Common Council - Regular Meeting

We're gonna call this meeting to order. Today is the eighth, January eighth twenty twenty six, our common council meeting. What I would like to state before we begin this meeting is that, for individuals with signs, I'm gonna ask that you either hold the sign on your lap and steal. You're not allowed to raise signs or cause any disruption. If so, you will be asked to put your sign on the floor.

You can also have your sign on the floor. But if you're causing disruption, we're gonna ask you to put your sign on the floor, and that'll kinda be considered your warning. If it continues, we might have to ask you to leave. So just so everyone is clear on that note. Let the record reflect that all members of the council are present, and council member Stein is joining us virtually.

Can we please stand for the pledge of allegiance? We recognize that the city of La Crosse occupies the land of the Ho Chunk people. Please take a moment to celebrate and honor the ancestral Ho Chunk land and the sacred lands of all indigenous people with a moment of silence. Thank you. So before I begin my state of the city city address, what I would like to call council member attentions to is that you have a document in front of you that list a lot of the twenty twenty five accomplishments given to us by many of the or every department, essentially.

This is also going to be the accomplishments that many of our citizens will see in the budget book. So I'm going to begin the state of the city address. So in October 2024, standing on the top of Granddad's Bluff, a landmark that represents the strength and beauty of Lacrosse, I announced my candidacy for mayor. That moment was filled with pride and hope. Today, I stand before you as the forty fourth mayor of the of this great city, delivering my first state of the city address.

It is an honor and a responsibility I hold deeply. From the very beginning, I've spoken about a vision, a forward thinking Lacrosse where everyone belongs, feels safe, is valued and respected, and has equitable access to resources they need to thrive. This vision is not just words. It is a promise. It is something I truly believe in.

It is the vision that guides every decision I make as mayor. And ask I you, city of La Crosse, to continue to join me in this shared vision. This is not my vision alone. It is our vision, a shared commitment to building a city where opportunity is not limited by ZIP code or the side of town you live on, where safety is rooted in trust and collaboration, and where every resident feels proud to call across home. This vision is not abstract.

It is rooted in action, a joint commitment to change and progress. Our vision looks like safe neighborhoods built through collaboration and not fear. In 2025, we hired 11 additional firefighters, strengthening our ability to respond to emergencies and protect lives. Our legal and fire department worked diligently to complete the Madari fire contract. Our fire department answered over 8,000 calls for service, working hand in hand with our public safety partners.

Our police department implemented progressive succession planning, successfully transitioning and replacing seven positions, and completed a full department remodel under budget, might I add, giving officers the space and tools they need to serve our community better. Our planning department began zoning code updates, laying the foundation for smarter growth and stronger neighborhoods. We've also signed several development agreements that will bring nearly 400 new housing units to our community. Our engineering department implemented new processes for road maintenance and inspected and replaced lights throughout the city. Our legal legal department successfully completed a revocation hearing and worked diligently to prosecute OWIs, helping to change our culture around irresponsible drinking.

These are not just numbers or minor accomplishments. They represent safer homes, stronger neighborhoods, and a city that is planning for the future. In 2026, we will continue revitalizing neighborhoods and advancing community safety through environmental design and infrastructure improvements. We will keep exploring ways to build strong stronger community connections in our neighborhoods. These efforts will continue to keep our streets safe and make our neighborhoods stronger.

Our vision looks like young people who are empowered and not ignored. In 2025, we distribute 18 micro grants for youth climate action projects, and we'll continue this program in 2026. In 2026, we'll be working to develop a municipal internship program for high school and college students because our younger generation needs a platform to engage in local government and have their voices heard. Our parks department hosted over a 175 programs for youth of all ages because we are all young at heart. This is yet another demonstration of our commitment to building community and belonging.

And if you miss these opportunities, check out our parks and rec connect. Our vision looks economic growth that includes local entrepreneurs, especially those who were never invited to the table before. In 2025, our planning department provided financial assistance to 45 small businesses and supported over a 140 businesses through creative partnerships with community organizations. This is how we build an economy that works for everyone. Our vision looks like a city where belonging is not a slogan, but a lived experience.

We continue to make sure our citizens are heard and are part of the decision making process. When our businesses when our business community and residents ask for a second airline, our airport staff work diligently to make it happen. We will now have Allegiant Airline in La Crosse, and the airport staff will continue exploring additional air service options. Our city clerks our city city clerk's clerk's office completed handbooks for boards, commissions, and committees, making it easier to recruit and retain citizens for these important roles. And our municipal transit implemented a new mobile app for its excuse me, for real time vehicle trafficking.

In addition to adding solar lights on several of our bus shelters, improving accessibility and convenience for riders, in 2026, we will explore more innovative ways to gather input from citizens. Our city will be partnering with another agency to develop a city strategic plan to guide our work moving forward. We have so much to look forward to in 2026, and I wanna take this time to acknowledge the awards and recognitions our city received in 2025. La Crosse remains listed as one of the best places to live. Our IT department won a federal award for sustainability initiatives through the EPEAT program.

Our library archives team received the governor's archives award for archival innovation, and the city of La Crosse is now a certified family friendly workplace, thanks to the leadership of our HR department. Our great city has yet to reach its full potential, and I look forward to moving La Crosse forward. The task will not be without challenges. As we look back on '25, it is no secret that our city had to make some serious budget decisions. But our finance department continues to find efficiencies and ways to do more with less.

They implemented a new payroll system and a new capital improvement project software. Most importantly, we passed a balanced budget that met the expenditure restraint incentive program goal, and we continue to maintain a strong bond rating. As we move forward in 2026, we'll work across all departments and with the council to develop priorities that guide our financial decisions. Most importantly, we need to hear from you, our citizens. What quality of life do you want to see in our city?

I'm using this address to ask our community to show up, join a committee or a board, complete the surveys, give us your ideas, your needs, and dreams. Our end goal is simple, to make La Crosse a great place to live for everyone. While I only want to talk about the accomplishments, we have to collectively face the challenges. The challenges ahead are real. Housing costs, homelessness, inflation, and addressing shared revenue, just to name a few.

But, fortunately, this community and our city is strong and will collectively find resolve. The state of our city remains healthy and strong. La Crosse is a city of resilience, innovation, and heart, and our best days are still ahead. So let us move forward with courage, with unity, and with the unwavering belief that Lacrosse is a place that everyone belongs. Thank you.

You can clap. It's okay. At this time, we're gonna move to a next agenda item, which is the annual code of ethics certification. Council president Dickerson.

At this this time, I would like everyone of the council members to indicate they have either already reviewed the code of ethics and or they have the intention of doing so. Please indicate so by raising your hand. Unanimous. That Thank you so much.

Moving to the approval of the minutes of 12/11/2025. Motion to approve by council member Calo, second by council member Northwood. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously.

Moving to reports. Item twenty six zero zero two six, financial report from the director of finance for the month of November. Motion to receive and file made by council member Kalos, second by council member Jansen. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote.

And that motion passes unanimously. Now it's time for notices and discussions, and I will start. Today, I've been nervous, right, because of the state of the city address, but I'm happy that we got through it. And I truly believe that La Crosse can be an exemplar city for what it means to truly be an equitable city and a a place for everyone where everyone belongs. In fact, today, I also had the privilege of cutting the ribbon of a new restaurant slash grocery store, Priya Spice Bazaar, and I'm excited. And everybody should go check it out and support them. Councilmember Troz helped me with the location because I don't know the address.

It's on South Avenue, very close to Amplify across the street.

Yes. So go support it. Check them out. Councilmember Kahlo.

Thank you, mayor. I would like to thank our public safety employees and recognize the downtown neighborhood association downtown neighborhood neighborhood neighborhood loves him. We will miss him and look forward to see who is coming on board next. But I wanted to thank Jory Olson for all his work that he's done in the downtown neighborhood. And then secondly, I wanna thank our fire department.

I had the misfortune of needing to call, at in November, and they were prompt and quick and took care of the issue and I was terrified and we hope we never have to call them or use our public safety employees but they're always there and so a huge thank you to both those departments.

Councilmember Podeski. Thank you, your honor.

February 4 is the MTU Transit Equity Day in honor of Rosa Parks, and we all know the history there. There'll be displays at both the library and the MTU, and the time and more information will be upcoming and following. So thank you.

Council President Dickinson.

Thank you. I wanted to take this time to thank Yuri Nazanov in his work that he did on Moore Street and Onalaska Avenue. It's been an over two year stint. And during that time, and when I was early in my position, he came did in the field discussions with a number of the constituents that were having questions about what was going to be happening. Primarily we were looking at they did not have curb, they did not have side walks.

So we spent a good amount of time explaining where the sidewalks would be and what kind of impact that might be, including concerns about removal of trees. And actually that went quite well and the people were glad to have their trees removed at no cost to them as they were aging. So I just wanted to thank him to help me interact with those people at that time.

Alright. I have one more thing. As you all heard in my state of the city address, the city of La Crosse is now a certified friendly workplace. I'm just gonna read a little bit of the excerpt. So family friendly workplaces is happy to announce that the city of La Crosse has earned a gold level certification as a family friendly workplace, recognizing its commitment to supporting employees' well-being and work life balance.

At the City of La Crosse, we recognize that a healthy work life balance is essential to the well-being and long term success of our employees, said Rebecca Franson. This is an excerpt of a press release. The City of La Crosse earned this certification after a comprehensive evaluation of its workplace policies, including flexible work options, parental leave, health care benefits, and family centered support programs. As certified employer, the city of La Crosse is now entitled to use the family friendly workplace logo on its talent attraction and retention work, as well as access a range of other benefits. So I just want us to give a shout out to director Rebecca Frantzen for all of the hard work that she has done to make sure that our city is a work friendly place and the work that this council has done in policy to make sure that we are acknowledging the work and the work life balance of our, city staff.

Thank you. Move Move into council matters, starting with agenda item twenty six zero zero two five, resolution approving twenty twenty five twenty twenty six bills and engineering estimates paid in January 2026. Motion made by council president Dickinson. Second by council member Northwood. Any discussion?

Seeing none, please vote. That motion passes unanimously. The appointments by the mayor. Item twenty six zero zero one seven, committee for Citizens with Disabilities, Nate Hunt, LaCrosse County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Shamaya Curtis. Those are it for this month.

Motion approve motion to confirm by council member Pedeski, second by council member Troas. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Report of bids, quotes recommended to be adopted.

Item twenty five one three four six, report of bids and resolution awarding contract to Gerke Excavating Inc. Suspend rule 15. At this time we are going to take a vote on the suspension of council rule 15 for the following items. 20 six-nineteen. Motion made by Councilmember Jansen and second by Councilmember Northwood. Any discussion? Seeing none, please vote. Motion passes unanimously. Now moving to report of bids. Twenty five one three four six.

Report of bids and resolution awarding contract to Gerke Excavating Inc. In the amount of $647,386.08 for the Grand Crossing Trail Lacrosse River Marsh project. Motion to adopt by council member Jansen, second by council member Weston. Council member Silesniko.

Thank you, mayor. I'm wondering if someone from staff can give us an overview of this project, what what will be happening, a time frame, because it's a significant amount of money, and I just want both council members and the public to understand how our money is being spent. Thank you. Thank you.

Name and municipality. I'll just go ahead. Evening.

The Grand Crossing Trail was part of a few years ago when we began requesting CIP money for the hydrology studies in the marsh. Well, this is one of the recommendations from the Smith Group. The low point of the Grand Crossing Trail tends to erode when we have flooding, bad weather events. So what this is going to do is going to fortify that area so the water, when it runs over the top of it, doesn't it just stays. It it becomes more of a spillway as opposed to a trail.

It gets complicated and fun because there's a water that runs underneath that. So we have to fortify it even more than normally we would for a trail. Most of the funding for this comes from a TAP grant, which is, you know, good for the city of La Crosse. There will be periodic closures of that trail. For the most part, it won't completely close because they'll detour through the Cottonwood Trail.

So they'll be able to get around that closure. But there will be points, especially when they're putting in the spillway, that the trail will be closed. So the spillway is getting replaced, and then we're reasphalting the whole trail from East Avenue by UWL up to Saint James Street. Time frame, beginning once we have contracts signed, we'll have a precon sometime in March. They'll start soon after that. There's some environmental windows they have to hit and miss. Substantial completion is scheduled for October.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Any other questions or discussion? Councilmember Johnson.

I just wanted to add that three of the park staff came to a recent flood plain committee and went into extreme detail on this project. And one of the benefits that Jim did not mention is that we're actually going to improve some water flow in the marsh as well, which will help the North Side residents tremendously.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, please vote. That motion passes unanimously. Moving to items with no recommendation. I started with twenty six zero zero one nine, a charter ordinance to create section 19 of the code of ordinance of the city of La Crosse regarding term length for the municipal court judge. Motion to adopt by council member Kahlo, second by council member Jansen. Council member Podeski.

Thank you, your honor. A lot due to what council member Bedford had talked about. Even though I proudly, signed the candidate we're talking about here, I signed her nomination papers. I will not support just

president Dickinson.

I just wondered if we could have any idea how if we choose the two years, will it change the duties that are currently performed in those two years? Or is it just an opportunity to align with potential other municipal judge openings? I have that curiosity.

Director Matty, attorney Matty.

This does not change any duties. It just changes the term.

Thank you.

Council Member Bedford.

Thank you, mayor. You said that this gives us the ability to have that flexibility in the future. So are we then able to decide to continue this position to four years if things don't line up in two years? Or would this be moving that space to two years, and then we would be having an election two years no matter what with this decision?

You have the ability to change the term as you see fit. It has to be somewhere between two and four years. This particular ordinance change allows you to have a two year term. So, it lines up with the neighboring municipality which would then give you an opportunity to have a joint municipal court two years from now and then realize those savings in the operating budget if you if that is important to the city council. If you don't want do that, you can change it to four years again. You can change it to three. You have that flexibility in the future.

I guess, you know, we've had this conversation on on different positions that were changes to the charter which my understanding of this is a change to the charter? Or is this not a change to a charter, and that's why it's different?

This is a charter ordinance. In order to make this change, it has to be a charter ordinance.

It confuses me why this position were able to change after they are in office, whereas others we are not. Could you explain that difference to me more? They're not in office. Just because they're not in office yet? Okay. All right. Thank you.

Council Member Matochez?

So my understanding is that this is an important component of why this is coming in front of us is saving money on our operating budget. So could you just give, by regionalizing this particular function, so can you give us just an overview of does La Crosse pay more for our court than other municipalities? Or does every municipality pay a lot? And we're all squeezed by what we can get or not get from the state. And so this is what we are being pushed to do, is to look for cost savings in how we structure our services.

Yeah.

Well, the last time we negotiated with Onalaska to do do this was a number of years ago. When we looked at the data back then, we had the highest cost of municipal court in the state as our staff was the highest with all the comparable cities at that point in time. So, that was why we were looking at it in the past. How that comparison is today, I don't know how we compare today compared to that historical data when we looked at it before but at the end of the day, what ends up happening is you're gonna have a if we do it separately, we're duplicating the same service. You can have by having we can by sharing employees, you're going to be able to reduce costs for everybody involved.

Yeah. Other otherwise, you're duplicating services.

And have we thought about other sorts of regionalization? We've had some agreements with different fire departments with some of our utilities. Is this similar to that?

Well, have one of the things the mayor mentioned in the in the state of the city address was we had just recently completed that agreement with the town of Medary for fire services. So, the city has traditionally always been looking for ways to partner with our neighboring municipalities to services and reduce cost for the taxpayers. It's just that as of right now, you have an opportunity to do this and it's it would it's incumbent on us to make sure you have the opportunity to exercise this option. So, you have that flexibility in the future if you decide to take it but if it's not important, then, then, we'll know how to proceed.

So, this is about balancing our budgets primarily.

Right. The primary gain is to have a reduced operating cost in the future. And we all know how difficult we all remember how difficult it is to our last budget cycle to set our budget and meet those different mandates from the state.

Councilmember Gardner.

Thank you, Director Matty or Attorney Matty. Do you find that this will increase efficiency in the court system or in any way hamper it?

It would create efficiency, and that's how you'd realize your cost savings. But once we are able to sit down with our our neighboring municipality and work through the specific details, we will have more specific information on the feasibility of that. And that would be coming back to you in the future as well as to them. So you'd be able to look at that again and see whether that is enough or whether it's not enough. And then be able to make that decision again of do you wanna do this or not do this or return back to our court the way we had it and go back to four years or whatever you'd like to do.

But at the end of the day, it provides you an opportunity and an option that you're not gonna have if you decide to not adopt this. And so if two years from now, you're telling me at the budget, hey, let's go revisit that again, I'm gonna tell you that ship sailed.

I appreciate that frank response. Thank you.

Alright. Council member Podeski. For the second time, thank you, your honor. You know, I I realize, mister Matty, that, you know, this person isn't in office yet. But I, again, and I'm all for collaborating and saving money, and I've talked with the mayor about that many times, different ways we can maybe collaborate and save some money. But this should have been done two months ago. It doesn't look good to the public. There's other candidates out there that maybe would have wanted to do this. And I just think it just doesn't look right. Yeah, we could save money, but we lose the trust of the public out there who are potential candidates. I just can't endorse it. Thank you.

What you have to remember is that our incumbent judge had not decided to file a notice of non candidacy until recently. So, this was never this was never on this opportunity was never even known. So as soon as the opportunity was available, that's why it's in front of you. So you can make this decision. So if we had done it sooner, then the argument would be that's not fair to the incumbent judge. So I don't know. That but that's the policy decision you get to make. Is it unfair to the incumbent judge or is it unfair to the judge who has not yet been elected? But however, if it's unfair, then then don't do it.

Council member West. Westin.

Thank you, mister mayor. Perhaps I need some clarity. It appears that the question before us is if we want to explore this co op with with Onalaska, then we have to vote for this resolution, which is tied to that our election term. I'm confused as to why we can't have a conversation with Onalaska without currently adjusting the term. And maybe that's because I simply don't know enough about Analaska's terms. But isn't it possible for us to begin a conversation and then plan for the future versus for the next election?

If you want to maximize your opportunity to save money in the future, you would enact the ordinance tonight. If you do not want to do that, there might be still other ways we could try and do it in the future, but I it's easier to make the change tonight so you have the flexibility. It's kind of like, do you want to control your own future, or do you want others to control your future?

That's I

good

point.

The

that's

term, we did a new census and redrew districts in this city. And I was moved out of the district that I had just won. And I served out my term, but I was heartbroken because that was a district that I knew. And so then I had to run again in a different district. And I am very sympathetic to disappointment that comes from planning the future based on a lot of hard work with a specific path in mind.

But I was reminded that this is an institution, and we are merely taking a place for a period of time and seeking the best system that we can is more important than any one of us individually. And so I didn't make a fuss when I was redistricted out of my district, because I understood we had

question. I I question. Board.

Always about more than us as individuals. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you.

One thing I would add to this discussion, as someone who sponsored this, is the state of Wisconsin is is kinda talking about this idea of regionalization, and municipalities are looking into this in many different ways. Right? I mean, all the way from parks to fire to courts, courts, etcetera. You name it. There's probably some form or or conversation around how we haven't shared resources, to help the strain of our budget.

And I definitely agree whole heartedly with attorney Matty where, you know, this is the time for us to do it based on our election cycle as well as on Alaska's election cycle, and it allows us to at least have the conversation if nothing else. And we always have the opportunity to change it back to four years or, whatever the case may be. But this is also an opportunity for whoever the electing, judge to also be a part of this process. So that's all I will add. Any other discussion?

Alright. Seeing none, please vote. And that motion passes, 11 yes and two no. Moving on to our next agenda item, twenty five one three nine nine, resolution authorizing public improvement and levy and special assessments against benefited property in La Crosse, Wisconsin, curb and gutter of 1600 Block Of Moore Street. Motion to approve by council member Troll, second by council president Dickinson.

Any discussion? Council President Dickinson.

I feel like there should be at least some input from finance and engineering and I don't particularly have any. Well, do. I want to have them explain what is the process for these special assessments and how does it march along. I can clarify if I'm completely unclear.

Seems like Director Gallagher is ready to speak.

I can speak to part of that. The process is that state statutes allow municipalities to levy one time special assessments for benefit improvements against properties. There is a process to follow that is spelled out in statutes that regards a notice from the clerk and plans and list of properties affected. And that decision comes before the council for approval. Once it is approved, it is in the hands of the finance department.

Would you like the finance department to come and speak to their piece?

Yes please.

Hawkins, as you're coming up I would like to state for the record that council member Mendell is recusing herself from this vote. Director Hawkins, on you.

Sure. Thank you for your question. Special assessments, again, Director Gallagher was saying, kind of lead from two parts. First, from the project piece and then once the handoff of the project completion comes to the finance office with the final numbers. Once we receive those final numbers, there is a letter that goes out to the individuals that outlines kind of the next steps.

Currently, by practice and by well, basically by practice, special assessment is defaulted to a ten year payback through taxes. There is an opportunity through the letter that's sent to them to either do a fifteen year payback or cash. And it's all specified right in the letter how they can go about that process. And as far as timing timing of all this goes, generally, there's always a a lot of time. So the letters that we're talking about or specific individuals that we're talking about today, we would be looking at adding those special assessments onto their next year's tax assessment role.

So plenty of time is usually given to these individuals anywhere from, I would say, a ten month period to to a a year period of time that they're able to prepare for this and then make their decision on how they want to pay this back. But those decisions have to be made before October 31 this year. But, again, they won't be added to their tax bill until next year's taxes.

Follow-up? Thank you, Director Hawkins. I'd like to elaborate on that. So, have the current residents that received the letter in December, have they been given the letter yet that says, Now is your time to decide you want to do a lump sum, a ten year plan, or even a fifteen year plan? Have they received that yet?

Not as today. So, again, within the process, we haven't been handed off the final numbers yet. That'll happen within a couple weeks, I'm assuming, if the council approves these today. So, we don't have those final numbers until the approved assessment and public hearing has been done. But within the next couple weeks, I would assume that we get those final numbers from engineering, and then we'll get those letters out. So, again, plenty of time for the individuals to make a decision on how they would like their payment plan to go.

Thank you. So it's a little understandable that they probably have received some sort of estimate or the fact that the special assessment is coming, but they don't currently have the exact amount. They have an approximate amount. But they will get a letter that clearly defines who to respond to, how to make their choices, and that will be a decision they have to make by October 31.

Correct. Yes. Thank you.

Council Member Kahlo.

Thank you, Mayor. Director Hawkins, when that is put on their assessment, is there interest charged on that?

Current practice, as far back as I can recall and what we're aware of, there is an interest rate that is assessed to those if they do plan to do the ten year or the fifteen year payback. Our past practice has been to use whatever our borrowing rate for that year has been. And then the system that we use does allow us to do points. So it's just rounded up to the nearest whole percentage. But I think in the past, right now, we're seeing rates 3%. I think this year was 4%.

So it's a policy. Is that a policy that this council in this circumstance could allow those repayments without interest considering some of the issues that we heard regarding this project on Tuesday night at finance and personnel?

So those that I'm gonna maybe play a little bit of attorney Maddie here, but are governed through state statute 66.0715. Installments, payments, principles, interests shall be structured by the governing body. The interest rate shall be set by the governing body and may include an administrative fee of not more than 2%. So by statute, I would suggest, yes. I mean, you have the ability to set that rate. Don't, again, not an attorney, but my research does state that an interest rate does have to be set, though. You can't just set zero.

Could we is that something Attorney Matti could clarify for us? Thank you, Director Hawkins.

Whether you wish to charge for interest is permissive, so you have a practice of doing so. If you decide that you're not gonna charge for interest, then your best practice is to establish a policy, how, what, what interest you are gonna charge, or how you're not gonna charge it under what circumstances so that everybody is treated fairly in the same. Otherwise, it just becomes a free for all and then you open yourselves up to allegations of favoritism. If all it takes is just to come in and say this, that, and the other thing at a meeting and then, you don't have to pay interest but other people in the city do. So, your best practice would be to make sure you establish a policy of how you're going to charge interest if at all. But it is permissive.

But we do not have a policy currently then you're saying. We would have to establish a policy.

You do not have a written policy. You have a policy in practice.

By the finance department.

Through your acts. In your prior your prior actions, in your prior legislation, your prior assessments, that is your policy. And that's what was just explained to you. And that prior policy is that you do charge for interest. So if you're gonna end up changing it, yeah, I mean, bottom line is it's permissive. If you don't wanna charge it, you don't have to. Your best practice is to make sure that you have a policy and to establish what that policy is so that everybody is treated the same and fairly within the city. That's the best advice I can give you.

You.

Councilmember Bedford. Thank you, Attorney Matty.

I'm not sure exactly who this question would be for. I think it might be finances. Would there be any consequences if we delayed this until thirty or sixty days so that we could get a policy in place for situations where we might want to be more permissive with this interest rate?

I would say with these particular resolutions going through, no, I don't think there's any harm in referring. However, it does take away a little bit of time that the individuals will have to make a decision if the the body decides to to go forward with with that. But, you know, again, October 31 year is our is going to be the deadline. Anything after that, will be on next year's tax bill. That's just by statute that November 1 is is the time.

So, what I'm hearing is that the delay would be in getting the residents the final number and not necessarily some other but that would be the delay essentially. Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember Northwood.

What does the you had talked about administrative costs for these levies. So if they span it out over ten years or fifteen years, what does that interest rate go to? Where does does it help with any of the administrative costs to continue to add that to the tax bill, or how does that impact? Or does it go into some other account?

If I understand the question correctly, I'd I'd we haven't charged an administrative fee. Past practice hasn't. Again, the statute suggests that you could, but I don't believe we've ever charged an administrative fee.

So that would be something to council member Bedford's. We could look at it in the future as a administrative cost as opposed to interest rate, something to cover the cost of that. I'm just trying to figure out. So then where does the interest rate go? It just goes as part of the payment because they're getting a payment opportunity to spread it out over years or?

Yeah, I think like any borrowing, There's a there's a cost of capital that has to be there and that's what the interest rate is for us. We're kind of fronting that that project cost upfront. So, the interest rate again, I think that's probably why that rate was set by the council and the practice was set by the council before was to cover those those costs that we're using to borrow those funds. Those revenue dollars go back to whatever fund went to the project. So, if it was funded by GO borrowing, it would go back to GO. If it was done by water utility, it goes back to water.

Councilmember Troves.

Thank you. I don't know if this will be for which director this would be for. So, you did mention that we front the cost of the project. And my question is, does what we assess for the homeowner actually cover the full cost of the project? Or what percentage of the project does what we assess them actually cover even?

I'll let Director Gallagher.

So the cost of the entire project is obviously much greater. The cost of the items proposed for levy of special assessment in this case would be just the cost of the installation of the curb and gutter. That is the actual per lineal foot rate paid for the curb and gutter.

So there's a greater cost of the project that the specific property owners are not specifically responsible for, that it's part of our operating budget?

It was funded by capital or bonded money, but yes.

So in essence, the project costs more than what they're paying back? Much. Okay. Thank you.

Councilmember Goggin.

I think that there's a I don't know exactly how to say it, but it's this specific legislation to these specific projects. I think and I might be not understanding or but the taxpayers were concerned with the lack of communication, the lack of openness to discuss, the lack of knowledge of special assessments. They were given information that the work would be done with grants. So they weren't prepared for this. And I think we're not looking so much as to set policy, but we're looking for what we can do for these taxpayers.

And and and is there any way to carve out something like that, or is that not available?

Who would you like to direct that to?

Attorney Maddie, I guess.

Attorney Maddie? Maddie.

If you want to provide special treatment to special people, I cannot stop you. The best advice I can give you would be to establish a policy that says how you're going to treat everybody in the city when this comes up so that they're all treated consistently and fairly. You have the ability. It's a permissive. Interest rates are permissive on an assessment. So if you do not want to impose it, you do not have to.

And I think that's what I'm getting to. I wanna treat people fairly. And each some things need to be carved out. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Believe. Councilmember Pedeski.

Thank you, your honor. I had the opportunity to be at F and P Tuesday, and it was, very heart wrenching to hear these people and go what they went through and stuff. But I I I think we have obviously, have to do a better job of communicating with the public. That that's number one on the list. Number is, you know, I I just was on my high horse talking about fairness, and there are other people. Unfortunately, they had these special assessments. So as much as I would like to see something done for the people, I guess it wouldn't be fair to other people who are paying these assessments. So, I I wouldn't be able to support any kind of change. So, thank you.

Thank you. Council Member McCallo.

Thank you, mayor. I would like to refer this for thirty days and maybe we can get a policy in place or come up with something else instead of trying to figure this out on the floor this evening. As we heard it probably isn't going to be any imposition for anyone and I think doing our due diligence and listening to our residents and taxpayers is really important. So I would like a thirty day referral.

Motion to refer for thirty days made by council member Kahlo, second by council member Pedeski. Any discussion on the thirty day referral? Council member Trusz?

I won't be supporting this referral because I find this whole conversation to be a very slippery slope when it comes to fairness. And I can imagine many people coming back to us and saying, Well, I didn't understand the process either. And I know previous council members have gone through this with their constituents. And it's clearly a confusing uncomfortable trying to make this kind of an exception.

Councilmember McKaylo.

Thank you, mayor. There may be a confusion, by my colleagues. This is a referral to actually get a policy in place because we don't have a policy now. We just have a practice that isn't policy. So in the name of fairness, I think we need to have a policy in place. And that's what this referral is about. Councilmember Truth?

I would disagree with that interpretation and follow follow along Attorney Matti's that our policy is our previous practice, and we would be changing what we're doing.

Council Member West.

I also will not be voting for referral. I completely agree that it's helpful to have policies that match practice in writing. So in the interest of transparency for the general public, and I'm highly reluctant to create policy with specific instance in mind. I think that opens us up to dangerous rhetoric and exceptions. And so I support the idea of creating a policy. Let's do that. But these policies should be future minded, minded, not reactionary, is my perspective.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Councilmember Bradford.

I also will not be voting for the referral. I agree with Councilmember Weston. I think that we've talked about looking at these policies as far as making sure that we have better communication, looking at this as a policy in the future so that there are essentially consequences on us as a city if we do not live up to those expectations, I think, is understandable. But I think that we, as council member Trust said, open up ourselves to a lot of problems if we make this exception before we get policy changed.

Thank you. Council president Dickinson.

I also will not be, supporting referral for the very succinct comments already voiced by my colleagues. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing all the speakers on the list, please vote. We are voting on the thirty day referral motion. And that motion fails with two yes and 10 no. Moving back to the original motion on the floor for resolution 20 five-thirteen 99.

Seeing no other speakers, please vote. And that motion passes 10 yes and two noes. Councilmember Mendel, you can come back. Moving to our next set of agenda items, items recommended to be adopted. Starting with 25.137, Rescinded Resolution two-zero-zero-nine-eight-twenty two and Discontinuing Invocation Procedures for Common Council Meetings.

Motion to adopt by Councilmember Trove, second by council member or council president Dickinson. Council member Podeski.

Thank you, your honor. Attorney Matti, like I said earlier, I whispered to these guys, you shoulda had your tracksuit on. Can I have a question for you, please? If you wanna sit there and answer it, that's fine. Thank you, Stefan.

My question is, if this passes, what does that change to our moment of silence for the Ho Chunk people? They seem very similar.

The legislation does not have anything to do with the moment of silence for the Ho Chunk people.

I get that. But to the public, again, they seem similar. A moment of silence for most people means a silent prayer. It does to me anyway. Okay. So if we say we can't have an invocation which involves a prayer, how can we open our council meetings with basically a silent prayer?

The legislation before you would remove the invocation as you have it. It does not address the moment of silence.

So we're both running around a tree. I'm going to trying to chase you on this one. But, obviously, this is gonna be your answer, and I respect that. But I was just curious about it because it seems to me we're opening up a possibility of a lawsuit then.

Well, if you looked at there's a brilliant memorandum that was written to the city council back in 2009 by the the city attorney at that time and he has spelled out a number of different options that were available. You have options that are available to you depending on what you wanna do. If you want to remove the moment of silence, then remove it.

Well, again, I don't wanna create controversy. I'm not happy with this controversy. But, obviously, Stefan, I respect you. I just wanted to have your opinion on this. So thank you.

Any other discussion? Alright. Seeing none. Okay. Thank you.

I did have a follow- Thank you. Yeah. I just wanna say I you know, I there's obviously, there's a lot of discussion on this, and there's two emails today that struck me. One was in favor of this from a person who I consider a friend and made a very compelling argument why this should be passed. And then there was an email that came in late when I was looking at my emails in the meeting next door from a person who kinda hit on what I was hearing today at the grocery store.

Two or three people asked me if the city doesn't have better things to do to work on in the city, then what's going on with this? I didn't really have too much to say on it. I just said everybody has their thoughts. Everybody's allowed to write a resolution based on I do believe miss Mendel was getting calls on this. This. I respect her right to have the resolution. But I and then when what I had told a few people who got on me about it from calls was we we you know, we're closing pools, libraries. We have leaves on the boulevard. I just don't like this causes controversy. It caused some angst among council members.

I I just, won't support it. I I just think it that right now, the the public's just wondering what's going on with us. So thank you. But I do respect the right of people to have their views and opinions. So thank you.

Councilmember Bedford.

I thought on this one for a long time considering how short this week has been. I am pretty close to a free speech at Salutist. And my first instinct on this was that freedom of speech is often uncomfortable. For me, people talk and they say things and you don't agree. They make you uncomfortable, but it is people's right to say it.

But people also have the right to respond. That is a big part of freedom of speech. And while we have many times here where people can speak, either other council members or people, citizens, those all come with the ability for somebody to respond. And this is one moment in our city council meetings that does not come with the ability to respond. I also think, with the news being as it is, we all understand that censorship doesn't always look like somebody telling you what not to say or what to say.

It is often the environment in which you are. And an invocation at the beginning of these meetings sets the tone. It sets the tone, and then there is no ability to respond to that if the tone set makes it inhospitable for people in our audience. And so for me, I am going to be voting in favor of this. I think that there are many times and places where we are able to express our freedom of speech here.

I think that we have matters of business that we speak on. And it is important that we make sure that people are not being censored, whether that is explicitly or just through the impression in the room. And that is my reasoning here. Thank you.

Councilmember Weston.

Thank you, mister mayor. I let me start by saying this. My Christian faith is an important part of who I am. And I am also, heartwarmed, so to speak, by the number of letters that people talked about, how they pray for their local leadership, for their state and federal leadership. And I am it's encouraging.

And someone who aligns with that faith, it's pleasant to hear. And yet, this council chambers alone can be an intimidating place to be. Even just sitting up here as someone who's been voted in, it's an intimidating place to be. And if our goal is to ensure that city hall is an inclusive place as the mayor used numerous times in his state of the city address. If this is to be an inclusive place, removing any or as much of the intimidation as we can is helpful.

For better or for worse, whether I want it to be true, for many people, places of worship and faith have been weaponized and have created trauma. And that does create an environment where people are resistant because of the trauma they have experienced. Therefore, I will be supporting this resolution to end the vocation as I believe that in order to make our council chambers more inclusive, and less intimidating to the general public, I echo much of what council member Bedford said. I support the ending of the invocation. And my hope is that all of those, particularly of Christian faith, who sends a very strongly worded and, I would say, sometimes harsh emails, can see this as an opportunity to continue their own faith and continue to pray for us if that's what they so choose without causing harm in the process.

Council member Gagan.

As we discussed the removal of the invocation, I want to note my displeasure that this item was, number one, put on this compressed agenda schedule. Normally, the public would have at least a week to reflect, refer, contact counsel. Here we are with basically a day and a half. It was stated number two, it was stated on the record that there have have been many, many people after many meetings that have felt something about invocations. This has never been brought to light to council before, and I, having served since I was elected in District 2, have never ever heard this brought up.

And I do hear a lot of things. I spent a lot of time number three, I spent a lot of time listening to the invocations from previous council meetings, trying to find the troubling messages, the messages that exclude people, the messages that call out specific doctrines or send specific messages. I haven't found any yet, and I've listened to a lot of them. And I've read all of the emails and have responded to a large number of them that we've gotten in the last day and a half and have seen the separation of state comment have used the different historical references. And my mom and dad are both gone, but they'd be very proud of the fact that their money has been well spent on my college major of political science and public administration because I I do understand separation of church and state and where it started.

And it's a road that I'm not sure we all wanna go down. But first and foremost, I wanna remind everybody that we are, elected to represent the city of La Crosse, not any one specific agenda, not one any personal agenda. And, again, we are hearing overwhelmingly from the City Of La Crosse residents and, again, in a very compressed compressed amount of time. And to give, if you will, both sides more time to decide it, you can refer it if you like. I don't recommend to refer it.

But I will be voting to keep the invocation because I have heard a very large number of people reach out. This is an engagement that I want to see on every issue that comes before us, and I want us to start listening to the public responding to them. I, too, have a strong Christian faith. You never hear me discuss it. You never hear me, tell anyone what to do, what to think, what to feel in that regard. And it's just this is just disappointing to me. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Councilmember Janssen.

I always try to share why I'm voting the way I am. Initially, I was like, yep. We probably should get rid of the invocation. And then I started thinking about it, I started getting the emails. And, so I I'm gonna vote against this because I think that there's not enough compelling reasons to to remove the invocation at this time. What comes to my mind is we probably need to come up with some kind of compromise and work harder to get more diverse perspectives coming to the council meeting to do the invocation. So that that's where I'm at. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm seeing other speakers. One thing I would like to add because it was mentioned earlier, I see you council member Mendell, about the moment of silence. And to be honest, I just wanna address that, because a moment of silence does not necessarily mean prayer. It can mean reflection. It can mean meditation. It could be just that a moment of silence to acknowledge whether it was a murder or a death, atrocity, whatever the case may be. And we use those oftentimes to acknowledge an event that has happened. It does not necessarily mean prayer. Although, for those that identify with a certain religious belief, to them, a moment of silence, they decide to pray.

But you don't necessarily have to pray in a moment of silence. So I just wanna throw that out there so that we don't get the two confused. Councilmember Mendell.

Thank you, mayor. I thought in my head a lot about whether I would speak because I spoke on Tuesday, and sometimes you don't know if talking more will help. And I want to speak because I know you all are here, many of you disappointed this has come before us. And I want you to know and everybody to know that this isn't a waste of time for everybody and not everybody feels like we're doing things that are a waste of time, namely we could be doing so many better things. I think the argument goes both ways.

And this is a direct response to the community telling me that they do not want to see this. And we are one of few few local

governments that still do this. And I said on Tuesday that it's taken me five years to get the courage

to do this because it is is very this. Uncomfortable. We put ourselves in very uncomfortable situations as elected officials, and we choose to be here. But this is not about me. And words do not need to be divisive. This is about the resolution. I kept it simple for a reason. It exists. Some do not think it should be. If you agree with that, you can vote in favor. And if you don't, it is your right to voice otherwise.

Thank you. With that being said, seeing all the speakers, please vote. And that motion passes. Nine yes and four no. Alright.

Moving to our next agenda item twenty five one three nine eight, resolution authorizing public improvement and levy and special assessment against benefited property in La Crosse, Wisconsin, water main of fourteen hundred and fifteen hundred blocks of Moore Street. Most to adopt by council member Bedford, second by council member Northwood. Any discussion? Seeing something just happened. Let the record reflect as we're figuring this out.

Council member Mendell will be recuse oops. Yes. Council member Mendell will be recusing herself. Motion to adopt by council member Bedford, second by council member Northwood. Seeing no other discussion, please vote.

And that motion passes 10 yes and two no. Next agenda item, twenty five one four seven one, resolution requesting that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation develop additional project alternatives for Highway 53 corridor study that maintain on street parking and add bicycle facilities. Motion to adopt by councilmember Pedeski, second by councilmember Kalow. Before we open for discussion, I would like to call the DOT up to present their presentation to this body. Welcome back, y'all. Thank you for coming.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a presentation on The US Highway 53 study. My name is Dan Shave. I am the Wisconsin DOT Southwest Region Director. With me tonight is Michelle Howe, WSDOT study supervisor as well as Michael Richardson, the WSDOT study project manager.

Tonight we have a few slides 15 total that go over a little bit about study history, a few more slides on additional analysis on alternatives that was completed over the last few months, including a hybrid alternative we are recommending that maintains parking on both sides of US Highway 53 while also slightly extending the locations of bike lanes previously presented. With that, I will turn over the presentation to Michael Richardson, the project manager.

Sorry here I'm trying to share my screen. Just trying to get this slideshow how to get this bar out of the way. As Dan said, we're here to present an update since the November city council meeting. So I'll do a quick recap of the study and alternatives that have been evaluated, summarize the public involvement completed, and share other concepts reviewed that we recommend moving forward. Michelle will then discuss other highlights project and how they support this recommendation.

The limits of the study are WIS 35 or West Avenue to the South and I-ninety to the North, length of approximately 4.3 miles. But tonight's area of focus will be downtown on 3rd And 4th Streets between King And La Crosse Street. The existing cross section in this area is a one way parasection with two lanes in each direction and parking on both sides of the road. Sidewalks and paved terraces also on both sides of both streets. Terraces are that space that's between the back of the sidewalk and or the back of curb and the sidewalk.

This section is planned for full reconstruction meaning everything building phase to building phase will be replaced, including utilities. Before I get into the two alternatives that have been carried forward to this point, I wanted to share some information about the alternative selection process. This graphic identifies the steps that we have taken to get to where we are now. We start with a brainstorming process to identify potential improvements needed based on the study's purpose and need that that do not have any critical flaws. Those concepts are then carried forward for preliminary alternatives evaluation.

11 different concepts were considered at this stage. Based on public feedback from the first round of public involvement in 2024 and a screening process, we select detailed alternatives for further analysis. Downtown, more options were taken to detailed study than typical. We considered four: three that contained various types of bike facilities and one that maintained parking. These four options were taken back to the public in 2025 for more feedback to conduct surveys of preferences.

The results of those surveys were used in the screening process to select recommended alternatives that are presented in the next few slides. Two alternatives were recommended for consideration that WSTA initially felt met the study purpose it needs. So just a reminder of the two alternatives that have been discussed in detail. Alternative one would remove parking from the left side of the road on both 3rd And 4th Streets, add sidewalk level bike lanes that are also separated from the travel lane by a parking lane and the three foot paved terrace. Alternative two would narrow travel lanes and parking lanes and widen sidewalks and paved terraces.

Other minor safety improvements like curb bump outs will improve pedestrian safety with this alternative. Next, I'll provide a summary of the public involvement that has been done to date as part of the study. From June 2024 through September 2025, 16 different meetings were held to garner feedback from a variety of groups representing the city. During the second round of advisory committee and public involvement meetings that took place in the 2025, surveys were conducted with a collective preference being alternative one. A separate meeting and survey were conducted with downtown businesses, but their preferences was alternative too.

From this point, we had discussed with city engineering how to proceed and felt it was best to go through the city committees and city council to select an alternative. The state felt that either option would satisfy the purpose and need at the time. The committee is essentially split on their preferences. The city council voted to delay a decision for ninety days. Since the November city council meeting, we were asked to review a couple different options which I'll go over the next couple slides.

But we were also notified of a change.org petition opposing bike lanes on 3rd And 4th Streets in Downtown La Crosse with over 4,000 signatures, which would have been an alternative one. We investigated two additional concepts since the November 2025 meeting. Number one, being alternative one, including the protected bicycle facility, but also maintaining parking on both sides of the street. This alternative includes what is being requested in the proposed resolution and was evaluated by WSTA. And number two, maintaining all parking on 3rd Street, removing parking on the left side of 4th Street, and replacing with a contraflow bike lane.

Essentially, would be alt two for 3rd Street, alt one for 4th Street, but with the addition of that contraflow bike lane on 4th Street. Vistat has reviewed these options and are not recommending carrying forward due to safety operations and maintenance concerns with both options. The city shares these safety and maintenance concerns. Both concepts have safety related concerns. Given both concepts would replace would reduce widths providing less room for every mode of transportation, more conflicts are created between the different modes.

Also, contraflow bike lanes present safety concerns, especially at the unsignalized intersections in this area. It would also be unlike any other bike facility that is planned or exists in the city today. Additionally, both new concepts and variants of them would require narrowing of existing widths to accommodate fitting everything in. This results in, as I mentioned, the safety, operations, and maintenance concerns. Narrowing terrace widths creates issues for snow storage.

In the winter, it provides inadequate space for signage and street lighting, which encroaches on the walkable space of the sidewalk. The sidewalk also backs right up to the building faces in this area, which also reduces that usable sidewalk width. This creates more uncomfortable pedestrian space and narrow width, which is also closer to the parking or travel lanes. Additionally, this creates more issues for people with mobility challenges on a high use sidewalk. Narrow parking width makes parking maneuvers more difficult and less safe, especially with the high parking turnover in this area and the high volume of traffic on the corridor, larger concern with doors swinging into travel lanes or the bike lanes.

This is a constrained historic environment, and it is not within the scope to consider alternatives that would expand extensively outside of the right of way or have significant impacts to real estate. We are limited to the space that exists between the building faces and must prioritize that space to meet the study purpose and need. We do not have options to reduce the number of travel lanes due to the high traffic volume and operations needs.

So I'm gonna step in briefly. I think that as we talk through these concerns, it's helpful to have an illustration of an example of this. And through a lot of our stakeholder involvement, we hear about the recently constructed La Crosse Street with 16 in front of UWL and concerns with the narrow bike facilities. And I think it's a it's a good example of where we're trying to fit all the things in and have limiting accommodations then for multiple modes. And that's what we'd like to avoid.

So we are in constrained environments that makes it difficult to choose and prioritize how we use that space. But being able to design something that is safe and effective for the modes creates a better environment, and creates a solution then that we think will be well received. So next, with this in mind, as Michael and Dan mentioned, we do have a hybrid approach that we'd like to present. So Michael's gonna share that now of this hybrid concept for the downtown area that we'd like to to present in more detail.

Thanks, Michelle. So this hybrid alternative maintains parking in the heart of heart of downtown while also extending a dedicated bike facility further into downtown from the north. So from Vine Street to La Crosse Street, there currently is no left side parking apart from the few spots on 3rd Street that are just South of Badger that are also adjacent to a large surface lot. Parking is restricted here due to the courthouse being located North Of Vine Street between 3rd And 4th Streets. So this would allow us to implement alternative one and install the parking protected sidewalk level bike lanes from Vine Street to La Crosse Street with only the loss of maybe six or seven parking spots.

Vine Street also has bike lanes that provide that connection to 2nd Street cycle track as King Street does in the South. Given this, WSTAT is recommending moving forward with a hybrid alternative from King Street to Lacrosse Street. This includes alternative two from King Street to Vine Street, maintaining parking and improving the pedestrian space, alternative one from Vine Street to La Crosse Street, which adds sidewalk level bike lanes with minimal impacts to parking in those blocks. Wistad understands the priorities to improve pedestrian accommodations and have heard the concern for maintaining parking in the heart of downtown from King To Vine Street. We also understand the priority of making downtown more accessible by bicycle and feel that the connection down to Vine Street with this hybrid alternative better facilitates that goal while also improving the pedestrian accommodations downtown and maintaining parking.

For bicycle north south connectivity, King Street and Vine Street provide those connections to parallel routes, including that 2nd Street cycle track, improving the city's overall network. I'll now hand off to Michele, who's gonna cover a couple other corridor highlights.

Thanks, Michael. So one of the things that we also were asked over the last few months was how the improvements that we have planned for the 1460 One-fifty 3 Corridor, how they benefit the city of La Crosse, where we have innovation that we're seeing within this corridor, and just to try to highlight some of those different elements. So I have just a few slides just to cover a few of those highlights. The first is sidewalk level bike lanes. So these are will be the first on a state Highway, and this is a prime example of a protected bicycle facility, facility, which is what we strongly hear is desired for a safer, more all ages and abilities network.

And this urban corridor, we feel, is a great fit for these bike lanes. So as Michael highlighted there, as well as on other locations along the corridor, these would be proposed from La Crosse Street down to Vine Street as you enter into the downtown corridor. Additionally, the plan for Vine To King where we would maintain parking, we do get a wider terrace space. This a great opportunity to use community sensitive design funds as part of the project and we are putting the stamp La Crosse's stamp on the corridor. So that could be through elements like benches, planners, or other design elements that you'd like to see along the downtown corridor.

Michael mentioned briefly curb bump outs. I just wanna cover what those are. So those improve safety both for pedestrians as well as for vehicles. So for pedestrians, they shorten the crossing distance and improve visibility for pedestrians. And then for vehicles, they improve sight lines for those turning from the side road onto the main road.

And so those would be planned where geometry allows along the corridor. Next, we heard the importance of improving overall connectivity throughout the city of La Crosse. So as we're showing in the proposed improvements, we would have improved connectivity north south, both through access to 2nd Street, East West at Vine And King, as well as bike facilities along the majority of the corridor north and south of the downtown area. And then lastly, we have in our proposed improvements a roundabout at La Crosse Street, so just outside City Hall. And this provides a few different benefits.

First, it serves as a gateway to downtown from the North. Additionally, it provides traffic calming elements as you're coming into the downtown area. So lastly, I just wanna give a highlight on the schedule. So as you can see, we are nearing the end of our corridor study phase with the goal of having a signed environmental document here this summer. That document essentially documents the entire process that we've gone through and analysis and impacts that we have with our corridor.

So this is where making a decision on the alternative in downtown is important for us to reach our overall goals of construction in 2030. So in order to finish our environmental documentation, need that preferred alternative along the length of the entire corridor so we can then begin our final design, as I said again, to be able to then start construction in 2030. And with that, we'll open it up to any questions.

Thank you all very much. I really appreciate you coming back and bringing this presentation and really showing how you're working with the city to meet our needs. I will open it up for questions starting with Council Member Bedford.

Hi. Thank you guys so much for being here again. I have two questions for you. One, if I'm not mistaken, you had the bike lanes then going through that round roundabout on La Crosse Street. Could you explain how that will work with the bikes and the cars and the roundabout?

Yeah, so at a roundabout, you essentially have shared use paths all around a roundabout. So the sidewalk is effectively they'll be combined together into a shared use pass, and then you will cross at each leg. And with a two lane roundabout, there will also be some type of either flashing beacons or something to assist in crossing each of the legs of the roundabout.

So at the roundabout, the bikes would then basically cross with the pedestrians?

Correct. The

preferred method that we would like them to use at least?

Yeah, so the sidewalk level bike lanes will guide them to mix with the sidewalk traffic to then those shared use pass.

Okay. And then my second comment, I'm on the committee committee for citizens with disabilities, and one of the things that we've heard from people with vision impairment is that the bike lanes on level with the sidewalk can sometimes cause issues for them. Do you have any plans to make sure that that's something noticeable by texture or other plans just to make sure that that's safe for all members of our community?

Yeah. So there will be where we can't have in the downtown area where we can't have a terrace space or something like a grass terrace, there'll be a tactile strip between the sidewalk that's cane detectable. So essentially, that's similar to the curb bump outs or if you see as you enter where you're gonna be notified that the street is there. It would be a linear tactile strip that would be cane detectable so you would know where the sidewalk ends and the bike lane starts.

Thank you. Then last question, I guess. Would you be available to come to our Committee for Citizens with Disabilities next month? It would be nine a. Before the council meeting.

Yeah, we've definitely presented in the past and happy to come to CCD, BPAC, or others that would like us to present. Formally inviting. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Councilmember Slezakov.

Thank you all very much for putting your heads together and pencils down to the pad and trying to come up with another opportunity for us. As council member Bedford had mentioned, I chair the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. We have a meeting next Tuesday. Would someone from your group be able to touch base? This is already on our agenda, you know, for discussing, and we knew that there potentially could be alternatives coming forward this evening. So I'm wondering if someone would be able to join us either in person or virtually for that meeting Tuesday, 08:30.

Yeah. We we could attend virtually for that.

Perfect. We'll reach out with some information. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Seeing none, we are thank you all very much. Greatly appreciate it. Guess a question I have here. Are y'all looking for the council to respond to your alternatives tonight? Okay. I

think one of the main things we wanted to address is that we have investigated the option that was proposed in the resolution, so explaining that we have already evaluated that was one thing we wanted to cover and then to just offer what that new hybrid recommendation we have is.

Gotcha. Thank you very much. Alright. With that being said, we are voting on resolution, twenty five one four seven one. Do you have a question? Yes. Councilmember Monell.

So the resolution is requesting

them to develop additional alternatives.

So how does what we just saw change this? Does it not at all?

They just presented their additional alternatives.

So do we need

Do do we still need to vote? I think for the record, yes. Council member McKayla?

Thank you,

mayor. Yeah. I was going to say we would, for the record, want to pass this. You know, I don't think any of us can say whether this is what we're asking for or not yet because we just saw it. And and I'm a little confused by it, so I suspect that everyone else is too. So, yeah, I think we should still pass this and let's hope that this goes through the committees and that this is a solution that everyone is okay with.

But we don't have to pass it in order for it to go to the committees, correct? Okay. Sorry? Nikki?

This particular resolution already went to committee, so the action tonight would be the final disposition for this particular resolution.

But more so, like, when we're talking about moving it to bicycle and pedestrian committee and so on and so forth, we don't have to pass this tonight in order for that to still happen.

It the the presentation can still occur at those committees. That's fine regardless of the action taken.

Any other questions or discussions? Seeing none, please vote. You catch councilmember Stein? Motion is The Everyone's favorite part. The following board consent agenda is will be approved with a single voice vote based on the recommendations, actions, unless an item is removed at the request of the mayor or a council member.

At this time, is there any item that anyone would like to request off of the consent agenda? Learned a lesson. Alright. Seeing none, please vote. Oh, sorry. I forgot about that. Motion to adopt by council member Kahlo, second by council president Dickinson. Now you can vote. And that motion passes unanimously. Well, this is the first council meeting of the year. Thank you all very much for the conversation and the care that you all provide for our community. Have a great night.