Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Badger West development agreement amid debate over infrastructure costs
Summary
The council approved a development agreement for a multifamily project at 12th and Badger (Badger West LLC), with staff saying developer-led construction addresses timing while the city reimburses eligible work (TID funds); the motion passed 11–1–1 after debate about who bears infrastructure costs and inspection/warranty standards.
The La Crosse Common Council on Nov. 13 approved a development agreement with Badger West LLC for a multifamily project at 12th and Badger after staff and council members debated how infrastructure costs and inspections will be handled.
Councilmember Trost moved adoption and Councilmember Mandel seconded. City engineering staff explained that having the developer construct some improvements is largely a timing decision: the developer needs the work completed for the project and city staff lack capacity to deliver the work immediately, so the city will reimburse qualifying costs, in part using tax-increment district (TID) funds, rather than the city doing the work directly. "So the benefit of having the developer do the work is basically a timing issue," a city staffer said. "The city still wants these improvements done and it's more beneficial for the city to have the developer do it and us reimburse them for that work."
Council members pressed staff on monitoring and warranties. Engineering staff said the city participates in inspections, the developer must keep inspection records and submit a signed, stamped as-built from a professional engineer, and typical projects carry a one-year warranty for defects. "If it's not to our standards of satisfaction, they don't get the reimbursement," an engineering representative said. Councilmember Newberry said the project would add about $6.2 million to the tax base, and argued the infrastructure upgrades would benefit the broader community.
Opponents and some council members raised concerns that some infrastructure costs might fall to the city in the long run; staff responded that costs for assets owned and maintained by the city would be paid by the city while those directly tied to development would typically be the developer's responsibility. After discussion, the council adopted the agreement by recorded voice vote: 11 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention.
The agreement includes provisions for inspection, an as-built requirement, and a typical one-year warranty; staff said reimbursement sources and specific ownership of components are identified in the developer agreement and that more detailed financial allocations are in committee records.
The council's approval advances the project to implementation steps overseen by city engineering and planning divisions, including final inspections and reimbursement processing.
