Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

So as I was explaining, the increase of debt service, if it's a million dollars from year to year, doesn't necessarily equate to a million dollar increase to the operating budget, which is due to multiple factors. I mean, there's other funds that come into the debt service fund, such as investment earnings on the funds that are in the debt service fund. When we issue debt, sometimes we sell it at a premium. We sell it for more than it's worth, so we get more funds than we're expecting, and those funds need to be used to pay down the debt as well. There's also other funds such as room tax and other funds that support the debt service, so just a note on that. And then in the bottom right of the slide was some assumptions that were made. We were authorized for 15.9 million for the 2026 borrowing, and we're projected to use $2 million of unappropriate funds. So that's where the borrowing of 13.965%. And then the borrowing targets for 27 through 2031 are listed as well as the assumed interest rate. The next slide is going over debt limits. Just want to kind of revisit what kind of constraints or debt limits we have as a municipality when we go out to issue new debt. So the state law limits the amount of outstanding general obligation debt to 5% of a municipality's equalized value. So as of December 31st, 25, that would put our debt limit at 298 million. Now we have a city ordinance that sets a stricter debt limit at 75% of the state limit. So that would put us at a limit of 223.8 million. And currently as of the end of 25, we had total applicable debt of 125 million, which means per our policy, we have a borrowing capacity of 98 million that we could borrow up to, to stay within our limit. So those limits are kind of on the total outstanding debt that we can have. There's also on the tax levy side, there's limits. Wisconsin law allows municipalities the authority to increase the tax levy up to the full amount of the annual debt service expenditures that year. And then I just have a few more points to finish up this presentation. So tonight, with the approval and the ultimate approval at council, they'll be authorizing the capital fund appropriation for just year one.

Year twos through five are more plans and it's not authorizing those amounts.

The 2027 borrowing, typically schedule is it gets issued in the third quarter. So it'll get issued in the third quarter of 2027 with the first payment due to hit the 2028 operating budget. And when the borrowing targets were set and projections, it was projected that the 2027 borrowing amount that we have before you would increase the 2028 debt service expenses by 250,000 on the operating budget levy.

Are there any questions for Deputy DeGuerre? Seeing none, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Would anyone like to make a motion to recommend to adopt?

I motion to adopt.

Excuse me.

Can I motion to adopt?

Yes. Do you want money? Motion to recommend to adopt by Council Member Newberry, seconded by Council Member Northwood. Are there any questions? Council Member Selesnico.

Thank you chair, there is a proposed amendment I'm wondering if that needs to be considered prior to actually adopting the budget. And I guess my my question is I did have a question about her proposed amendment so. If that's appropriate, I would like to ask staff for a. I guess clarification.

Is there anyone here to speak to that amendment?

Good evening. Yes, I have amendment for the capital equipment. The way that I had submitted the... my equipment i had two tandems and two singles that's the way i did it um of course we submit these in february snow plow season's not over and then of course we go through the trucks and we start evaluating um after the last snow season uh we've made it our last past snow plowing season uh kind of made an adjustment and would like to go with one tandem and three singles instead uh because we do have a little more need and i mean again Trucks that, for this budget, we won't see until 2028. So we're always trying to project years out, but we just have a few singles that have more issues than the tandems do. So that is what the amendment is, is just switching my number so I don't have to come back after you guys approve this and ask you to make the switch. I just thought I'd try to see if I could make the switch so that it was all done in one swoop. So I know what your question was. Okay, so what I did is I took the tandem that we ordered, because the tandem that we ordered this year will be the exact same tandem I order next year, so I know what that costs. The problem was, as we project these prices, so last year my single axles came in a lot higher than what we had projected. They were $302,000. So with my original budget of $564,000, I would have actually had to alter one of the trucks just because I wouldn't have had enough. If it stays the way it is, I can't build two of the same truck. Now with moving the leftover funds over, if you divide that by three, it's 314,000. If I figure a 5% increase on 302, we're right there. That's why I moved. The money I did is to actually get three of the same truck versus having to alter one of the trucks because the budget didn't work out. Again, not always knowing exactly where the price increases, but I know this year with the emission changes, the trucks have, you know, all the dealers I've talked to, we're talking six, 7% increases that I'm gonna be seeing when I order these trucks.

I guess that being said, how do you originally budget for trucks knowing that inevitably the price is going up? Do you not have a buffer initially when you actually put that amount in requesting funding?

We have, we have not been over budget the past couple years. Because one truck might be a little high, but the other truck we end up kind of making. Because I won't go over budget. But the problem is, is now we have our five designs all kind of cemented. But as you're designing a truck, you can do your best to try to piece all the pricing together. But the problem is, is that first truck, the single axle, it was not built before I had to submit another CIP. And so now that I got the trucks all set up the way we're gonna order, there's five different trucks that we order. Now we kind of have a baseline of every truck. It's gonna be a lot easier to predict because we're not gonna make changes to them because we've kind of gone through that rendition of changes, the little light, slight stuff. And so now the trucks are base trucks. So it'll be a lot easier to predict future going forward from here. Thank you.

Council Member Jansen. So I'd like to continue on that avenue. So we've had previous conversations that we're looking at reducing the size of the fleet and being more efficient. Can you just expand on are we actually getting rid of any vehicles with all these purchases of new vehicles?

Well, we get rid of at least one, yes. And so primarily the, so a couple of the trucks that are on order, like I said, I have one truck that will replace two trucks. I have another one that these trucks are gonna do multiple things. So the hope is, but again, I won't see them for two years. It's gonna take time before I can start pulling trucks. But we were just talking about this the other day. With the new tandem trucks and a single, you take a road like, why can't I think of it? Green Bay. They used to take three trucks to plow. We found out last year with trial and error that now with one of the new trucks and just a single truck, we can plow it now with two. So now we're starting that evolution of how do we now reappropriate other stuff and where are we gonna start moving some of the equipment or will some equipment not have to be used over time? Because it really, The amount of equipment we have we we rely on other departments to help us because you know to make everything run between all the snow plot or the sidewalk machines the snow plow or the the graders the loaders everything but we you know as we evolve each year and we might find that we won't need the help, and then yes, we can get rid of stuff. Because I will tell you, having trucks that don't do anything during the summer, yeah, it's not something I want. I want utilization of all the equipment.

So just based on what I hear people say when they buy new just regular vehicles, their insurance skyrockets, do we know what the impact this is gonna have on our operating budget with all these new vehicles?

I would necessarily say, I mean, we're replacing 35 year old snow or trucks. I mean, they're gonna be worth more now. So I would imagine our assurance, but that's the anticipation is to try to get rid of some of the other stuff that we have, you know, but again, it's a time thing. Cause I just still, I only have one of the new trucks that's gonna take place of a couple. You know, one's on order that'll be here next year. These are 28. So until the evolution happens, I can't start cutting other vehicles out yet. But this year, if the one truck comes in, I will be letting go two vehicles in place of it. So yes, I will drop two for the one vehicle. So as they come in, we will make that decision as it goes, if we can drop a vehicle.

Thank you. just for a point of order do we need to um vote on the amendment okay because we've already motioned to put the budget up so we're gonna okay so i need a motion to vote on the amendment i'll motion to approve the amendment Council Member Northwood's motion to move it.

Do you want to second it?

Okay. Council Member Northwood has moved it and Council Member Sazanico has seconded it. Seconded it. Are there any questions remaining about the amendment? Seeing none, we'll move forward on the vote. And that motion passes four to two. Now we'll go back to the original resolution approving the 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Budget. Council Member Kalil, you have a question?

Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sure. 26996, Hooska Park Bathrooms. I wonder if the Parks Department come up and talk about them. I had the opportunity to tour them last year. I did speak with Councilmember Newberry there in his district. I didn't wanna step on toes. He said I could go ahead and ask the questions. I think they're pushed out to 2030 in the budget. And I just want this Committee on Council to hear the condition, what we need to do to get them back into use, kind of why they're in the condition they're at, and maybe we need to just get them repaired.

Yes, thank you, Council Member Kiel, for the question. The Hooska bathrooms have been inoperable now for, I believe this is the fourth year they've been inoperable. The number we have listed, which is now in 2030, was to completely demo the existing building and put a new one in the exact same location. With time that has passed, we've had the opportunity for professionals to come in and take a look at it. And what they're telling us is that the structure itself is still in decent condition, but there are some plumbing repairs, fixtures, accessibility issues that we would need to address if we make those changes. And we feel it'd be our recommendation as a park department to go that route. And that number came in at like 175,000. That said, we sustained a fire in there. There was a lot of vandalism. And then, yeah, like I said, they're completely inoperable at this point. And then on top of that is the accessibility issues that if we make any changes to this structure, we do have to make it then compliant, ADA compliant moving forward.

So if we push this out to 2030, we may end up looking at a 500,000 cost instead of 175 to just repair an existing structure that was damaged during the Hooska encampments, correct?

That 500,000 was a number from last year, so by 2030, I would expect that number to be much north of 500,000, yeah.

Okay, so the recommendation would be to get these repaired sooner rather than later?

If the wish is to have operable bathrooms at Huska Park, our recommendation would be yes to use the $175,000 to make the repairs the professional suggested.

Okay, thank you.

So can I ask a question as long as we've got you up here? So the original ask for to remodel or to fix the bathrooms was what?

500,000, that was to demo the existing structure and put a new one in the exact same location. And so to fix the bathrooms and make them operable is 175,000. That's the number we have now, yes.

Thus saving the city 325,000. Correct. If my ciphering is correct. And again, this is a question, it's nebulous at best, but how do we protect any improvement that we make from just not staying improved?

That's a great question. We obviously see vandalism in many of our bathrooms across our park system, but we have measures in place. We have staff that would go to each bathroom every evening and every morning to open and every evening to close and to clean the bathrooms. So we'll have eyes on it every day, but ultimately, no, you cannot stop vandalism in every situation. We deal with that quite often throughout our park system.

And it's the park's recommendation to make these operable?

The park's recommendation is, yes, to make them operable. If the committee and the council wants operable bathrooms in Hooska Park, the recommendation would be to do... put the 175,000 towards this to fix the existing structure and the plumbing and everything that goes along with that.

Okay, I'm just gonna try to make that a little clearer. Does Park and Rec think we should make these bathrooms operable? Do they think this is the best use of the money?

Yes, I do. Yes, the park department does think this is the best use of the money. If we are wanting operable bathrooms in Hooska Park, and it's a heavily used park, the dog park is busy every single day. So yes, there's a need for bathrooms. We hear from the people using the dog park that there is a need for the bathrooms. Right now, we have portables in that location. Portables are convenient, but they're not the most well-liked. So from the constituents, yes, they would prefer operable bathrooms at Hooska Park.

And do we have any idea of what the portables cost us a year?

I mean, per week, $125 a week. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me, a month, not a week. Oh, okay.

Council Member Newberry.

I have two questions. The first one is, you said it's a heavily used park, the dog park, et cetera. Can you... Can you try to quantify that or maybe benchmark it to another park that has the same amount of use or how is that being measured at all? How would you describe that?

It's difficult to measure because we have a ball field there as well. The dog park is not why it's not our only dog park. It is the most heavily used dog park. So it's difficult and it doesn't see the foot traffic that say a riverside does. So it's kind of sits in a category of its own, if you will. But the ball field is used in the summertime. I believe it's three nights a week. basically from early May through end of September.

Okay, and the other question is, without looking at it right in front of me, for the CIP budget for all of the parks projects, what comes off the bottom of the list for the $175,000 for this, I guess? Does this make the cut? You guys go through a prioritization process, or are we just trying to tack this on to the... as an addition is my question.

I don't know if I understand the question.

Is this replacing something that was previously in the budget as handed to us today, right now?

No, this was identified in the CIP previously. It's in currently for 2030. Okay. Thank you.

So just to clarify it, you're asking for 500,000 in 2030?

That was the initial ask, yes.

And now you're asking for $175,000 for 2027 CIP. No, we're gonna leave it in 2030.

It's, I mean, that's, yeah. See, I'm confused. The recommendation would be $175,000 a year. It depends what the committee's desire is. If it is in 2027, $175,000 would be enough to do in 2027, yes.

Council Member Calo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The recommendation was not from the Park Department to move it to 2030. So I just want to clarify that. It sounds like you're, I'm, I may be missing something. So yeah, they did not ask the park department. And if I can, I don't want to put words in your mouth. The bathroom has not been functional or usable since COVID things were closed and then it was heavily damaged. So that has not been a usable facility since 2020. So it most likely is probably a priority for the park department to get that fixed, but recognizing there are a lot of needs, but, a not working bathroom that was vandalized is a high priority?

It is, it is, yes. I was just trying to make the point that if the committee chooses to do something else, then we totally understand that. But yes, the recommendation would be to repair the bathrooms.

Okay, and this is not dropping anything else off the park, out of the park budget. And maybe there'll be other things we can find that aren't necessities. Thank you.

Council Member Jansen.

So I just need a clarification. So is someone wanting to add this to the 2027 budget? And is that what's going on?

Council Member Calo.

If this committee would be amenable to adding it, typically in the past, I know I have always tried to take something off. When I add something, I guess I will leave that up to the committee. I would like to then make a motion to add 26996 Huska Park bathrooms to 2027 for $175,000. And we can work on, do we need to have something go before next Thursday? I'd make that motion.

motion to recommend to adapt council member calo second by council member jansen is there any discussion questions seeing none oh council member jansen so i i think it's silly to have a facility that is just sitting there for five years um and

If something needs to be taken out of this budget that's new, that makes more sense to me so that we can actually fix what we currently have. So that is why I seconded this and that's why I would support it.

Council Member Kalo.

And really quickly. making sure that we maintain our existing facilities is of utmost importance before we are adding something new. And this has gone for quite a long time without being repaired. So I think everyone would be happy in Council Newberry's district and the dog owners and the softball players and the park goers. So I hope that we'll add this to the budget.

Okay, because this is kind of an anomaly for me. So I want to make sure, because we are taking $325,000 out of the budget, correct? No. So where will that money go? Am I missing something?

We would figure that out in 2029 for 2030's budget.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Jansen, did you have anything else? Thank you. All right, seeing no further discussion, let's see the vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Now we're going back to the original resolution approving the 2027-2031 capital improvement budget. Council Member Calo.

I have a question. As I looked at some of the past year's budgets and I see item 26017 and forgive me if I wasn't at the meetings on this, but there's $600,000 asked for a study design and permitting for a new municipal services center. I don't see that center. in that five year budget any longer, but it was in last year's and it was over $17 million. And I'm just wondering, are we spending $600,000 for study design and permitting when this council may not have the money or may not fund that? So Director Gallagher, possibly if you could come up and talk about that MSC building and the money for it.

So the history of that project goes back to the 2023 facility study that was done by Grounds and Buildings that recommended that we start planning to replace that facility. So the former, Former budgets in the past had different amounts that have shifted. What is recommended in this was the recommendation of the finance department that we move all of the construction funds to unfunded or out of the five-year budget, because that would have to be some sort of special borrowing, similar to the La Crosse Center or wastewater treatment, so that we'd have to go find additional funds. That's why you don't see that in the future. This would be the collaborative effort for all the offices and storage spaces down at Municipal Services Center. Because that would take a bit of research and a space needs study is usually the first part and then getting into the architectural plans is the next. So that's what that item is.

Council Member Kalil. So we can do the study. if for some reason we're not going to design and permit, do we need to allocate 600,000 or could we just allocate the money for the study? I guess I don't understand. I'm hesitant to allocate the money for study design and permitting if this council has not agreed to a new building and expending those funds for a new building.

So. I understand, but I guess I'm confused about how you'd get to the point of recommending to fund a new building if you don't know what you need to do. The study. Right.

This includes permitting and design.

Well, that's a general term that would probably be applied to however many phases we need. We don't know what the entire layout's going to be for the cold storage building and the office building and the mechanic shop and whether or not we ever implement any sort of brine storage or three-sided storage. So, you know, the gist I got from the council a year ago was you're not ready to build a building on Isle of Plume, you need to go back study that, so this is the first step. That's a placeholder estimate for preliminary architecture and what the permitting would be. There's a lot of permitting that goes into working on a former dump.

So this is a $600,000 placeholder? So there'll be an RFP, this is? Correct. You got an estimate from somewhere? Correct, correct. Okay.

I mean, that's based on other larger facilities that we've done, like the Myrick Park Water Station. We just need so much upfront to begin the RFP process and then to conduct that space needs study and to begin to do the design.

Okay, I appreciate it. You can understand it's a lot of money for a study and design. So thank you for explaining that. Yep. Council Member Jansen.

I think that's an outrageous amount of money to spend to decide how we're gonna design a municipal services building when we have one that's currently functioning. So I guess I need more convincing that we should spend $100,000 this year and then another 500,000 the following year.

Well, sure, the 500,000 could always come out. That's another year. The first year is the 100,000 for space needs. Again, we're building upon what Grounds and Buildings did three years ago that said that facility is beyond its life. You're welcome to come down and watch the roofs leak during the rain, look at the doors that don't function. I mean, I'm not gonna justify whether that the building functions or not, it hasn't fallen over yet, but certainly we are in the timeline that it's going to take an amount of time to plan ahead, to do a special borrowing, to get a public works facility. That's my recommendation that's in line with the space needs study. Don't know what else to tell you.

Thank you, Matt. I'm curious, that study that was done by buildings and grounds, is that available for council members to see? Has that been shared? I guess I thought Jay would probably have it.

I believe that was provided multiple times in the past by Mr. Flatmire. It was sent out after last year's discussions and they can certainly send that again.

Is there any further discussion?

Council Member Cahill? All right, thank you for giving me the chair again. I just have one thing. People probably know I kind of balk at spending a lot of money on parking lots. So within my district, the library has almost $200,000 for parking lot. And I guess if the director could come up here and explain why that is a necessary need. I go through that parking lot a lot. I was just there today a couple times. I love that library, so I spend a lot of time there. But I often balk at spending money on parking lots. So just explain why we need this.

Sure, I'm happy to answer that. I will preface this by saying my facilities manager isn't here with me today, so I am using his words to the best of my ability. But the parking lot is 30 years old. It has exceeded the average lifespan of a parking lot. As you know, it's a busy high traffic parking lot. We get between 500 and 700 people a day. We also have the freeze-thaw of living in Wisconsin. So sealing and filling is just throwing money into something at this point because we have to do it every year. The underlying structure is now damaged and worn and it just needs to be replaced. And if this isn't funded, what will happen? we'll seal it and fill and next year probably ask for it again.

Yeah.

All right. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Council member Jansen.

I was wondering if director Odegaard could explain how often we seal and do all that to the city hall parking lot. Cause that's also on the list further down in,

We seal and patch when we can and we try to do that about every five to six years with repainting and just keeping it up the best we can. We've had this lot in and out of the CIP on and off for quite a few years now.

How old is this parking lot, do you know?

I do not have that answer. yeah we don't have that answer my apologies we can get that and send it to the committee great thank you any other discussion questions councilmember calo

I just want to say that I realize this city and this committee and this council is under a lot of scrutiny and a lot of pressure, so are the departments. We have a really tough budget. It continues to increase, costs increase, and I want to make sure that If I question items everyone knows it's you know i'm really just trying to kind of figure out where the best use of our tax dollars go and our debt. And I may have different priorities and my constituents may have different parties than departments it doesn't mean that. mine are right and theirs are wrong. Those are just my priorities. I usually don't prioritize parking lots. That's why I always question them and move them out. I know they're necessary, but it's a lot of money for parking lots. I want to thank the board for getting Huska Park bathrooms back in because I think those amenities in parks are really important assets. And I don't I think the parking lot there at Huska is gravel. And I am okay with it being gravel from the days when I used to go to the dog park. Maybe it's been paved since then. But I don't think anyone really cares. I know the municipal boat, Dock, landing, I don't know. I don't know the term for it. That's gravel as well. So people do put up with parking lots that aren't beautiful and nicely paved. So I'm still not sure if I'm going to vote yes or no on this budget. I think it needs a little bit of tweaking and I'm kind of open yet. So I may be voting no, just to have some more time to talk about it and discuss it.

Council Member Jansen. I'd like to move to remove the parking lot at the library, the new parking lot, which is 27107.

Motion to move 27-107 out of the budget by Council Member Jansen, seconded by Council Member Calo. Any discussion, questions? Council Member Jansen.

My reasoning for this is that when I compare the parking lots, they seem very similar, and we do have to start cutting, and the parking lot doesn't appear to be a hazard, and so I think at this point in time, we need to be more wise when it comes to spending money, and this is a repair that can wait, and To me, it's that simple at this point.

Any other discussion or questions? Seeing none, move forward. The vote now will be to remove 27-107 from the budget. And that motion passes four to one. Going back to the resolution approving the 2027-2031 capital improvement budget. Any other questions, comments? Okay, well, I'm gonna make one. We look at our funding sources for this and the new debt issue is 23%. Could I ask, Deputy DeGere, what does 23% equate to in dollars?

Like the total amount that you're authorizing to borrow for 27 equipment and projects?

No, you gave us a graph of new debt issue, grant funds, enterprise funds, TIF, and other, and 23% is new debt. So how much does that equate to in dollars, the percent to dollars?

Yep, so it's on page six of the CIP book. It's $13,907,566. Thank you.

So I appreciate that. Any other questions for Deputy DeGere while he's up here? Okay, thank you. So my point being that $13 million, well, basically $14 million, that's a lot of money. And we're kind of beating this drum over and over about that we just don't have money. And I think we really need to go back and do better. We got to look at every single project and see what we can pare down or eliminate. I appreciate parks coming in with something less than it needed, but new borrowing needs to come down. So with that being said, I will not be voting for this capital improvement budget. Any other questions or comments? Council Member Janssen.

I understand that we need to continue to make improvements and repair things. I still think that there's clearly the Municipal Services Center. I just would love to be a part of a conversation that that actually made sense. And at this point it doesn't. So at this point, I would love staff to actually tell me where we could make some cuts. Because the price of borrowing money right now is probably sky high. Back during COVID, it was very inexpensive to borrow money, but we're not in those days anymore. So I'm not supporting this budget currently the way it is.

Council Member Kalil. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have one kind of last comment and maybe A question because I am thinking long-term about the health and sustainability of the city. And we have three highway majors projects coming up. And I guess, That's not in here yet. We don't know what that will be, but I've heard speculation on what that will be. And Matt, are you able to give us anything on what is the cost share on these? Is it 2080? Is it 9010? And then what might those projections be? Just so we have something that we're thinking about moving forward. Even though I may not be here then, but I still care about the future.

Sure, so the three projects you referenced, Highway 16, Highway 53, Highway 35 through the city, are known as majors projects to the state. They go through the Transportation Commission that assigns those projects. Those are generally a 100% funding by the state for any participating item. So I think we presented a breakdown in previous sessions at the Board of Public Works that shows that the only things the city pays for out of, say, its levy fund would be any decorative lighting, any additional amenities above and beyond the standard DOT items. The sewer and the water are considered non-participating costs. Those are picked up by the utilities. So we do have placeholders. I'm having Dan look. I think we have placeholders out there in the future years for those projected construction years, which are still subject to change. But we will not be footing the bill for the vast majority of that work at all.

Okay.

I appreciate you explaining that to everyone.

I'm seeing no other speakers. So we're moving forward now with the vote on the resolution approving the 2027-2031 capital improvement budget. And that motion fails two to four. Moving on to our next agenda item, 26-0664, resolution authorizing public improvement in levying special assessments against benefited property in La Crosse, Wisconsin, noncompliant sewer lateral reconstruction. Council Member Kalau.

I would move to approve, there's a second already, and if Director Gallagher would come up and just explain that to us a little in some layperson terms.

Sure, so there are.

Can we get the motion on the floor, please? The motion to recommend to adopt was by Council Member Kalau and seconded by Council Member Jansen.

So you're gonna see two items tonight. This is the first that involves special assessments or partial assessments for non-compliant services. These are a little different than other assessments we do. We're not assessing for new mains that we would typically recuperate the cost for. In this case, there's work being done in the public right of way. I believe this first one is for 9th and Division. Do I have the street right? Was it 9th? 1,000 block of ninth. So in this case, getting into the weeds a bit, it's what's called a shared riser or a shared lateral that dump into one spot. So the laterals themselves belong to the homeowners. That's work typically that they would have to do on their own. We wanted to help facilitate the correction. So the utility is paying for the, The patch to the roadway, the curb and gutter, we're only assessing the portions of the pipes that would have to be replaced in order to get that done and help out the property owners. So that's the item that's before you. The figures are based essentially on a split of what that cost of the pipe was. That work has been completed now.

Just quick follow up because I think I know what this is. Sure. There may be some council members who haven't had the explanation because these in the past were compliant, but there's been some law changes, is that correct? And so now they are not compliant when you share a lateral or is that incorrect?

I'd say not necessarily. I mean, it's really tough. This one goes back, you know, the age of about 100 years or so. So we can't always verify exactly how the pipes were connected. Our best records show where there were connection points available. It's not until we televise and do the research that we find out what these really old ones where they are. And so generally what triggers these is either a failure of one of those laterals or maybe a sale of the home or when some sort of work comes up and then we learn about the condition, it's kind of incumbent upon the city to correct that.

Thank you, Director Gallagher.

Any other questions or discussions? Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 26-0685, resolution and report of the Board of Public Works on the cost of operating and maintaining the parking system in downtown La Crosse. Is there anybody here to discuss that?

Good evening. Good evening. This is the final resolution for the statutorily required annual downtown parking assessment that we've been doing since 1982. This is the assessment that is taken against those resident businesses within that downtown parking district. The total amount for 2026 is $187,325.50 for that assessment. And that will go into the 2026 taxes.

Are there any questions or comments?

Seeing none, Council Member Calo. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was looking at the data and it looks like the revenues are far below what the budget is. And can you maybe address that? And are there ways, is there any way that we can solve that that wouldn't be burdensome to the business owners?

So for last year, one of the expenses that had to be taken out was a bad debt expense. And that was for citations that were issued between 2013 and 2018. And so that was about $324,000 that we took a hit on so that we had to write that off. The revenue did increase last year due to that hourly pay. in those parking ramps and increasing that time from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday. This year, you'll see that full impact. You'll get that full year because last year we started on April 1st. You'll have three more months of additional revenue coming in, which will offset some of that and help some of that cost.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. We need a motion. Yes, we do. Council Member Jansen.

Move to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Council Member Jansen, seconded by Council Member Newary. I'll just ask one more time. Is there any questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to agenda item 26-0699, La Crosse Water Utility Year End 2025 Annual Report to the Public Service Commission, PSC of Wisconsin. Tina Erickson is approaching the dais.

Good evening, thank you. So I believe this is just a receive and file matter. This is the Water Utilities Annual Report that is submitted each year to the Public Service Commission. It provides an overview of the utility's financial condition, operations, water quality and significant activities from the past year. It's included on this agenda as, like I said, a receiving file to keep the council informed and try to maintain transparency regarding the utility's performance. Just a few things I'd like to call out. There's a significant amount of information here. It goes into, if there's any changes in operating expenses from prior years, we have to document exactly what was involved in that increase or decrease in some cases. So a lot of great information also goes through all the assets. You can see all the data that we are required to keep track of from everything from the utilities, you know, service lines by size and material type to even the property owners now. We have to record that information as well. And that's fairly new in the last five years. So I'm here if you have any questions. Otherwise, it's just for your information.

Are there any questions for Ms. Erickson?

Council Member Calo. Not a question, I just wanna say thank you for bringing it forward and I would move to receive and file.

Okay. Council Member Northwood got there before you, so could I ask you to second it?

Oh, I thought we were supposed to verbalize motions, Madam Chair, I guess. Okay, all right.

Okay, so Council Member Calo will motion to receive and file. Council Member Northwood is seconding.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll move forward to receive and file. And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to item number 26-0700, resolution declaring official intent to reimburse expenditures from proceeds of borrowing under the clean water fund loan program. Parent number 4105-09, parent for the sanitary sewer utility upgrade of UDV disinfection at the wastewater treatment plant. Would somebody, well, there you are. Would you like to chat about this as well?

I just figured I'd stay here since I knew I was next. Yes, so thank you. So this is similar to, on the water side, we've had a couple safe drinking water loans that we have applied for. And like I've said previously, these are a multi-step process. So the original part of this is we submitted what's called an intent to apply for this project in October of 2025. And now this is the next step. And then once this is approved, the next year would be the actual bidding process. And once we have all the bid numbers, we would close the loan with the DNR. uh so this program uh this particular resolution again is uh just an application for potential reimbursement clean waterfront loans we will not anticipate borrowing any other money beforehand we will be using our utility funds and then as we spend the money we get disbursements back from the loan as we spend the money on the project this particular project i'm going to use the superintendent's Words on this is for the UV disinfection system at the wastewater treatment plant to provide seasonal disinfection of effluent wastewater. The unit process that was originally placed in service in 1990 and the system was replaced in 2004. This equipment is approaching the end of its service life and must be replaced. To ensure the new UV disinfection system provides adequate capacity and operability, a review of design constraints and performance requirements is necessary to meet the new E. coli limits, adding capacity and reliability. So this project is part of our capital improvement budget. It was originally planned in 2021, but now it's moving for fall of 2027, spring of 2028.

Are there any questions?

I just have one.

So in the resolution, in the fifth whereas, it says whereas the municipality is not obligated by this resolution to spend funds on the project. Can you explain to me what that means?

I believe what it means is that the general fund is not expected to spend money on this project. So it would be just the utility.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I need a motion. Council Member Jansen.

Move to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Council Member Jansen, second by Council Member Newberry.

Discussion, questions?

Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to 26-0704, resolution approving an amendment to the project plan of tax incremental district number 11, City of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Councilmember Calo.

I would move to adopt and once there's a second, if I could have Director Train come up and explain this. She did a great job explaining it to me and I think everyone probably should hear if they hadn't heard already.

Motion to adopt by Councilmember Calo, seconded by Councilmember Jansen.

Director Trane. Thank you. So to clarify, Councilmember Calo, the one we talked about was the next TID 11 item. But I'm happy to talk about this one as well. So this one is, let me just start fresh.

Yeah. Did I get the wrong one? This is for, and I'm not looking at it. So this is not the public market one. This is. Oh, we talked about this one earlier too, though.

Okay. Okay, sounds good. So the idea of this one is, as you're all probably aware now, we are getting to the point of TID 11, which is a mostly downtown area, of getting to that date that we have to have all the funds encumbered that we're going to use in TID 11, and that's in October of this year, and then we have the next five years to spend out those funds. So the idea of this one is we're looking at two other development areas in the city, one of them being the former Kmart site, and the other being the Bridgeview Plaza area on the north side. We've been working with both of those developers, and they're seeing a need for infrastructure work that the city typically would be responsible for if that was a project, infrastructure of the cities that we would then likely take ownership of. So because those two TIDs, so those are TIDs 19 and 20, do not have increment because there has not been projects, there hasn't been development since those TIDs were created, that we have the opportunity to make TID 11 a donor TID to those two TIDs. So some of that increment in TID 11 could be used for the infrastructure on those two TIDs. That would come with a development agreement, and those development agreements to encumber those TIDs to use for those projects would come before the council as separate legislation once we have the development agreement requests from those developers. So it would provide that opportunity if that were to arise. This is very similar to what we did with the River Point District TID when we created TID 18 there, and then we used several of the other TIDs to be donor TIDs to TID 18. that allowed for the infrastructure at River Point District to happen without having to take out new debt or find other borrowing opportunities. We're using that existing cash to help with the development in those areas.

Council Member Cato. Just a quick follow-up. I want to apologize. I talked to Julie Emsley, but it was a couple weeks ago, and she said the exact same thing, so I apologize. But your staff, so your staff did a good job, and so do you.

Thank you, and she was on the call. She's on vacation this week, but she was planning to be here for this meeting, and I'm just trying to fill in her big shoes.

I have a question. So TID 11 encompasses basically downtown. So by making TID 11 the donor TID to these others, are we missing something that's needed in downtown? Is there an opportunity cost that's going to be lost by not spending that money in 11?

It's not an opportunity cost that would be missed. We can continue to use these funds in TID 11. There's still an opportunity if projects arise in TID 11 that need to be restricted to that boundary. There is still an opportunity until October to encumber those through resolution. It would have to be under contract by October 12th. So there still is an opportunity to use future funds similar to a resolution that's coming up about the transfer of TID 11 funds to the Redevelopment Authority a few from now. For example, that just needs to be under contract. We don't need to spend those funds until a later date. So I don't see that there would be any opportunity cost of anything that's been presented to us this far. And any time a resolution like this comes through or any resolution that comes through using TID funds, I always sit down with finance to go over. We look at the projections, make sure that it's not impacting anything that's already been approved. And I'll have just this quick follow-up.

How much money is sitting in TID 11?

Well, if the next resolution were to pass, at the end of this year, there would be approximately $45,000. That's if the $600,000 were approved. So right now, $641,000. This TID brings in approximately 4.8 million each year. There are funds encumbered in the next five years already, and so that's not impacting any of those projects that have already been approved.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Council Member Newberry.

Thank you. Andrea, when, you may have already said this, and I apologize if you did, but when does this TID close or scheduled to close? When it's lived its full life?

october 12 2031 is the is the we can't keep it open beyond that we could close it earlier that's the drop deadline so that means that october 12 2026 is the last time we can encumber any tid funds for other projects that aren't already encumbered except for if it's a donor tid so then if it were to be used for the bridge view and the copper rocks or river point district these funds that act then as if they're part of those other TIDs. So then they follow those TID deadlines.

Okay. And thank you. Just a quick question. Let's say we close the TID today. When would the general fund have access to the funds that that space would create?

That's always tricky. And now we're in this August time period with the DOR. So It's typically the following year, then the increment. We continue to receive the increment the following year after it closes, and then it's the year after that that we would see that impact on the general fund, on the levy opportunity.

It's like a year lag then. What? Like a one-year lag. Yes. Okay, thanks.

Council Member Calo. Thank you. I had one last comment that I think Julie had told me She said this was just for infrastructure improvement, and it was not approving any money for the developers. It was for the infrastructure that the city would be paying for regardless.

Correct. That's what we're estimating at this point. It's similar to what we've done with Haven on Main, Wood Street Extension. When we get that development agreement for other development incentives for the developer, We always look at specifically what that project will generate and use that as the incentive to the developer. So, correct, this is not using these funds as an incentive to the developer. It's only for funding that infrastructure.

Thank you again. Council Member Newberry? Any other questions or discussion? Seeing none, we'll take the vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Moving on to 26-0731, resolution number two, regarding the administration and financial maintenance of American Rescue Plan Act, Parent ARPA, A-R-P-A, funds received by the city. Council Member Slesnico.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did have a question on this. On the staff report, it's mentioning that the funds from the downtown street project would be moved over to citywide street funding, but there would be a little over $34,000 move to ARPA administration expenses and or provision of government services. I'm kind of wondering why that's necessary.

So could you clarify the part that you're wondering about that's necessary? Why it's stated that way?

Yes, why do we have to spend additional money for ARPA administrative expenses? I thought that would have already been taken care of previously.

Sure, that's a good question. So when we're looking at these projects that did not end up spending the full amount that they spent, we are looking at a couple of different things because we don't want to send this money back. We want to do what we can to benefit the city still. So for the tree project, for example, we did not use all the funds needed for that specific project. So one thing that we're able to do is to look at very similar projects. So it's more of like a change order situation rather than a brand new project. And we can allocate those funds to something that's already been in place prior to the December 31st, 2024 deadline. So Parks and Finance worked together to find out a similar project that we were able to transfer the funds that weren't going to be used for the downtown project to the citywide projects. So then that frees up that amount of funds from the budget when that project happened. So then when we're looking at the floodplain funds, that that was a floodplain grant that didn't end up moving forward, there are other restrictions that we have with those funds. So there was not a similar project per se in that situation, and it's also from the lost revenue funds. So we're really at that point the only thing that we can allocate it for left over is for administrative and provision of government services. So in the end that still benefits the current operating budget where staff can allocate the time that they're using to complete these projects and then it also can go to provision of government services which I will let Dan do a better job explaining exactly what that means and I made sure he was here based on Council Member Calo, of course he's here, but made sure he had all of that based on Council Member Calo's question last time. So there's still a lot of staff time that we're doing with the zoning code, all these other projects that are ARPA related projects where staff is allowed to allocate our time to complete those projects. So again, that'll still benefit the operating budget overall throughout this year. And then we have actually, it's somewhat special that we can use those administrative costs through March of next year as well to just do all of the cleanup and making and all of the reporting, all of those things that we need to do to make sure the ARPA projects went through perfectly.

I appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

Council Member Kalo.

Oh, I think I was just going to motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Council Member Calo, second by Council Member Slesnico. Did you have any further comment, Council Member Calo?

I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for asking. I appreciate the work that's been done to make sure that that money stays for a similar purpose that was for the downtown tree planting. I would like to add that as I was walking downtown today, I saw numerous, numerous squares that had trees earlier that had stumps and trip hazards. And possibly some of that money could be looked at to still go to improve the downtown trees, but not in that very program. I have some photos that I could share with parks as well. So if it can be used in the downtown yet to make sure that we are ADA compliant and not having trip hazards for folks and people with vision problems. I think that'd be great. Thank you.

Any other discussion or questions? Seeing none, take the vote. That motion passes unanimously. Moving on to item number 26-0738, request of the police department to accept a monetary donation from the La Crosse City Vision Foundation for the SafeCam project. And we have a speaker here. Excuse me, we have a presenter here.

Good evening again. Tonight I am asking the F&P Committee to approve the acceptance of additional funding from the La Crosse City Vision Foundation for our SafeCam 2 project. Since its founding in 1994, the La Crosse City Vision Foundation has served the community as a nonprofit 501c3 organization. Their mission is to develop projects that beautify, protect, and keep downtown La Crosse an inviting destination for local commerce and tourism. In 2013, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the acceptance of funds from the La Crosse City Vision Foundation to establish a network of security cameras in the downtown district and surrounding areas. This followed a double homicide of a father and son in a downtown business. As a result, La Crosse City Vision Foundation and La Crosse Police Department created an effective public-private collaboration to enhance public safety. The SafeCam 2 project would focus on placing additional cameras along the south end of Riverside Park. In addition, additional funding would support future camera placement in the newly developed River Point North District. We are grateful for the support of La Crosse City Vision Foundation and their efforts to make La Crosse a great place to live and visit. I am available for questions if you may have regarding this project, and Carol Grohls is here tonight as well. She is the president of La Crosse City Vision Foundation.

Any questions or comments? Council Member Sosniko.

Thank you, Chair. I'm just wondering with these cameras that are set up, what type of maintenance is required? You know, what's the lifespan? You know, what's the planning for continuing that project if cameras need to be replaced, maintained, that sort of thing? Thank you.

We work in collaboration with our IT department on the infrastructure and placing these cameras. According to Director Greshner, there's very little maintenance that is done on these cameras once they are placed up, once the infrastructure is put in place. The cameras were first put in place on the first project back in 2015. And don't quote me, but I believe she has only replaced less than a couple of those. I'd have to ask her specifically for those numbers, but not many get replaced. I think she's upgraded a few, just do the technology with the different cameras, with the technology with that it is, but very few have to get, more money gets reinvested into that, so. Thank you.

Do the monetary donations cover the upgrades and? So no cost to the city?

The only cost to the city would be the retention piece. In talking with Director Greshner, very minimal cost for that. That's paid over a four-year span. And she advised that per year, per camera, you'd be looking at probably $50 per camera.

Council Member Calo.

I just want to extend a huge thank you and gratitude to the foundation for those contributions. You know, I think we also recall why they're important at the river. Um, we've had quite a few accidental drownings and, um, they are important there. So thank you so much for the hard work of raising the money. Um, and then appreciate that. We're accepting that. Thank you.

And we will shout out. Thank you, Carol. Appreciate that. Motion to adopt by Council Member Calo. Second by Council Member Jansen. Any other discussion or questions? Seeing none, go forward with the vote. That motion passes five to one. Item number 26-0739, resolution allocating TID, Tax Incremental District, 11 funds to the Redevelopment Authority, RDA, to oversee pre-development work for the public market project. Council Member Selesny-Cole.

I'm just wondering if someone can give us an overview of the public market project pre-COVID, where we are now, and why it's felt that now is the time to revisit this project.

Sure. I'd love the opportunity to talk about the public market. So some of you may recall, this was a study that we started back in 2017, 2018, where there was the idea of bringing a public market to the city of La Crosse. And we worked with a consultant that did a feasibility study first that showed that in those terms, lacrosse is ripe for a public market. There was also a site location study and a business plan that was put together. And then COVID happened. So really looking at the opportunities that we had, taking a step back to see what's needed in our community. And as we're coming out of that, still seeing a need for some of the key parts of a public market, which were opportunities for business growth, place making, inclusivity, and finding an opportunity that we can help our residents of La Crosse, but also draw people from outside of the area for a place that they can come to and gather. So the idea of this is looking at the past study, and originally this was led by the RDA. So it was the RDA that came to us and said, we would like you to look at a public market. The city was obviously very involved with funding and coming along throughout those studies and approving those studies. So the RDA has again become engaged and said, yes, we're interested in looking at this again. It's been one of the priorities of the mayor. So we are taking the opportunity to bring this forth again, to revisit this idea. Again, when we're talking about the TID 11 funds, this would be an opportunity. One of the things that you can do with TID funds prior to that October 12th, 2026 date is transfer funds to the redevelopment authority. So that is considered, an acceptable obligation, an acceptable use of TID funds. And then the RDA can work with those funds. So that's similar to, again, what we've done with River Point District, some of the other developments in downtown the RDA has worked on, such as the Riverside Center buildings, the Harborview building where Four Sisters is. So looking at that opportunity that the RDA then can run with that project, and we would keep the council obviously updated as well. Council Member Jansen sits on the RDA. So looking at that opportunity of transferring those funds, revisiting those plans, and getting things going as much as possible. So looking at partners Julie has done a ton of work with an intern that was almost fully dedicated to doing this and working with some of our other grant programs, talking to other communities in the area, talking to Project for Public Spaces, which does national public markets. She's had several conversations with Madison and Green Bay that are in different stages of their public market. So getting an idea of what did it take to really get that up and running. So looking at possibly hiring someone that can really lead that effort after completing some of those studies. So we would do an RFP to update the studies that we already have and then see how that would move forward. We would keep updated throughout all these stages if it got to a point where we thought, this isn't the right time, this isn't the right effort, this isn't the right thing for the city, then we wouldn't continue, obviously, moving forward with that development. So we're using this as an opportunity. The funding is available. The conversations have been happening. I used to say when I was in Julie's position before and leading the public market efforts, the positive impact and positive input that I got from community members and small businesses was like no other project that we had worked on. So there was a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of excitement making some of those changes. So the eligible use in this is for an urban renewal project. So we would use that for the public market. If the public market didn't move forward, the RDA would still have the opportunity to, under those terms of urban renewal, which is a pretty general term, could look at other opportunities to continue to use those funds. Council Member Jansen.

In the initial study that was done, were there any individual groups that came forward and showed interest in anything like this? Because I think it's important for the public to understand it wouldn't be the city running a public market.

Correct. And that was one of the things that came out of that is that it's not the city that runs it. We would be helping create it and create that momentum and help with it, but it would really be run by a different organization. So for example, the Milwaukee public market, which being in the state of Wisconsin, is kind of the one that a lot of people are most familiar with. And that's run through their business improvement district. So the funds that are generated in that area that's really been revitalized through the Milwaukee public market, that's the organization that funds the management and the upkeep of the public market. Oh, and sorry, to answer some of your other questions. Yes, we had several listening sessions. We got people that were attending the... that sell at the farmers market that we're looking for something a little bit more permanent. We were partnering with the Coulee Region Business Center at the time, we just had a meeting last week with Valley View Mall to talk about how we could maybe be kind of a feeder with small businesses between the Coulee Region Business Center Valley View Mall to occupy some of those spaces. If a public market if and when a public market is developed a way that we can keep that ecosystem of small business support going throughout our community better than what we're doing now.

Thank you, Andrew.

Who would own the public market? So typically would be like a separate organization like the Business Improvement District in Milwaukee or a separate entity. It would be like a public entity, although we want to see tax base generated here, so not a nonprofit. some but a separate organization and that could be something maybe a spin-off of the rda or a spin-off of the chamber or something like that that hasn't been those people haven't been identified yet but that's one of the things that we would want to identify through this process you use the words run so i just wanted to make sure who would who if the city does not run it the city does not own it correct correct thank you very much we don't don't mow the lawn don't shovel the snow don't have to fix the light bulbs correct thank you

Councilmember Slesnicko.

Thank you, Chair. Having experienced the Milwaukee public market and such an exciting space to have something like that in La Crosse, especially near downtown, I could see that that would really be an enthusiastic addition to downtown, to the community, to those that visit. So I look forward to updates moving as you work through this. Thank you.

Council Member Jansen?

Move to adopt.

Move to adopt by Council Member Jansen, seconded by Council Member Calo. Council Member Calo, did you have any comments? I do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, excuse me. One second.

Council Member Jansen? Sorry.

So I voted for this at the RDA meeting. I still have significant reservations that I've shared with staff. I believe that if a public market was such a great thing, I'm just curious why no group has come forward yet and said, hey, we're interested in this. City, will you help us come up with some of the details? But I also see some of the reasoning why we need to do a study at this point in time, update it. Um, and see if there's any current interest. So that's, that's why I made the motion to adopt. Um, and I do believe that if the first study says there's nobody interested, this isn't a good time to do it. Then pull the plug if that happens. Um, so that's, that's where I'm standing right now. Council member Kayla.

Thank you, madam chair. I have some reservations about this, and mostly, I discuss this with Director Train, the funding coming from TID 11. Again, this is taxes generated from mostly business and properties downtown, and we have a lack of maintenance in our public right-of-way downtown. We have crumbling infrastructure. as I said, holes where trees were and weeds are growing and trip hazards and there's a lot of work to be done downtown and I would prefer the 1011 money going back into that because the private reinvestment has generated this increment and it is to be used for that. I am going to, say okay and support this, but I wanted to state, and I said this to Director Train, parallelly, we need to have discussions about maintaining our public space downtown and our infrastructure, and if that money comes from TID 17, which is also downtown, I'm okay with that, but I need to bring to light that there is necessary maintenance in downtown. I think the first streetscaping, if I say it was in 94, I'm close, I think it was the second year I had my coffee shop, so 94 and 95. So it is getting old and it just needs some maintenance. And Director Gallagher knows that the mayor has had phone calls regarding issues on Main Street just past 5th, I believe. So I wanna just make sure that we understand we need to protect and invest. in our downtown and if this can come in and also generate more excitement and vibrancy, I'm in favor of it.

Are there any other speakers or comments? Seeing none, move forward with the vote. And this motion passes unanimously. We'll move on to item number 26-0751, resolution authorizing public improvement and levying special assessments against benefited property in La Crosse, Wisconsin, non-compliant utility service, 10th and King Streets. I'll ask first for staff to come up and speak.

Sure, so this is the second item regarding partial assessments for improvements. Again, this is not a standard type assessment where we're recovering money for new mains put in. This is work done on the private laterals that are owned by the properties. In this case, it was a shared service that ran from one property through the one adjacent to it and then out to the corner. So the two needed to be separated. It was actually a good case where we found a better design, an alternate design, and the homeowners were amenable and were able to bring the cost down quite a bit. Again, the utilities picking up the cost for the pavement, the curb and gutter, et cetera. The amount that's included in the assessment is only for the pipe that is owned by the property owners.

Any questions for Director Gallagher? Seeing none. We do have a, Council Member Cahill.

I was just going to make a motion. Okay, I'm sorry, I did not know that.

We do have a speaker, so can I have a motion to open public hearing? Motion by Council Member Slesnico, second by Council Member Calo. Signify with thumbs up that we'll go. And public hearing is open. Carl Green, would you like to come up and talk to us?

Good evening, everybody. Thank you for listening to me. I support the resolution. I'm the property owner that was affected by this property and the requirement to split the lateral. We owned the house for 22 years. This really created a difficulty in trying to sell the property. We had two sales that fell through because of that. We had to hold the house for about 14 months. and certainly didn't help the neighbor to neighbor relationship between us and the property owner to the east that shared our sewer lateral that we ended up having to actually disconnect from and go out a different direction. Very happy that the city was willing to value engineer this and was flexible with finding a remedy for it. So again, I support the resolution. Any suggestion, or a suggestion I would have is if there's any way that you can alert property owners to this change in law. When Excel went through and updated all of the gas lines, they actually went through and also checked on to make sure they didn't puncture our sewer lateral. And so they told us about the fact that it was shared. So I was aware that it was shared, but didn't really realize that at time of sale, it would cause this change. And then, as I said, that made it very difficult to sell because there's just this unknown cost. So thank you for listening to me.

And thank you for coming and speaking. Council member Kalo.

Oh, I think we have to close public care. So I'll make that motion first.

Okay. Motion to pull close public hearing by council member Kalo. Do I have a second council member Jansen all in favor? Thumbs up. We're closed.

Council member Kalo. Now I will make the motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Council Member Calo, second by Council Member Slesnico. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, move forward with the vote.

And that motion passes.

So the next four items are going into closed session, so I'm gonna read them all four at a time.

So the first one is 26-0545, excuse me.

We're gonna do the first four, go in, and then we're gonna come back with the last one. That's why I went with the four. So the first one is 26-0545, resolution approving assignment of parking assignment at Market Square parking ramp from Cameron Park Condo Association to Free Hill Capital. Note the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin statute 19.85, parent one, parent E, to formulate and update negotiation strategies and parameters. Following such closed session, the committees and or council may reconvene in open session. The next one is 26-0755, resolution authorizing funds in connection with the appeal of the incorporation for the town of Campbell. Note the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin statute 19.85, parent one, parent G, to confer with legal counsel. Following such closed session, the committees and or council may reconvene in open session. 26-0789 resolution approving estoppel certificate with regard to riverstone hospitality llc at 200 pearl street note the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to wisconsin statue 19.85 parent one parent e to formulate and update negotiation strategies and parameters following such closed session the committee and or council may reconvene in open session And the final one of the first four is 26-0800, resolution approving a settlement in the case of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company et al. versus City of La Crosse et al., La Crosse County case number 25CV402. Note, the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 19.85 to confer with legal counsel. Following such closed session, the committees and or council may reconvene in open session. Can I have a motion to go into closed session? Council Member Northwood, motions to go into closed session. Can I have a second? Council Member Calo, all in favor, thumbs up. Any nays? We will convene in closed session. Could I have a motion to go back into open session? Okay, well, we don't need to do that, apparently. But thank you, Larry, because you gave me bad advice. So let's move on. You know what?

We're moving on, thank you.

Item number 26-0545, resolution approving assignment of parking assignment at Market Square Parking Ramp from Cameron Park Condo Associated to Freehill Capital. Council Member Northwood. I'd like to make a motion to refer for 30 days. Council Member Northwood has motion to refer for 30 days, seconded by Council Member Jansen. Council Member Northwood, do you have anything else you'd like to mention? Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments?

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

Moving on to agenda item number 26-0755, resolution authorizing funds in connection with the appeal of the incorporation for the Town of Campbell. Council Member Slesnico.

Move to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Council Member Selesnico, second by Council Member Calo. Any questions or additional comment? Seeing none, we'll move forward with the vote. And that motion passes five to one. Our next agenda item is 26-0789, resolution approving the estoppel certificate with regard to Riverstone Hospitality, LLC at 200 Pearl Street.

Council Member Calo. Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt by Council Member Calo, seconded by Council Member Selesnyko. Any questions or further discussion? Seeing none, call for the vote. That motion passes unanimously. Next item is 26-0800, resolution approving a settlement in the case of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company et al. versus City of La Crosse et al. La Crosse County case number 25CV402. Council Member Slesnico. Move to adopt. Motion to adopt by Council Member Selesnico, seconded by Council Member Jansen. Any further questions or comment? Seeing none, move forward with the vote. That motion passes unanimously. Moving on to our last item, a collective bargaining update, item number 26-0001. 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 is an F&P item only unless otherwise directed. Can I have a motion to go into closed session? Council Member Calo, seconded by Council Member Slessner. Can I have a thumbs up to anybody against? We'll adjourn in closed session.