Business
“Public engagement” phase in the administrator plan for La Crosse is almost about to start
The ongoing study of the need for a La Crosse city administrator will soon be taken to the public for comment.
No community hearings have been scheduled yet by City Hall. However, a study group is preparing to send out a survey to learn whether people in La Crosse would prefer having a mayor or an administrator, or both. City council member Erin Goggin says La Crosse residents have been asking her about the administrator study when they see her shopping at local stores.
The special working group looking into the administrator plan has been meeting twice a month, and at Wednesday’s session, they discussed a possible timeline for gathering comments. A written survey could be sent out this summer, with “public engagement” sessions anticipated during the fall. The city council has put off a vote on whether to create the administrator job until February of next year, so public reactions can be obtained.
Libertarian guy
June 12, 2025 at 11:15 pm
After watching the terrible fiscal mismanagement of taxpayer money by our city government the last several counter balance,, I have come to the conclusion that we definitely need a city administrator. We need a city administrator to counterbalance the financial ineptitude and impulsive and unwise decision-makingour elected city leaders. These people have no financial sense whatsoever and are unable to connect the dots between one spending project versus another. they clearly have no grasp of the big picture and instead focus on smaller projects one project at a time, failing to recognize how smaller decisions impact the overall budget. They squander $22 million of ARPA money, donate our tax dollars to create a safety net for airlines worth billions of dollars, run up debt service, spend $42 million to remodel lacrosse center that is still losing money despite the cost of the project, failed to plan for the $50,000 roof repair of the lacrosse center, ad infinitum. Yeah, we now need to spend another $250,000 plus to create a city administrator position because these people are incompetent and unable to manage other people‘s money. It would not surprise me to find out that every one of them is in debt to their eyeballs, and few if any assets in their bank ,and manage the city budget the same way. We need a city administrator now and we need to eliminate the mayor to help fund it. And if you think that’s crazy, Eau Claire has a city administrator and they have no need for a mayor. But here again, they will create the city administrator position to solve one problem, but they will fail to redesign the mayor position further driving up the cost of living in this city. Yes, city leaders, create the city administrator position, but figure out how to cut cost and how to eliminate or at least reduce the mayors salary before doing so. Figure it out as one package. Connect the dots please.
Libertarian guy
June 13, 2025 at 12:00 am
One more thought… Our new mayor was excused from tonight‘s City Council meeting. He was absent. Clearly he was not needed for the meeting tonight. This suggests the mayoral position can be eliminated when we have city administrator. Get it done and say goodbye to the lacrosse mayor.
walden
June 13, 2025 at 12:13 pm
All your comments are spot on excepting that you give the Council credit for being able make a single good decision in choosing who to hire and that the new administrator will then be able resist all the political nonsense and economic ignorance of the Council (not to mention the Administrator’s own agenda).
Somehow a professional administrator hireling is naively expected to have almost magical powers to make all things simple, truthful, transparent, direct and rational and always in the best interests of the taxpayers of La Crosse. That’s not the way it works (See La Crosse School District governance model and administration).
nick
June 13, 2025 at 8:48 am
Blah, blah, blah, talk, talk, talk.
This is what the city government does best; make decisions – the worst.
I have never heard once from anyone how a city administrator will save money.
Get rid of the mayor’s position if you have a city administrator. Why pay someone to be a pr person.
Spivey can go down in history as the last mayor.
walden
June 13, 2025 at 11:58 am
Information needed before an discussion can be meaningful:
A detailed job descripition of the City Administrator position.
The budgeted pay and benefit package, including auto, pension, etc so taxpayers can get an idea of the “all-in” cost.
Residency requirements for the Administrator. No BS like the former County Admin who lived in Minneapolis while drawing a paycheck from La Crosse County.
Administrator contract provisions; Mr. Padesky said there would be no contract. ??
Once the public is provided with this information a discussion can take place. The fact that a survey has already been circulated before any of this information is supplied just shows how inept this process can become and may result in a “bad hire.”
There should be a referendum on this matter timed to a general election so the turnout is not manipulated. Carefully crafted referendum language could place legal limits on the process consistent with the public’s understanding of the Administrator position.