Finance & Personnel Committee - Regular Meeting

We're gonna call this meeting of the finance and personnel committee to order Thursday, 02/05/2026 at 6PM. All members of the committee are present except for council member Northwood who is absent. New business. We're gonna start with the agenda items. New business 25 dash one four seven two. Resolution approving amendment number one to the employee lease agreement by and between Tri State Ambulance Inc and La Crosse Fire Department. Councilmember Jansen. Move to adopt. Motion to adopt by councilmember Jansen, seconded by councilmember Kalow. Any discussion?

Seeing none, we'll call the vote. That motion passes five to unanimously. Thank you. Sorry. Next item, 26 dash zero zero four, resolution amending appendix c of the municipal code for the city of La Crosse entitled fee schedule, correcting errors and omissions. Council member Kahlo. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt by council member Kahlo. Second by council member Jansen. Any discussion?

Seeing none, I'll call the vote. That motion passes unanimously. Next item. 26 dash zero zero two two, resolution authorizing the transfer of funds to the redevelopment authority of La Crosse for the project manager contract. Councilmember Jansen? Move to adopt. Motion to adopt by Councilmember Jansen, seconded by Larry Councilmember Sleznickle. Director Trane, do you mind coming up for a second and letting us know exactly what this is just for the public?

Of course. Thank you for the opportunity. So River Point District is being run more or less by the Redevelopment Authority. So it's been a project between the City of La Crosse and the Redevelopment Authority. It's actually reviewing some of the documents that created the first plan, and they were dated back in the 70s.

So as an idea of how long, as all of you know, this project has been going on for a long time. When we were working with really getting into the nuts and bolts of River Point District, and we had hired a project manager for that probably about eight years ago, That person we changed project managers, didn't renew that contract as of three years ago. So three years ago, we put out an RFP or hired for a job and hired Jason Gilman, the former planning director, to be the project manager for River Point District. And I think that anyone who has attended an RDA meeting or read the monthly updates can see the value that Jason has provided in the last three years. Jason is interested and open to renewing that contract for the next three years.

So it would be it's a very similar contract, similar terms, asking for last time we asked the counsel to transfer the entire amount annually for Jason's contract. This time we're asking for half of that for the next three years. And then the RDA would cover the other portion of that through the land sale proceeds from the properties that have been developed thus far. So the RDA has approved this, already approved the contract, and more or less symbolically approved this resolution, knowing that it's really up to the council. The RDA is supportive of this as well.

Jason is here today as well to show his support for this item and the next item. And so that's the request, would be the transfer of half of what his annual contract is annually to the Redevelopment Authority for payment of that contract, and this contract would be renewable every year by the Redevelopment Authority.

Thank you, Director Train. Any questions for Director Train? Seeing none, thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote.

Oh. That motion passes unanimously. Unanimously. Next item, 26 dash zero zero two three, resolution approving transfer of tax incremental District 18 funds as a contribution to the redevelopment authority for acquisition of properties for River Point District. Councilmember Jansen? Move to adopt.

We're getting a message that council member Northwood. Northwood is on the

Zoom call, but she's not showing up. So

Well, Nikki said because she was she said it was the right link. Oh, should I give it to her? Mhmm. And then I don't

know if you wanna wait or not. Sorry.

I think at this point, we'll proceed and hope that she can join us. Thank you. Any further discussion?

I'm sorry. Can I get the first and second for that one?

The motion to adapt was made by council member Jansen, and the second was council member. Thank you. And we'll call the vote. That motion passes unanimously. Next item is 26 dash zero zero three six, resolution reallocating American Rescue Plan funds, ARPA, from the Marsh con lead contamination allocation to Carol Park Improvements, CIP number 440.

Council member Kahlo. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt by council member Kahlo, second by council member Celestnikau. Any discussion? Could we ask mister Flatmyer to come up here just for a second to help us out?

Good evening. So what this does is it allows us to take the 40 approximately $40,000 that's left in the project we did down in Myrick Park to get rid of the shreds of the clay pigeons from the gun club area and move that project to Carol Park. They're both ARPA funded projects, so that allows us to do this.

Will Carol Park will this complete Carol Park? Will there be any more money necessary to complete Carol?

I do not believe there will be.

And that will that leave number, will that leave any money left to shift around? No. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none.

Thank you. We'll call the vote. That motion passes unanimously. Next item is 26 dash zero zero six one, resolution resolution of pending appendix c appendix c fee schedule regarding dumpster permits under subsection 40 dash thirteen and forty dash one zero six parent 11 of the La Crosse Municipal Code.

Council Member McKaylo? I was just going to motion for public hearing.

Okay. By unanimous consent, can we open public hearing? Public hearing is open. Our first speaker is Chad And as you make your way to the podium, could you state your name and your municipality?

Good evening, everyone. My name is Chad Honeycutt from La Crosse. That's c h a d. I well, we've gotta stop meeting like this, you guys. I'll put a cot in the lobby if we keep going through these fee structures. I just I'm actually a little bit confused, and maybe some of these questions are for points of clarity. But I wanna ask and maybe this can be found in discussion, but how are these numbers formulated? What burden has the city incurred to cause a jump from zero to possibly 1,200? I pulled some fee schedules also, and it turns out that, like, this is the same price that you would have to pay as a nonresident to rent a houseboat for a whole year here from a sit or to be compliant with the city. And it's like, okay.

Are these dumpsters residential dwellings now? I mean, if you're Oscar the Crouch, possibly. Also, you know, these businesses are very compliant. I come from big city life. Like, these are the cleanest alleys I've ever seen. It's almost like at this point, these fee structures and tack ons are coming to be the similar as tickets for noncompliance. So we need to think about how we're doing positive reinforcement for people that are following the rules and doing what they're supposed to. This fee is also in in addition to the average $500 monthly sanitation garbage pickup fee, not including grease traps, not including litter, not including other things. People are really keeping their businesses here clean. This does not feel like it's a supportive measure.

If the mayor was here, I just had lunch with him today, we talked with all the business heads about how we need to make sure that young, new business owners are attracted to this town and to stop the barriers of entry. And then I come and see this float across, and it feels very antithetical to what we had talked about. And I do see that he's the sponsor. I know that he's not here tonight, but I do want I believe that he's an earnest civil servant, and he's not playing both sides of the fiddle. So I am just gonna assume this is a mistake or loss in the paperwork since he's so busy.

If this is something that's meant to help balance the budget, I believe you're going through it the wrong way. It's not the job of the businesses to be the piggy bank for the city. It's your job to figure out where that money's going and to spend it more wisely. Whether it's a historical mismanagement or a current mismanagement, it's irrelevant. The fact that matters, you can't go to every business every time there's a problem. Like I said, I'm happy to set up a cot in the lobby for every one of these fees that come through. My job is to advocate and defend the businesses. This is not creating a pro business climate. This is not making people think the city supports new entrepreneurs or people that have existed here and have been good stewards of their alleys, their dumpsters, their trash, and their stores. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Elaine Yeager. And again, as you make your way to the podium, if you can say your name and your municipality.

Hi. So my name is Elaine Yeager from La Crosse. I know what my district number is, but I don't off the top of my head, so I apologize.

That's okay.

I think that there is some confusion about this fee structure for this particular item. We were given a list that had shockingly high numbers on it. But after doing research, I was told that in reality, it would be a $75 one time fee to get the permit and then a $75 annual fee for them to have their dumpsters public alley. And if that is correct, that would be that would be great. So if we could clarify that before this gets before the full council, that would be wonderful.

The other thing I think that I would like to assume clarification on is who signs up for the permit. So downtown is unique. In residential portions of the building, the building owner is who, gets the trash hauler. That's who who, engages the trash hauler. For commercial run businesses, they lease the space and typically they are the ones who do business with the trash hauler.

We need to clarify, is the trash hauler doing these permits? Is the building owner or a business owner? Who, are we going to allocate that responsibility to? Just so everyone knows what they need to do. So if we could clarify those couple of things, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak? With that, I'll with unanimous consent, I'll close public hearing. Thank you.

Council member Jansen?

I would, recommend that we, move this forward without a recommendation.

Moving it forward with no recommendation, by council member Jansen and seconded by council member Sleznickal. Council member Sleznickal?

It sounds like we need some clarification before the common council meeting. It's hard for me to see how we have gone from not having a fee structure to what seems to amount to an incredibly high fee structure. Again, also questions about ownership. Who's responsible for this? So, in moving this without recommendation to the common council, it sounds like there's definitely some answers needed before that meeting.

Thank you. Councilmember Kalow. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think this has been confusing for everyone, and I am a little bit dismayed that there's no one here to answer those questions for us, whether it be staff or our mayor who sponsored this. And yes, we are speaking on moving to council without recommendation, but I think we do see the fees are exorbitant if they are as spelled out. Councilmember Jansen has a document from legal that is further confusing that the council needs to go over. And so while I agree with moving it forward, I would say that exorbitant fees are not something we want to place on downtown businesses at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilmember Jansen.

I think the intent with all this legislation, has there's there's good intent behind it all. I think it's still confusing. I thought I had it figured out after, talking to legal, and, unfortunately, they weren't able to be here today to answer questions in person. But I think that that we can get it figured out and get it spelled out, and, everybody can be happy.

Councilmember Newberry.

Thank you, madam chair. I hesitate to comment, but who is in charge of the fee schedule department wise? Is that the finance department? I mean, who's answering the question before next week? Do we know?

It would be legal because they they're the presenter they were the writer of the resolution. But it would be, I think, public it's part of public works.

Okay.

Is anybody from the city here? Is that correct, Andrea? Thank you. Thank you, Director Drain. So we're voting to move this forward with no recommendation.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. And that passes unanimously. Moving on to item 26 dash zero zero seven eight, resolution amending the 2026 airport operating budget to fulfill air service incentive program obligations. I'm going to ask Director Kas to come up and just we've talked about this, but maybe to give a little idea of what was going on here.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question. So to kind of give more of a background on this, so the Federal Aviation Administration prohibits airports from using airport revenue to directly subsidize an airline. But what we can do is offer in kind support through what's called air service incentive programs, which assists in reducing some of the financial risks that airlines face when they're launching new service. This can include things such as temporary waivers or reduction in landing fees, terminal rent, and other fees for a set period of time, as well as having a fund for marketing and advertising for that airline.

The airport have an air service incentive program, which was most recently updated and approved this past January. When we created the 2026 operating bud budget, we just had our standard utilization of marketing and advertising dollars that we spend on a year to year basis. So we didn't have anything specifically set aside for a new airline. So when we were notified, around November that Allegiant wanted to start service, we knew we were gonna need to increase that funding or else we'd exhaust all of our normal funding that we need to use to advertise all of the airlines that the airport has. So this resolution is to add the it says up to a $120,000.

So our incentive program allows the airline using the program to spend up to a 120,000. They don't have to, but, historically, the airlines are going to use everything they can. And this money would be spent on targeted social media ads, billboards, radio, TV ads, etcetera. Whatever the airline and the airport together determine is the most successful way to advertise is what will happen. And actual expenditures will only be incurred as the eligible costs are submitted to the airport within that agreement.

Okay. I wanna just acknowledge that council member Northwood has entered the, proceedings. And I'll just ask one other question. With adding United, is that going to increase where are we gonna need to allocate more money? Or

No. So our approved incentive program, states that it's a $120,000 shared amongst those two airlines or any, that way if we had more airlines come in throughout the year, we wouldn't be constantly adding more and more funding to it. At this time, United has not indicated that they would want to use the incentive program, but Allegiant does have a plan to use all that funding. So if they submit that first, they will receive all this funding.

Thank you. I appreciate that information. Any other questions or discussion? Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Jansen. Move to adopt. Motion to adopt by council member Jansen, seconded by council member Newberry. Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote.

I will change that too. And that vote passes unanimously unanimously six to zero. Our next item is 26 dash zero zero nine two, resolution authorizing the appointment of Lauren Kos as director of the La Crosse Regional Airport, effective 02/13/2026. Councilmember Sleznikol?

Move to approve.

Move to approve by Councilmember Slesnikow, seconded by Councilmember Kalow. Any discussion? Councilmember Slesnikow.

I just wanted to let our new airport director thank you very much for accepting the position. It sounds like some important things are moving forward. And I think it's exceptional that we have an airport regionally where airlines now are looking to come, you know, and fill some of the spots that we had lost, you know, in the past. So, again, thank you so much for your leadership continuing to, make our airport an exceptional regional airport.

I'll just echo that there's been a tremendous amount of work done behind the scenes, and we appreciate all of it. So thank you very much and to your team. Any further discussion? We'll move to the vote. And that motion passes unanimously. And with that, we come to the end of our agenda. Thank you for coming.