them to move forward in conjunction with our financial consultants to review that request and we're able to bring a term sheet to the ECDC in September of 2025. There were a lot of moving pieces to still with the development as far as the phasing and whatnot. The ECDC unanimously approved the terms that were recommended by the staff at that time. And we've since been working with the developer to try to get to a development agreement. And one of the things that also came to light is the need for public infrastructure improvements, specifically public utilities at that site. This was tied to the resolution that came through the FNP and council. last month to help make TID 11 a resource to pay for the utility improvements that were needed at this site. It's estimated that those improvements will cost a maximum of a million dollars, so we were working through that as well to make sure we had a funding source to pay for what would be the city's responsibility aside from any pay go that would go to assist the project. Through that, we also negotiated to have some pathways leases to participate in this development. So originally what was approved by the ECDC was 18 to 23 units or 25 units. The developer was amenable to that as we dug further into the weeds of that program and hashed out some details. and realized some needs for rent controls and things like that, we did settle on having a dozen units in the development, and they would be divided up among two of the apartment buildings. So as a result, we needed to bring that term sheet back to the ECDC earlier this month, and that resulted too in just an alteration to the TIP amount as well. We did discuss this project relatively in depth as well at the ECDC and it did get approval with the vote was six to two approving the terms and the ECDC also did approve us moving ahead to bring this to FNPU with a development agreement tonight, so hence the short circuit. The time when we brought the term sheet to the ECDC Gosh, was that last week? So yes, just last week. We did have a development agreement all but drafted. We just had some things that we needed to get ironed out, and specifically that Pathways Home component, we wanted to make sure that that would still work for everyone. So with that, we do now have an agreement that's in line with our standard TIF policy and provisions that we typically have in our agreements, as well as in line with the term sheet that was most recently approved by the ECDC. And the developers are here, too, as well, should you have any questions for them.

Council Member Newberry.

Thank you. I guess what I want to know is what action comes after if this is approved and moves forward, what can the public expect after this?

You mean after council? So obviously it goes on to council. Next week, yeah. Yeah, so then we will need to execute the development agreement and get signatures. But now we will have, there is a timeline. All of our development agreements have timelines and all sorts of requirements that need to be met with this development. So we have a deal. made for them that we can hold the developers to as well, and that they can also hold us to as far as what we've agreed to do for them. So like all of our developments that we have development agreements with, we have regular compliance that we're checking in to make sure that they're meeting the requirements of whether it's the timeline, the With the project, the scope of the project itself, that the assessment that's supposed to happen, the increment that's supposed to be created, and we check on that on a regular basis. We have mechanisms in place, too, if that doesn't happen, that we can come back and deal with that. And, you know, the deficiency pilots is a great example of that, of something that we utilize if we need to.

Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

To Council Member Newberry, we also do with this project have an idle site grants with the state that also requires for demolition of the building that the city has for this project. So that's something else too that is another lever to that and also as part of this project that the city has helped to support. Council Member Slesnico.

Julie, I'm not sure if this is something you can answer, but I'm curious why we have four LLCs for this.

That would probably be better for the developer to answer. I mean, I know some of it is, I think, financing and making the numbers work on that end of getting the financing they need. But would you like Jeremy to come up?

Yeah, I guess if we can. I guess this is the first time I've seen that, so I'm curious what is the mechanism and the rationale for that.

Thanks for the question. Jeremy Novak with 360 Real Estate Solutions. So the purpose of the four LLCs was really to mirror the different parcels in the CSM so that we can do each parcel standalone financing. So it's just a function of the financing and the capital stack for the project.

Okay, thank you so much. Any other questions?

Council Member Northwood. I think this question would be for Julie, I think. So you said 12 of the apartments will be Pathways apartments and they'll be in two different apartment buildings?

Yep. So the development agreement requires for them to participate in the Pathways program for 10 years for all of those units. And so they'll be treated like our Pathways leases. They'll have rent controls. The Pathways team will determine which tenants will be in those units and so on. Essentially, the developers committed those units to participate in the program.

And you answered my next question. It was going to be for how many years? Yep, 10 years.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Jansen. And will those units be spread out throughout the units?

So because the phase has north, south, east, and west are the different phases, the first two apartment buildings to go up are east and west, and so they are one-bedroom units, and so they will be half and half, so six in one apartment building and six in the other.

but not like all on one floor or anything like that?

We didn't hash out those details, so we don't have anything in writing or in the development agreement that says that specifically.

Any other discussion or questions for Julie? Council Member Northwood?

How many apartments did you say?

There's 214 apartments total, but there's 33 townhomes. I just needed. There's a lot of numbers floating around sometimes. Thank you. Yeah.

And it might not be appropriate, but thanks for all you've done. And I think this will be your last F and P meeting with us. So you'll be missed.

All right. Seeing other council member, Kayla. I don't have a question for you, Julie. Thanks. So, um, I just want to comment, not on the project, but on, uh, the infrastructure side, um, Just, again, to make folks aware, mostly my district, part of Council Newberry's, and a little bit of McKenzie-Mindell's, the money for that is coming from TID 11. So, you know, this is taxpayer dollars from TID 11, but they're going out to another development, which is good. That's how we're paying for that public infrastructure to pay for that. So, I just want everyone to be aware where the city money is coming from.

We do need a motion on 26-0825. Council Member Northwood? Move to adopt. Council Member, move to adopt by Council Member Northwood, second by Council Member Newberry. This is cited for closed session. Is there a need to go into closed session?

All right.

Seeing no need, I'll call for the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. And I do not believe there's a collective bargaining update. So with that, this meeting is adjourned.