Village Board - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. Good. All right. Welcome to the village of cottage girl village board of trustees meeting on Monday, June 1st, 2026. This is a hybrid meeting taking place virtually and zoom with the link at the top of the agenda and also in person at village hall. And then it's also streamed on our YouTube channel. It's 6 30. So I'll call the meeting to order. We have a quorum and the agenda was properly posted. So we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance. United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, this is the public appearances, public's opportunity to speak. We'll start with individuals in the room, which we have none. So if there's anyone on Zoom that would be interested in speaking, you can hover over the react button and use the raise hand feature. to let us know and we can unmute you so we'll just pause to see if there's anyone online all right moving on we're going to discuss and consider the minutes of the village board meeting from may 18 2026 with those meeting minutes linked in the agenda i would move approval of the minutes And I'll second. Motion by Severson, second by Murphy, kicking us off tonight. Any other discussion or comments on the meeting minutes? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Unfinished business, we have discussed and consider ordinance 12-2026, the building permit fee waiver. We'll let Rick take this one.

So at the last meeting there was a direction to allow the Village President to waive building permit fees for, I guess, repairs and reconstruction of damaged buildings after major storm events. So this is just putting into ordinance that sort of emergency authority for the Village President for a period of 60 days following any major storm event.

Comments or questions on this ordinance?

I'll move approval of ordinance 12-2026 as presented.

Second. All right. Motion by Erlandson, second by Severson. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? I'll abstain.

Thanks.

Motion carries. We have discussed and considered agreement for services with grave regarding the village comprehensive plan update. We do have a representative online for questions. Otherwise, I'll turn it over to legal on this one too.

So Grave presented us with their standard contract for performing the comprehensive plan update. We had a chance to review it. No special concerns or anything. It was all fairly standard. So not really anything that we felt a need to have any serious pushback on. So we believe that the agreement is approvable as presented.

Any comments or questions?

There was an area where it mentioned being at a public event to marketplace days to show the project plans. But the next marketplace days will be after the June 30, 2027 date. So do we need to come up with a different public

I mean, it could be community night out or whatever works with our schedule.

Yeah, but it'll have to be before June 30th, correct?

For?

For public feedback.

I guess it depends what kind of feedback we're looking for, if we're asking people to react to something they've already

started working on then it could be a little bit later if it's something up front and we would need an event that's sooner it's under item um g under number two engagement in meetings where it talks about a community event um with the interactive exhibits so Just wanted to kind of point that out that.

Yeah, so I believe the June 30th date is for creating a public engagement plan. So typically the comprehensive plan, there's not like set notice requirements. You have to sort of create your own public engagement process. So if I'm reading the sort of like scope of work here, by June 30th there's a public engagement plan that we have to, um, basically approve. And then the community event can happen anytime sort of after that.

Yep. And Doug does have his hand up. I don't know if he can provide clarification.

Yes. Thank you. And good evening. Uh, Doug Seymour with, with grave, uh, you're, you're absolutely right. I mean, the data is in the scope and schedule. I mean, we can adjust that as necessary. Uh, just, uh, it's our commitment is to work with you to find the appropriate date, the appropriate event. to make that happen.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Other comments from board members?

If there are no other comments, then I would make the motion to approve the agreement with services with Grafe regarding village comprehensive plan update as presented.

I'll second that.

Motion by Murphy, second by JP. Any other comments? All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Thank you. We have new business. Discuss and consider proclamation designating July as Parks and Recreation Month.

So, yep, something that we ask every year for July as it's right smack dab in the middle of summer. Kind of like people that put a little bit more emphasis on the social and all the benefits of our open green spaces. So I'd like the board to consider making July Parks and Recreation Month in the village.

I would move approval of the proclamation designated in July as Parks and Recreation Month as presented.

I'll second.

All right, motion by Murphy, second by Erlandson. Any other discussion on July? All right, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Discuss and consider Resolution 2026-11, commemoration of Juneteenth. This is something we've done the last couple of years, and then on June 19th, we also have the flag that gets flown at our municipal buildings.

I would move approval of resolution 2026-11 regarding Juneteenth.

I'll second the motion. Motion by Severson, second by Buenzo. Any other discussion on this resolution? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. We've discussed and considered Resolution 2026-12, recognition of LGBTQI Plus Pride Month. Again, similar, we've done this the last handful of years and also have the pride flag flying at our municipal buildings.

I would move approval of Resolution 2026-12 regarding recognition of LGBTQI Plus Pride Month.

I'll second the motion. Motion by Severson, second by Buenzo again. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. We have discussed and considered a special event permit for the Badger Challenge. And that's linked in the agenda. I'll let Lisa talk about that.

Thank you. It is pretty straightforward. The application has been vetted by all of the departments, and you saw the comments that were presented in there, and there was nothing of concern by anyone.

I think we've had this event a couple of times previously. I make the motion to approve the special event permit for Badger Challenge as presented.

I'll second that.

Hand it over. We have motion by Murphy, second by JP for this one.

Just one question. It said units will be dropped by on-site by Stranders Portables and picked up. Do we know where that is? Where that's planned typically?

That's going to be on the, was it the further page of the map, Clark Street? On the Clark Street. So that's going to be the rest stop for this.

So all four units are in the one spot?

Yep.

Okay, got it. Thank you.

Excuse me, they'll be doing whatever staging out of the Lion Shelter parking lot too, so they're not going to be taking up a lot of cells.

Motion and a second. Any other discussion or questions? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Discuss and consider alcohol beverage license applications for this year. Lisa.

All right. The list is linked into the agenda. They all have had their background checks and their compliance checks by the police department. I would say the only thing noted on here this year is that Grace Coffee is back on the list. They submitted an application, so that has been vetted as well, and so it's pretty much the same as it has been for the last couple of years. Any questions on this list?

How many extra, extra remaining licenses do we have right now? When you say extra... Well, you know we only have so many to...

Right.

Hand out. How many have we not handed out yet?

So we have two different buckets, and that's where it gets confusing with alcohol licenses. So we have our normal licenses from when the law changed in 1997, and then we have our above quota, so our reserve for every 500 population, we gain another license. Don't quote me, but I will send you the information, but I believe we have nine or 10.

I would move approval of the alcohol beverage license applications for licensing year July 2026 to June 2027 for the list attached in the packet.

I'll second the motion.

Motion by Murphy, second by Buenzo. Any other discussion on the liquor license applications? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain?

I abstain.

Motion carries. We have discuss and consider the cigarette, tobacco, and electronic vaping device retail license applications with a similar list.

Yes, nothing new here. It's the same establishments we've had for the last several years. Again, they all have been vetted through the PD, and we have no issues at this time.

Comments or questions on this?

I would move approval of the cigarette, tobacco, and electronic vaping device retail licensing applications for the year July 2026 to June 2027 for the attached list.

Second. Motion by Murphy, second by Severson. Any other comments? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. All right, we have... We're on G now. Discuss and consider a potential offer to purchase about one acre of the village property located in the Coyle Highlands second addition. Option to go into closed session at the end of the meeting for this. And I'll turn it over to Rick again.

So just a little background. Alliant has been looking for a location for another substation within the village for the last several years. Basically, they have two substations serving the village, at least what they've told us, one on the north side, one on the south side. And they have sort of this donut hole in the center of the village where if one of the substations goes down, the other one isn't able to service the rest of the village. So they're looking to place one in a central location. So they've been trying to find a spot for the last few years. They are interested in an outlot that the village owns. So it's a large outlot, but they're interested in just a one-acre portion of it that is directly behind the Piggly Wiggly. They are still trying to work out easements for how they would get access to the property, but they have submitted an offer to purchase to the village for that small section of the outlot. Provided you all some additional information or consideration, but we could potentially go into closed session to discuss further about the village's negotiation position or strategy if it's interested in selling the property. So there's a potential for a closed session towards the end of the agenda.

Do we have someone from Alliance online to answer questions? Okay, because I have a whole bunch of questions for an Alliance person.

We can certainly forward questions to a line to get more information and bring it back. But we can discuss more in closed session, I suppose.

Um, Rick, you said that they're still working out easements. So like the, the second attachment with the picture where they have, uh, but West, I assume that's West of the post office looks like, is that the just like just one proposed, do you think, or they need more that and something else that they haven't figured out yet?

I don't know the answer to that. I mean, basically, like this property is landlocked. So the that what looks like a street that goes between some are the lake, the Lake Ridge Bank and like those senior apartments, that's not actually a public street that's private. So they have to get an easement over all of that to like actually access the property. So they have to work through those easement issues to actually make this site viable.

Yeah, so this exhibit B they attached is on the other side, it's down past the post office. Is that exhibit B and the actual site for the substation, is that what's currently in this offer?

The offer does not include any of the easements, so it would just be for the portion of the property. Okay.

Didn't we talk previously about reconfiguring the Piggly Wiggly parking lot and making an entrance there for them? Did they talk about that at all?

Again, this is a few years ago. The thinking was they were going to basically improve that private sort of road access point, bring it up to village road standards, and dedicate it to the village. So they were going to acquire the property and give it to the village. That has not been part of any of the discussions.

Well, I guess I don't, I'm not sure what to do, because I have a bunch of questions that I'd like answered before we vote on it, so I don't know if it's, if I, and I would like the public to hear the questions, so I don't know if I just ask them or provide them to you guys or how we go about this, but I think there's some concerns that I have and I want to be able to ask.

Is it about the offer to purchase?

Well, it's about particularly that location and, you know, some of the things that, you know, the environmental protections and things of that nature that come with that parcel because it's a park open space zoning. And so I don't know who's best to ask those things to as well as, you know, security, fencing, lighting, all those things because it is close to that senior apartment complex. So...

So it might be, I mean, you can certainly ask any questions, like make your questions public if you'd like. Any questions that you have, we can certainly forward on to Alliant. We haven't had a whole lot of, I haven't had a lot of contact with them about this. It was more or less just bringing it here for direction.

And I would say, too, a lot of those questions would be answered during, they would still have to come and get zoning and site plan applications and things like that, so... those would happen at plan commission and the board at later stages. So really it's their risk buying the, they buy the property and can't use it in that case.

I guess my question, now that I think about it, might be for a full session, so.

I guess another is for staff, maybe. Were there other locations that they were looking at recently? Because this hasn't been on our docket over the last year until the April 6th meeting. It seems like it's coming kind of out of nowhere. So did they even look at different other sites in the village?

I think they've looked at all sorts of sites in the village, out of the village. And it's kind of been on and off talked about for three or four years or so.

I guess I'm just gonna go on record and say I'm not comfortable voting on this and approving this until we have some of those environmental questions answered since that's in that kind of Thaden Park Conservancy area. What happens if Transformer oil leaks? How do we mitigate that? Lots of those kind of sustainability questions I have, so my preference would be to get those on the front end.

Yeah, we can certainly ask them about sort of the security or environmental mitigation strategies that they have for their substations. I don't know how much that is proprietary information. And as Matt mentioned, they would have to go through the zoning approval process. It does get slightly complicated because they are an electric utility. So they have some pretty powerful tools at their disposal.

Any other comments for open session? Is there enough interest to go into closed session? I guess is the other question.

I just had another question too. Is it residential? Is it commercial? Is it industrial? Is it a combination of all of the above?

The substation that they're proposing?

Mm-hmm.

I don't know the difference between the types of substations that they would be designing or how they go about making their design decisions. But we can certainly ask if there's any, how this would compare to the other substations that are serving the village.

Because for zoning, and I know there's been talk of a data center and that would be pertinent to know What what the future plan is if it's going to be residential commercial industrial where it's where it's headed My questions about the contract specifically some might be more appropriate for a closed session, all right So yes for a closed session Anything else for open session on this item?

All right Then we're going to move on to discuss and consider rotating roll call voting names. Trustee Bueno.

So you all can read, but essentially this is the only governmental position or board that I've been involved in or noted that the village president has not been amendable to alternating roll call. So I put in to a memo rationale why. So I don't need to read that out loud, but you all can read that. If you have any questions, happy to answer them.

Chris, go ahead.

Yeah, just reading through this, I guess I don't really see, like looking through these four reasons for doing it. The first two talk about establishing tone of discussion and influencing votes before deliberation, but voting comes after deliberation, so those two don't make any sense to me. Discouraging independent consideration of complex issues, we have a few days plus discussion to consider those issues. And creating the appearance of unequal participation doesn't really make sense to me either, because everybody votes one vote equally, so I guess I don't really, see the utility in discussing this. I mean, looking at Robert Searle's 4548, it does lay out, excuse me, that roll call is alphabetical, so. I don't really see this as an urgent issue that we need to discuss.

well, I wouldn't say it's urgent, but certainly something to consider. And Robert's rule of orders doesn't say that alphabetical has to be the only way to do roll call. So it would be nice not to have that initial, and not that my vote is going to be influenced by other individuals, but certainly I, have noted there are different tones and maybe some of that could be mitigated by alternating roll call.

I just have a question for Rick. Do you see rotating roll calls in other municipalities? I know some might go by seat order, that sort of thing.

I don't know if there's a consistent pattern. I'll be talking a little bit about parliamentary procedure tonight. Some communities create their own rules of procedure for how they operate. Some all say they follow Robert's rules, and they don't technically follow Robert's rules on a lot of things. But as far as a consistency, I see it done everywhere. There's no like majority. I don't think it's either alphabetical or sort of the clerk just has a randomizer for doing a roll call votes. Um, so I don't think there's a consistent, um, pattern.

Lisa, didn't you have a little card? Like when I first started on the board that you use?

Yeah. Um, didn't we rotate that when I first started on back on the board or no, I don't remember.

I've been following the, or just doing the Robert's rules of alphabetical for the last year.

Okay. Okay. But I mean, we have the capability to, to move.

It just goes back to, um, not trying to turn up the heat of this conversation, but when I have brought forward, um, um, different agenda items, they seem to follow a consistent pattern of being, um, pushed back against by the president and some other members. So I was hoping that this could maybe alternate the tone a bit.

So, I mean, but this is talking about voting specifically roll call voting. So it has nothing to do with inhibiting any type of discussion or

I didn't say that. I said this has to do with just me even bringing up an agenda item. There's pushback.

I guess the first bullet point here is it creates undue pressure to establish the tone of discussion. But the agenda item is for roll call voting.

Well, and that's your interpretation. So I mean, respectfully, that's fine. if that's how you view it.

So, Renee, I'm trying to understand your position a little bit. So can you explain for me why you think there is kind of pushback on, like, you mentioned specifically getting an agenda item on, while we've had the process, at least based on the orientation, that you can connect with any of the village board members and get a second and then it gets put onto the agenda. So can you explain what you mean by that?

Yes, maybe I should clarify. When I have brought specific agenda items to be discussed by the board, there seems to be a very, if you will, line in the sand on dissonance between certain board members.

OK. I think I understand where you're coming from there, but then can you explain then how that pertains to a roll call vote, where a roll call vote happens after discussion. And then it's how we kind of vote in there. I don't see the connection between those two parts.

And you may not. That's fine. The problem is that we're even having a discussion about something so silly is that there are, just as Rick explained, there are many different boards. It's not set in the stone that we have to do it this way. It appears that because I brought it up that there is pushback that, nope, we're only going to do it this way.

I hope my questions are not coming off as pushback. I'm seeking to understand what your position is, because I'm failing to see a link between what you just said and the actual agenda item, which is roll calls.

So to switch up roll call is common practice amongst many boards. Does that answer your question? So me asking for that to exist within this board? And I feel like we're really splitting hairs over something so silly.

Go ahead, Heidi.

Thanks. I've been a part of boards that do both ways. So I'm fairly indifferent about it. I think it'd be a great thing we could establish in the handbook that we talked about at the other meeting, kind of zoning in on how we collectively feel like meetings should be run in the decorum and all of these types of procedures. So I'd be open to that. Either way, I've been part of boards that are done both ways.

Thank you, Heidi, for at least considering, and that was my hope, that there would at least be some open discussion of considering that it doesn't have to only be one way, that maybe there's another process that we can look at.

And I seconded this just because I know when you're the leadoff batter every single time that sometimes you get frazzled or that puts you on the spot. So I'd be open to whatever method this board seems interested in, whether it be a seating arrangement or just rotating it. I think that Renee is obviously the one in the leadoff position for this agenda item. So I think as a consideration,

It would be nice to be able to it's a small ask Propose we could try the rotation and if we want to refine it or go back to alphabetical or some other way in the handbook that we're putting together maybe just for until we or we can keep going and then decide if we want to change it in the handbook. Is that a motion? You said you propose. I would second that if that's here to rotate until we have the handbook and then decide which way we want to go. I'm sure I would make that motion. Second.

All right. There's a motion by Murphy and a second by Severson. Any other discussion or questions on this agenda item? I guess I do have some concern about the appearance of unequal participation and the, um, you know, some of the things that you brought up in here make me, I mean, our votes are vote. They're independent votes. They shouldn't be there to manipulate other people or anything like that.

So I, um, I didn't say that was to manipulate anybody. Those were your words.

It does say influence subsequent votes, so I generally think this is, to be honest, a waste of our time.

I'm not surprised, but thank you for listening.

That's a pretty rude comment, so okay. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed? No.

Nay.

Motion fails. All right. We're going to move on to reports from village boards, commissions and committees. The library board is up first and JP.

Okay. For the library board, of course, my computer decided not to flip over, but give me a second here. So in there, so one of the things the first things we saw on there was Appointments so discussion that so I'll admit on the agenda. There was a little confusion between what's anyone wanted in Kind of appointment process and didn't get it Adjusted in time when the agenda was posted. So we've had a discussion why that was and talked through what the Kind of talk through how the appointments set up we welcomed our new member Sarah and then We talked through the library board facility subcommittee. That's kind of been inactive and not used in over a year since the referendum kind of passed. So we voted to kind of cancel that subcommittee knowing that we always can bring it back if something ever arises or a need in there. We discussed our programming, kind of where we are, initial discussions about fall programming, approved our vouchers in there, and then talked about kind of future agenda items in there, in particular with the MLU for McFarland Library coming down the pipeline for fall programming.

Comments or questions for JP?

I have a question on the expense report for the library. If you can explain what the kiddos counseling LLC, what that is?

Yes, that was the continuation of the screen time mental health as part of the Mindful Minds event. So that one was for the speaker, which was a split cost between us and the library. It's a school district in there to cover that and bring it in for our presentation that ended up getting pushed to May.

So was that like a one-time presentation that you did that with the school?

Yes, it was a one-time presentation, but we also did record it and it's available on YouTube. Really talk about safe screen habits and some strategies for parents. We had... I have to go back and look, but I think we had close to 50 attendees in there. I can look at the tracker to confirm that, but I'm getting a number of attendees, and then I did look a bit ago at the views, the streaming views, and there was quite a few in there as well.

So what was the number of streaming views?

I would have to look it up to confirm, but when I looked, it was definitely in the teens, and that was a week after we published that out.

So in the teens. Okay. And so I guess the consulting for $1,000, is that like standard in the industry? That just seems like a high, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know what the industry standard is for that.

Yeah, so for many of our presentations, our large presentations in there, that seems to be roughly the amount. It depends on the expertise. So with screen time events, those sometimes are in higher demand in there. But at the same time, that shows that we've had high attendance through all those events through here. And again, this whole series was part of a big grant we got through the International Brain Research Organization and through lots of community sponsors in there.

Yeah, it's an important event. I'm just curious if you had numbers in the teens. So is this going to be like offered once a year or how often will you be offering this?

So this is a one time event that we did as part of the mindful minds week in the grants that we did in there.

Okay. And in the Alpha Graphics in February, $4,000, is that for, like, can you explain, is that for... Sure.

The Alpha Graphics was part of the mailer that we did to, again, help reintroduce all the different new programs that we were doing in there. So that went to all village residents. That was approved way back in... November ish in there and so we use some library carryover funds actually and other sources for that.

Thank you for explaining.

Any other questions for the library board. Otherwise we can move on to dear growth EMS Commission which we do have a discussing consider with the option to go into closed session for the item to turn it over to Casey for a review of your growth.

Sure. We met on Thursday, May 21st at 6.30 at the ESB. We approved the minutes from the previous and then moved up item 13 to nominate and approve Carrie Hewitt as the new chair for going forward now. We went through the April financial reports. and then the bills for budget and improved expenses and write-offs and aging of accounts. Things to note there, while there were some questions about more accounts going into the last category of aging, the over 180 days, the reason for that from staff was mostly due to there's still technically a partial federal government shutdown, so there's a lot of Medicare and Medicaid delays and things like that. Let's see, there wasn't any correspondence. We had staff report from Chief Lang. And then we discussed and considered the policy for service animals for EMS as a service. So this was not a building policy for the whole ESB, but was for EMS as a service and their vehicles and so on. and that led to the discuss and consider that we have here for the village board. And then subsequent for that, we did, so after approving that policy, we then did also grant permission to Chief Lang to have a facility animal. So that's not specific to him, that's for the EMS service. And then we also, Discuss the amendments that are attached to the IGA. That's part of the discussing consider here I'm sorry. I'd said the service animal one is we decided to not do that my mistake. We went back and forth on that Sorry, the only discussing consider is about the IGA part not about the service animal part And Went into closed session on regarding a negotiation and did not take any specific action outside of that closed session. And yeah, I believe that's all. Am I missing anything important, Cindy?

I don't think so. Okay. We do have Chief Lang, if you want to jump in with any other updates you want us to cover here, and then we can move on to the discuss and consider.

No other updates, just that with regard to the uh service dog stuff that casey mentioned it's working with the village town fire department and all other parties to get a facility policy for the esb and we'll bring that back to the fire committee meeting and eventually you'll see it back at the board here to be approved

So then we do have Discuss and Consider Resolution 2026-120521, which is an amendment to the Deer Grove IGA. So Chief, do you wanna present this in more detail? Otherwise I can turn it over to Rick and he can kind of talk about it. Rick, why don't you go ahead?

Sure. I'll go first. So obviously the commission had some recommendations for the changes to the IGA. We just took a look at it. If this is the policy direction the board wants to go, is there some changes we would recommend? So one just dealt with basically if If there's a potential legal issue that's going to involve litigation or it's a very sensitive topic where the commission would be required to go into closed session to discuss it, they can't really go into closed session to discuss an item if their attorney isn't there if it involves litigation. We wanted to give flexibility, so we suggested a revision that just gives flexibility for if a commissioner has a concern like that, they pass it on to the commission chair or Chief Lang, who can then pass it on to the legal counsel without going to the commission for direction. Some of it. Interesting spot just for us as the village attorney, because we don't represent the commission. They have their own attorney. But if this is the policy direction, I guess, that the village wants to go, this framework at least avoids that situation where you're having to potentially discuss sensitive legal topics without the ability to go into closed session. Because again, you can go into closed session for potential litigation, but your attorney actually has to be present there. So I wanted to at least provide that flexibility. I believe someone from the town ask just that as an additional change to have, if that is done, that notice goes out to the other commissioners just so they're aware that it has been passed on to legal counsel. I don't think that would be, you know, from my standpoint, I don't have any legal concerns with adding that. It's just as long as it's a BCC kind of information only.

Yeah, I think I had made the suggestion to add any request shall be distributed to all commission members concurrently with the submission of the request.

question. Um, the 2.02 K creates job descriptions that will be updated from time to time. Why was in the commission handbook and reviewed annually by the commission struck? I might have missed that.

We don't know that we actually have a handbook or where it had gone throughout the course of years if there ever was one.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Um, that's the reason for that. Yeah, it was pretty simple.

Yeah, and just a comment on the second piece. My preference would be that we handle it like we handle our board and how our board can reach out to our village attorneys at any point if we have questions, issues, concerns. This takes a little bit more power away from Cindy and Casey as our two village trustees to be able to ask questions on village issues and I know there were times when I was on the commission that I would look to our village attorney for guidance and they're kind of like, They would help, but it's another expense that then we're covering when it really should be an EMS expense. And I think with the power dynamic of three municipalities sitting at the table, what I found over the last year is there are times where it's the town and the village of Deerfield against Cottage Grove's interests. And so I think... I don't want to give up more authority. I want our two EMS commissioners to be able to contact the EMS attorney at any time. So I don't like this provision. So because of that, I'll be voting no.

I can just provide a little bit of history, too. This language was specifically bargained for... by the village board about 12 to 15 years ago in that time frame. Due to at least a perception that the Deer Grove attorney wasn't being utilized enough per at least the village board's opinion at that time. And they wanted to give opportunities for any commissioner from any of the municipalities an opportunity to raise a legal issue. And they put a threshold of two hours on it. So another path you guys could discuss is reducing that threshold too, or the ceiling. You could lower that or something like that too. But that's just kind of some of the history.

Well, I think just going back to the history of it, I think, again, the concern is if our two village trustees are wanting something that's in the best interest of the village and they don't have the ability, so they say bring it to the full commission and they vote whether or not to forward it, We're probably going to get outvoted by the other two municipalities And I feel like this is just a way for us to lose more power and as the major Municipal contributor to EMS and the biggest user that brings in run fees You know we we don't have equal power to that which is very unfortunate

I would say I see both sides of this. If you're talking you can utilize legal counsel not to exceed two hours for a specific question, but if you have members going to legal counsel multiple times a week on multiple questions and you're starting to get to a lot of hours, I could see that being problematic. So yeah, I can see the two hour limitation for a specific question, but it's, I think I, I definitely see the need for some maybe modifications, but, um, yeah, cutting it off altogether. Maybe not, but also we have our own legal counsel that can help us best represent the village of cottage Grove, which is different than representing. Deer Grove EMS as an entity. So how we're best, like Deer Grove EMS isn't looking out for the village of Cottage Grove. They're looking out for Deer Grove EMS. So there's kind of difference in how the questions are.

And just to clarify, some of the arguments that the board made way back then wasn't just in the village thinking of the village's best interest, but they were just, things would come up that they would be curious on making sure that the attorney was, the Deer Grove attorney was providing an opinion on behalf of the district that they didn't think was being provided. So they were concerned that the other partners were not hearing from legal representation either, and they wanted a more informed commission.

And I think these changes, I mean, the intent behind the changes is to really just communicate better with the entire commission and why we're using the legal service. And it might be a few more hurdles to jump through and might take a little bit longer, but then everyone's kind of in the know and aware of it. And I think that that's what the commission as a whole is interested in. Again, like, yeah, if we're talking about things that are going to impact the village, we can use, like, our legal. But if it's commission-centric... Having to go through the proper channels is just the way that, you know, the commission is hoping that. These changes set forth so.

And while I might be the chief of, it is also my job to make sure that each of the municipalities feel like. They're getting the service that they desire, so it's not like. I would do, I agree with the changes that you guys are proposing and to feel like they add value to the requested adjustments. We'll bring it back to the commission and bring a better IGA amendment back to you to vote on. From my perspective, if we were to ignore this discussion, it wouldn't make for a better district.

uh so going back to some words from a previous pea study what's good for the municipality is also good for the district and vice versa what's good for the district is also good for the municipalities yeah we're all in this together and we want to make a relationship that works and it's beneficial for everyone so i think um we have an option to go into a closed session on this or we don't have to is that kind of the deal

There is an option for a closed session. So we could utilize that if you feel that there's a need to discuss negotiation strategy, you wanna talk about different options for what language to propose or different frameworks. So you don't have to take action right now. You could go into closed session as a board and discuss it later in that closed session.

How does the board feel about Continuing an open session or deliberating and closed session.

I think it's fine to continue an open session.

So the proposed edits, the red, if you go into the agenda, I think it's the third attachment, is the commission edits to the IGA. And then the blue is what Rick suggested that we add. And then I had my suggestion based on a conversation with the town member to also add. Casey.

Yeah, I'll sort of echo some of what you said, Cindy, and some of what you said, Heidi. I think this helps delineate that the EMS commission is separate from the individual municipalities. And so the EMS attorney is who should be consulted for EMS commission issues. And if there is issues that an individual municipality has and wants to make sure that their interests are being looked out for, they should be utilizing their own attorneys who have their client duty to them. So I'm inclined to agree with them as presented.

Any other comments? Just a question for Rick. Rick, do you have much contact with Dan Barker?

I do not. Like I said before, my role is to represent the village. So if a question comes up about the EMS district or an issue affecting EMS, I can provide guidance in the form of how it affects the village, but not how it affects legal risk to the EMS district. So I'm happy to have conversations with their attorney, but it has to be authorized by the commission, basically.

Any other comments or questions? Otherwise, I think, can I make the motion? Does anyone mind? Because I have the sentence I wanted to add at the end of it. So I make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-12-0521, amendments to the Deer Grove Medical Emergency Services District Intergovernmental Agreement. to include the suggested changes by the commission, by the village legal team, and then also the addition of a sentence stating any requests shall be distributed to all commission members concurrently with the submission of the request.

I will second.

Motion by Kel Nelson, second by Erlandson. Discussion on that motion?

I would just say that I understand from a commission standpoint what you all are saying. I guess I'm looking at it from a Village of Cottage Grove resident standpoint. And so I feel like we're giving a little bit too much power away to other municipalities. So I'm going to vote no.

I would like to say that I think Heidi and Paula, you both made some great comments and I agree too, um, that I see it from the commission standpoint, but it feels really siloed. So I will not be voting in favor. Okay.

Any other comments on the motion?

those i would add that i don't anticipate the town of cottage grove or the village of deerfield to vote on the other resolution and that we would bring this back at the commission level to re-approve uh what assuming that it does pass tonight to re-approve that and i've asked rick to summarize the things that he said at the beginning of the meeting so that we can include that in the packet so that the other commission members can understand the perspective of why the extra words were needed.

And Eric, I'm happy to write a memo for your packet to kind of explain the position if it passes. All right. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. Abstain? Motion carries. All right. We will move on to the Law Enforcement Committee. Chris.

We met on Tuesday the 26th at 5.30 in Village Hall. We didn't have any public appearances. Approved the minutes. Got an update about the police department's construction. We had an emergency management update from Lieutenant. We had a citizen inquiry about flock sharing in which entities we share our flock data with which is included in the LEC packet if anyone is interested. We talked about the events that are now passed from May 30th and 31st that were going on because it was a busy weekend in the village. We also talked about updating a village ordinance 12.4 sub C sub 5 which is about auditing bills in the law enforcement committee which we've never done in my time on the committee, and it's something that's done at the village board level now, so it seems a bit pointless to have that in our code if we're not doing it. So we'll probably have that back at the village board at some point to strike that from the ordinances. And then we had chief's reports, and we adjourned.

Two questions. The update on emergency management activities. Is this going to be going to the emergency management committee and the municipal partners? Are we going to be meeting to get an update?

Lieutenant's back there. Um, the current direction had been to give quarterly updates at the LEC meeting on, uh, like the trainings and that kind of thing. Um, we still have yet to schedule, um, a committee meeting with the new committee. but that would probably be rolled into an agenda item on that too, I'm assuming.

Yeah, because it would be good to hear from the partner agencies what trainings they're doing and all of those things, and they weren't really mentioned at all during that. And I didn't catch the whole meeting, but it would be great if we could get an emergency management committee scheduled. And then second question is, like during Chief's Report or something, was there any update on the shots fired at Authentics?

We didn't have one, though. I can put it on the agenda for the next one.

Is it sensitive? Do you need to send an email?

Yeah, I mean, it's still an open investigation, so there's not a whole lot of details that can be spoken about anyway.

Could you pass on to Chief to maybe send a village board communication?

Will do. Thank you.

Let's talk about parks, recreation and forestry.

Thank you. We met on Thursday, May 28th here at Village Hall at 5 o'clock, and we had a presentation about a gaga ball pit that is going to be an Eagle Scout project at Fireman's Park. So Sean is working with a potential Eagle Scout. This will be his project to install in a... location that makes sense within the park I don't know if anybody's seen Gaga ball but it's a big it's a big deal with with the kiddos so my niece is pretty excited about it so we also talked with the Lindstrom property Developers that will be coming through the planning process As they continue to plan for their potential development and Talk about what kind of park space they're envisioning and get feedback from the committee on What kind of park space? we would I'd like to plan the committee gave direction for Sean to look at starting that process with our consultant using park development fund to kind of get a concept plan for that area so it could be incorporated in as the developments being built somewhat so it can be properly graded so we don't have to move a whole bunch of dirt later on. in the process. So I think it was good to get some feedback from the committee on that. We talked about the future use and dedication of the Thaden property outlot five and gave Sean some direction the committee did to look into how we might be able to designate that as kind of preserved open space and perhaps incorporate a plaque that talks about the Thaden family and the significance of That land so more will be coming on that as Shawn gathers that information Shady Grove Park update We are just past the substantial completion but because we had Josh our Superintendent out kind of inspecting things you notice that it the playground had settled and was not plum level So they were doing the contractors going back to repair the area that is not. up to where we need it to be. So that is falling a little bit behind due to that fix, but it's better that we catch it now and have the contractor fix it now than have it be not right later. So it's three to four weeks out on completion. The gazebo is three to four weeks out, but the playground should be ready to play on before that.

Yeah, we're hoping that the park is open this weekend. That's what we're shooting for.

And then Sean's report was attached, a bunch of summer stuff gearing up, the playground camp, there's going to be a new senior fitness class, all the shelters are open, and all the summer fun activities are underway in the parks. And that concludes our meeting on this. Sean, you have something to add, or if anyone has any questions?

You got it.

Any questions for Heidi?

And just a clarification, the Thaden natural area, that is the area that we're looking at behind Piggly Wiggly, right? That's all considered part of the Thaden natural area for the Alliant Energy substation? That's part of Thaden natural?

And the Outlot 5, which is kind of separate property.

Yes, Aaron, I think you can speak. I think that chunk is actually part of Thetan, but go ahead, Aaron.

It is, but I think this was focused more on that, outlawed by the residents.

Yeah, I just want to clarify, because there's Outlaw 5, and then there's the Thetan natural area. So, okay, thank you.

All right, any other questions for Parks? Otherwise, we can move on to landfill.

I can jump in since I took the meeting minutes. So again, I filled in for Heidi as alternate. We met on Thursday, May 28th at 6 p.m. in town hall. There were no public comments in there. We approved the meeting minutes. We also approved the landfill monitoring bills. We did review the latest gas monitoring data that we had through 2025. Results are in the agenda but also posted at the town for public viewing. We elected Steve Anders as chair and Heidi as secretary. We will be taking samples in July. So the updated samples, annual samples. And so there's a chance they may be available and we might have them for the next meeting on July 27th at 6 p.m. But they also might come up in the following meeting as well. So it all depends on how quickly those get turned around in there. And then we adjourned.

Questions on landfill? All right, how about Fire District?

Yes, so it was held on Thursday, May 28th at 6.30 and Town Hall. Quorum was determined and agenda was properly posted. There were no public appearances. The previous meeting minutes from April 27th were approved. Chief's report as of 5-20, the department was at 146 calls for service with the village in the lead with 33 non-emergency calls. Ladder 1 has a bad relief on the air brake system, new parts on order. Fire training in May is municipal water movement in the village. The officers toured Hay Day. The 95th annual Firemen's Festival will be held June 11th through 14th. Staff milestones included April Hammond and Lance Severson with 25 years. Kevin Laufenberg and Nick Archibald with 19 years. A review of a new member orientation packet for the new members and that will be completed annually for any new committee members. which includes all the contracts between the village and the town. It outlines the title and ownership of vehicles and equipment based on time of purchase and equalized value. Ownership of the emergency services building. Town owns 59% currently. Village owns 41%. Chief's explanation on the ISO requirements for the district. This was looked at. Since there was discussion about cost savings regarding joining, however, both the town and the village have agreed to not pursue that any further, which currently the ISO ratings are really good for our fire department. They're typically under four, which is excellent. Ladder four will be replaced in 2028. Discussed asset ownership, which is, Still, there was no vote taken on that. It's regarding the new fire prop that was purchased and paid for from $46,000 from the fire department directly and the rest came from a grant. The village attorneys both the town and the village reviewed, or the village attorneys, correct me if I got this incorrect, the village attorneys reviewed and recommended equalized value. When it comes to the special equipment, the town attorney recommended 50-50, so there's still maybe some unclear back and forth that's going to occur. And additionally, the town attorney wanted to key in on the Pleasant Springs funds, which also contribute to ownership. Discuss and consider approval of Deer Grove EMS Commission on policy for service animals. Motion to table. As there was a general consensus currently to allow Hans to enter the building until the policy is confirmed. Election of chair, commission and secretary for the next year will be Heidi Murphy will be the chair and Troy Eickhoff will be the secretary. And then the motion to adjourn was at 7.45. Any questions, concerns?

comments or questions for fire?

I guess I have a question because it wasn't clear to me after the discussion on the service dog, the consensus about allowing the service dog in place before the policies are made. So if somebody can clarify that for me, that would be great.

So the way the policy is presented right now, is what was agreed upon. Am I not answering your question?

So the policy as presented is 5.22. It's a Deer Grove EMS specific policy for facilities spaces and vehicles. But there is no, and we've talked kind of extensively, I think, about this. I know Chief and I have. There's no building policy. And so that building policy would need to be written and probably edited. I suggested having Inga also have eyes on it, too, because we want to make sure that we're doing due diligence for not only anyone who's going to be working there, but anyone public or village employee that might be going there too. So we just want to make sure that we're doing a good job creating a building facility policy. I think that would then funnel back through the fire commission and then come to the municipalities for final approval.

That makes sense. So I think that where I'm getting hung up is it wasn't an agenda item to allow the standby use and because there was not an up-down vote.

Also because I don't know if it's... It falls under the Fire Commission umbrella to approve that specific. So Deer Grove approved it, but there is no other approving entity at this time because there's no overarching policy to approve it.

Yeah, so that's why it's still like when there was consensus and they kind of said, yeah, go ahead, bring the dog. I was like, wait, but don't we have to get the building policy and the things like that seems kind of to usurp what they were trying to do.

Yeah, I'm just making sure we're somewhat careful about discussing this because it's not on our agenda. Basically, the village and town are joint owners of the building. So that is another layer of complication about these policies are effective for their individual agencies, but the town and village actually own the building and control the building. So I think that's probably a discussion for a future meeting.

No, I appreciate it. I was just kind of watching at home confused.

It's been a bit of a confusing topic. Going through multiple committees and then the ownership and all of those things. But I think the dog is allowed. The policy is past Deer Grove and now there's kind of working through just some logistics to kind of clean it up. And there's insurance policies and riders and all of those things that are also being kind of cleaned up too. So we should be in a good place pretty soon.

And I would add, I'm still working through the accommodation part to make sure that all of the departments, that there is no conflict with having the facility service animal in the building. He has not been there yet as we haven't worked through those consolidation or accommodation discussions yet.

Anything else for fire commission? Otherwise, we'll toss it back over to Rhett.

Just to clarify, this was the policy on service animals was on an updated agenda that came through. So I don't think it made into this packet, but then it was on the publicly posted updated agenda for fire commission. All right.

Should we toss it over to Rick for an overview of open meetings law and parliamentary procedures?

All right. Fun stuff. So I wanted to, again, just doing sort of refreshers on certain municipal topics that are Good for new members and for more experienced members just to be familiar with Wisconsin law and some meeting procedures. So first, just want to start out with open meetings. So as a governmental body, Wisconsin has what are called sunshine laws. So any meeting of a governmental body has to be publicly noticed and open to the public. So 24 hours public notice unless there's some sort of emergency, which is very rare. So we generally post in one public place in the village's website. That's what's required. So a governmental body, again, that's really any agency, board, commission, committee, anything that's created by a rule, order, or ordinance of the village or joint municipal bodies as well. So it's a very broad definition that would constitute any sort of governmental body. So again, if there's a meeting of that, of a governmental body, it has to be preceded by public notice. So what is a meeting? If one half or more of members of a governmental body are in the same location, that is rebuttably presumed to be a meeting for governmental purposes. There are some exceptions, like if it's a chance social gathering. So for instance, the Fireman's Festival. Probably a good chance that there will be a majority of people there from the board, but that's a social chance gathering. Just don't talk about village business. So generally, Wisconsin law has a two-part test to determine whether or not there's a meeting. So there's a meeting if the purpose is for discussing or deciding or information gathering regarding governmental business. And there are a number of members participating that is sufficient to determine the course of action for that body. Like I said, if there's a majority there, there's a presumption that there's a governmental meeting occurring. But for some things that the village takes action on, such as budget amendments, those require a two-thirds vote of the village board. So if we have, I believe it's three members in one location talking about a potential budget amendment, that's enough to influence the outcome of that item. So that would technically be an open meeting violation under the Wisconsin law because that's enough to determine the outcome. for a two-thirds vote but generally it's is there a majority of members present one thing to be concerned about or be aware of are walking quorums and that is basically if you know you're not all in one location together but one person starts talking to other board members and Basically, that one person talks to the rest of you or something like that just to get a sense of where everyone is at as far as a vote goes. That's what's called a walking quorum, and it's a violation of the open meetings law. So you can talk to basically two other members, but once you start going beyond that to try to get a sense of where the votes are at, that's where it creates an issue under the open meetings law. Written correspondence or email, that's another thing just to be aware of. So one-way communication for information purposes is generally okay, but as soon as we start to get competing emails or there's more of a discussion, That's where the Attorney General has opined that's likely an open meetings violation. So oftentimes, if we're communicating out information for the board prior to the meeting, it's going to be all the board members are BCC'd. And it's information only. We're not expecting any sort of response. Similar sort of concern with social media as well. Like if there's a post on social media and all the board members are commenting on it and it relates to Village Business, That's another potential open meeting violation. One of the things that's just interesting to deal with is it's a law that was written basically in the 80s or prior to the 80s. So it doesn't really account for changes in how technology has advanced since the 80s. But we just sort of have to work around a law that predates the internet, basically. As I think we've gone through a few closed sessions, but we are allowed to enter into closed session for certain topics. So that is for considering employment, promotion, discipline, deliberating or negotiating agreements or investing public funds or conferring with legal counsel who's rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy for litigation or likely litigation. So those are the most common ones I would say that the village board has used in the past. Try to use them sparingly. Any sort of contemplated closed session has to be noticed that way, but theoretically there can be a spontaneous closed session that we go into for. It's just the restriction there is if you go into closed session without notice, you cannot reconvene an open session and you cannot have another village board meeting for 12 hours after that so generally votes are taken in open session for closed session we try to get a consensus of where things are at and if the making that public would sort of undermine the negotiation position. That's where we don't vote in open session. But any sort of like agreements, any final agreements, once we get sort of our direction, we bring those back for final approval. So that's a brief overview of the open meetings law. I'll just talk a little bit about parliamentary procedure. So basically these are the rules of deliberation. They're intended to ensure fairness to everyone, make sure that there's equality among members and that there's an orderly process. The village by ordinance has adopted Robert's rules of order. I'd say that is 95% of communities in Wisconsin. Some have made their own rules of procedure. I will say in my experience, they are more of Robert's suggestions of parliamentary procedure because not everybody follows them. So really what it comes down to is, In the past, like the village has been not following Robert's rules to a T. I mean, that's just kind of the way it is with Robert's rules because it's meant for large deliberative bodies. So when you're dealing with a seven member board, it's just a little bit more difficult to translate that to smaller bodies. So not everything in Robert's rules, is necessarily applicable to smaller boards, but they provide a good guideline. And like I said, they are by ordinance what the village has adopted. So if there's ever a parliamentary question, that's what I guess the village attorney as the parliamentarian would be referring to as Robert's Rules. And we would be providing an opinion as what Robert's Rules says. But ultimately, it's the board that decides what rules it wants to implement. Our individual members raising points of order to enforce any sort of Robert's Rules that are brought up. So as far as rules of courtesy and decorum, generally one person at a time has the floor to speak. Every speaker should be recognized by the presiding officer first. So generally, we open up the discussion. Somebody raises their hand. Technically, under Robert's rules, you're supposed to stand, which is weird. So I don't think we've ever done that. But one person at a time has the floor. You have to be recognized first by the presiding officer. Generally, once a speaker has the floor, they aren't allowed to be interrupted. The only reason to interrupt a speaker is to make a point of privilege, like you can't hear, or point of order, such as you believe that there's some sort of inappropriate conduct or some violation that's occurring. There can also be like a point of information, which again, that's very formalistic of like, I have a question for you, will you yield the floor so I can ask your question? Again, very formalistic, but this is what Robert's rule says. And technically, comments are supposed to be addressed to the presiding officer and not individual members of the board, and no personal attacks are permitted during meetings or discussion or deliberation. So generally with motions, we've got a main motion, which is typically like your motion to approve. So you make a motion to approve something. Once it's seconded, that's when debate starts. Again, generally the village has just sort of open deliberation and then a motion comes eventually. If we wanted to follow Robert's rules to a T, it would be you bring the item up, there's a motion. And that's when discussion would start. So again, very formalistic and it's not necessarily consistent with how the village has handled things in the past. But again, that's just what the rules say. So with discussion, again, if we're speaking strictly what Robert's rule says for deliberation, speakers are allowed to speak twice and cannot speak a second time until everyone else has had a chance to speak. But again, that has not been historical practice of the village. It's been more of an open dialogue. But again, if somebody were to ask me what the opinion is of if we're enforcing Robert's rules, it would be you speak twice. So when discussion ends, the chair calls a vote, as you are all well experienced with now. Additional motions can be made. So your main motion is like your motion to approve. Secondary subsidiary motions, those are like motions to amend, motions to postpone, those things. Those get voted on first and take priority. Again, very formalistic and we just sort of take that as it comes. Voting is generally done by a voice vote. Roll call votes are typically only done if the results of the voice vote are inconclusive. And then when voting, again, Robert's Rules says that there's no right to explain your vote. That's what is considered for deliberation time. So when the vote is called, members are just generally supposed to vote. So that's what I have as far as open meetings and parliamentary procedure. Happy to answer any questions. As I mentioned, some communities do make their own rules because Robert's rules are very clunky sometimes. So if that's something the village board would be interested in as part of that packet or manual, we'd be happy to take a look at that. Some communities that I work with do have their own rules. Like I said, because Robert's rules isn't exactly a perfect translation to smaller bodies like this.

Go ahead, Paula. Back to open meetings. Yes. Let's talk about written communications. So can you identify a provision in the open meetings law that prohibits an elected official from writing a one-way memorandum that doesn't solicit responses?

So it wouldn't be one individual providing a memo isn't a violation. What the issue would be is if there's one memo and then there's another memo and then there's another memo and another memo. So if we get these competing memos that are submitted between board members that it's like a BCC or it goes in the packet, that's where there could be an open meeting violation as far as... Because then it's less one-way communication, and it's more of a deliberation through memo. So nothing specifically as far as that type of if it's just a one-way communication. But where it could get tricky is just if other board members then start responding to that in some manner.

And if it's informational only and doesn't advocate a position, does that change that?

It depends. So the attorney general has basically said, just using a physical meeting as an example, if you have a quorum of people that are attending a separate meeting and it's only for information gathering on a village board topic, that's still a meeting under the open meetings law because they're gathering information for something that is within the jurisdiction of the board. So information gathering itself could be an open meeting violation if there's enough people in one location that are all there, and it relates to village business. As far as direct communications on those types of things, that's where it does get a little bit more into a gray area, and we're relying on attorney general interpretations. in some case law, but generally what the open meetings manual says is if you have communications between board members and it's more, it turns more into a discussion, so there's, you know, you make a statement of something that relates to an agenda topic and then there's somebody else making another statement and somebody else is making another statement, that's where it likely falls into an area where there could be an open meetings violation.

Okay, so my follow-up question is then if I, as an elected official, can share, you know, write a letter to the editor or share on my Facebook page or any of that nature and any of these folks can read those, what's the difference between that and having a memo in a packet that's actually more transparent for the public and being on the official public record?

It's a great question, because I've given this some thought, too. That very same example of if I'm just making a Facebook post or writing a letter to the editor, what's the difference between that? I think one is more direct communication to your fellow board members versus one is more of a broader audience. So again, if we're talking about emails or memos that are being directed at the fellow board members, that's more of... If you get competing communications back and forth, that's where it turns into more of a discussion about the agenda item topic.

So in our instance as a board, I mean, we have to have our memos in, you know, by noon on a Thursday, right? For the following Monday. Like there's not an opportunity to understand that there's competing memos coming out there, right? Because we're all seeing the agenda at the same time. Isn't that correct?

Yes. I mean, there could be a situation where, let's say four members submit a memo all before the deadline. Then we've got four memos in the packet, and that's sort of like four people laying out their positions. So that's one potential issue, is if everybody has submitted a memo simultaneously.

Okay. Because I know in the Attorney General's guide on page 10, it talks about the Attorney General has long taken the position that such written communications generally do not constitute a convening of members for purposes of the open meetings laws. Right. And so as I think back to the five memos that I tried to write and have in village board packets that... that really it should be allowed as long as I'm not advocating a position.

Like I said, the issue is just if other people are also submitting memos. I would get concerned if we just sort of have an open Like every agenda topic, any board member can just submit any amount of memos they want. So let's just say five members submit a memo on an agenda topic and want it included in the packet. I think that would likely run afoul of the open meetings law because at that point, it's not necessarily, basically you all have communicated with one another what your position is gonna be and that's more of a direct communication. There's not like any sort of like specific statute or case law on it. We're just trying to interpret what the, again, what this sort of 1980s law would say on something like this.

So this in particular hasn't been litigated is what you're saying?

Not to my knowledge. Okay.

It probably should be.

But if you put your agenda language and you have a second, you can put memos in for your agenda topics.

That's generally been the practice, right? Yeah.

Anyone else have questions for Rick?

I guess I have a question. As we're putting together some kind of manual for us to consider if we wanted to adopt, would you help us gather the citations and things that we should put into this memo and guide staff if there's any legal advice we need. And maybe when we come back with the draft, we would, like these seem like good things in how we go about Robert's rules kind of in this format. Maybe that would be good to formalize in a handbook.

Yes, we can certainly do that if that's the will of the board. I mean, Robert's rules, like I said, it's archaic. And it's literally like a thousand page PDF, where it's all these different sample things and sort of hypothetical situations. So it's hard to synthesize that into something that's easy to follow, especially for smaller bodies. Like Wisconsin legislature, that's very formalistic. They have their own set of procedures, but it's somewhat similar to how Robert's Rules anticipates larger legislative bodies would act. So as far as this manual, we could certainly add summaries of Robert's Rules to the manual, assuming that's the direction the board wants to go.

Great, thanks. No, weren't you a published author last year on this topic?

I wrote an article on social media and First Amendment issues.

Yeah, I remember that, in the Municipality Magazine. Yes. I was actually waiting for Heidi to plug it tonight, but maybe that comes later. All right. We can, let's move on to Village Administrator Reports.

Yes, just a note in the report, the Newman development that's been talked about as Lindstrom Acres, when they submitted their plat, they called it Kosh Valley, and they've since amended to Juniper Fields. So anyway, you can disregard Kosh Valley in there, and We'll probably tie Lindstrom Acres to it for another month or so before we remove that name. But Juniper Fields is what I think we'll hear going forward. As far as staff service anniversaries, leading the way in June is Detective Brian Carter with 15 years of service. And I did want to add on a little bit to what Heidi was mentioning about superintendent, park superintendent Josh Bennett. There were actually several different deficiencies that he was able to find in the construction, things that would not have been a cost to the village that definitely was gonna land on the contractor. but also would have certainly created delays and it wouldn't have been open a week from now. So that attention to detail is very much appreciated and just wanted to highlight that some more. But happy to take questions on anything from the report or tracker.

Questions for Matt? All right, thanks. Communications and miscellaneous business, consider the approval of vouchers with the bills list.

I would move approval of the vouchers as presented.

I have a quick question. Can we get a second first? Sorry.

Second motion by Murphy, second by Severson.

Go ahead, Renee. Can you explain what the gin chocolate and bottle rockets are?

So that's a musical group for Music in the Grove that Kevin Laufenberg is sponsoring for Fireman's Fest, Thursday night of Fireman's Fest in the tent.

Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions on the bills list? Otherwise, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Correspondence? Anyone have anything? All right. Upcoming community events?

Do it. Say it.

Well, it's too late to, is it too late to order your hat to trash shirt?

I ordered a couple extra.

Okay. Okay, well, you can still register for Hot Shred. The Fireman's Festival is obviously coming up. They're doing some neat different things. For instance, Thursday night, the Cottage Grove PTO is taking part in Youth Night as a fundraiser for them. You know, there's the standard... race in the morning, the parade. So lots of different activities to get involved with and the funds raised go to support the fire department.

I feel like there's nothing else for the month of June. Except there is one thing on Thursday, I guess. JP, go ahead.

Well, there's two things on Thursday. So Thursday at Taylor, so at the end of school, the College of Girls Schools and Family Organization is having kind of a celebratory event. I was not prepared for that one. Oh, sorry.

So Thursday, this Thursday, June 4th from 5 to 7 is kind of an all-community picnic. So everyone's invited, neighborhood, surrounding community, everyone who maybe went to Taylor Prairie, lives by Taylor Prairie, lives in Cottage Grove, is invited to come out for a hot dog and some mingling with former and current teachers and kind of a farewell for now.

celebration and there's a community art project going on as well which is super awesome and so we invite everyone to come out and participate in that and then the other event I was going to plug was the jumpstart to summer reading so as part of the library every year after the school has school years ended and partnership with the Friends of the Cottage Grove Library the library board Puts on this jumpstart to summer reading. That's gonna happen on Friday, June 19th from 10 to 12.

At GRS.

At GRS, yep. With the Novel Motion Circus is gonna be coming, being the headline event for that one.

Does your summer reading program give away Pizza Hut personal pan pizzas?

Unfortunately, no.

It's a core childhood memory.

Okay. No, I hear you on that. I still have that memory as well. But I will say we do have a summer reading program that's going to be going and Monica's got so many different prizes and events and activities that I think if kids do attend, they're going to get quite a bit of things out of it.

You just have to make your own pizza.

Yep. Is the Motion Circus, is that the thing with the, I can't remember what it's called, but the giant, what is it called? Fill me in.

I don't remember the name, but yes, it's that giant well where you can be in there, you can kind of roll around in there, and it's all age appropriate in there, and there's a bunch of different events in there. So we've had them here in the village before and some other events, and it was well intended and well enjoyed, so we're excited to have them back again.

Turns out there are things aside from the festival and the hot strap that happened. All right. Future agenda items. We have the handbook draft for feedback that maybe we'll come back at the next meeting if there's a draft ready for us to give feedback on. I have been in discussion with the town about perhaps moving the cadence of landfill to an annual meeting or coming up with another way of handling the issues in that committee meeting to kind of reduce the need for posting and having those meetings every other month. And then also a lease agreement with the ESB for the tenants of the ESB. And so those are just in draft form right now, but perhaps we'll come back at the next meeting for June. Other agenda items for next meeting?

Cameron and I, as far as kind of ongoing orientation, we're working on a TIF-related presentation for the board. So we hope it's ready for next time, but we'll see what happens. In an ideal world, the draft handbook and the presentation would both be here, but the meeting's kind of come around quickly before we'll know it. We'll be putting together the packet, and so we'll see what we can do, but we'll be working on both of those.

All right, so we do have... One closed session then to negotiate established terms for a potential offer to purchase about one acre of village property located in the Coyle Highlands second edition that was described when we had the discussion earlier in 7G. So make the motion that the village of Cottage Grove Village Board enter into closed session pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 19.85 , deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Erlandson, second. Roll call vote, please.

Penzo? Aye. Erlandson? Aye. Kell Nelson? Aye. Murphy? Aye. Severson? Aye. Stoa? Yes. Villavicencio?

Aye.