Village Board - Regular Meeting

recording in progress test i think we're good all right all right welcome to the village this is a hybrid meeting taking place both virtually on zoom with the link at the top of the agenda and in person at village hall and then you can watch now or later 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. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the 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, we're gonna move on to number four, which is our public appearances, public's opportunity to speak. We ask that you state your name, your address, and limit your comments to no more than three minutes. We'll start with individuals who have filled out a wish to speak form and are present at today's meeting. We'll move to anyone who's online, wishes to speak. You can move your mouse over the react button and use the raise hand feature so that we can unmute you. And then we do have one other form. So we'll start with Christopher Tesler. Oh, and can you also use the little microphone guy and press the button and it'll turn red?

Okay. There you go. I had to hold it in the whole time. First, yeah, Christopher Tisler, 1010 Damascus Trail, Cottage Grove here in town. Just wanted to say a few words regarding the agenda item for tonight that Paul and Renee will be presenting under new business, second egress thoroughfare for West Lawn Damascus Trail subdivision. I live right in the middle of this topic at 1010 Damascus Trail, as I mentioned, one house from the intersection of Damascus and Morning Dove. When I first moved in, I expected construction traffic since it was a new development, but well over 10 years later, I did not. By my rough estimate, it appears about 200 properties are currently fed by Damascus Trail alone. The development has expanded blocks north, east, west, with no other way in or out other than Damascus. It oftentimes still feels like we're living in the developer's construction zone. I'm not sure if this planning is a result of the developer or village, and I know there are likely reasons why other connectors have not transpired, but it doesn't change the fact that the development keeps developing with but one main access road and no other connectors planned for the near future. sure there is a gravel construction road but it's only open a third of the day dirty unregulated and definitely not always used by construction traffic i have certainly used that gravel road as well and the shortcut road between gds and granite ridge as have many but that's certainly not what they were designed for shortcuts because there's no other expedient way out i know some village trustees are trying to remedy this and I and many in the neighborhood appreciate the effort. Of all the options proposed, I think the most feasible, timely, and cost-effective may be to finish and pave and make permanent the construction road London to bus. Yes, there's multiple unconnected roads with the township that could be options, but after living in Cottage Grove for 20 plus years and knowing the history between the village and town and witnessing a few town hall meetings regarding this, this would likely be a years to likely longer process. Pursuing this is still valuable, just not expeditious. And with that said, I was just made aware a few hours ago that making the construction road permanent is not an option, as Andrew indicated that he has plans for houses in that area. With that new news, I do not see an alternative that can happen quickly. Perhaps just paving the construction road is an option without any upgrades, as waiting for lots to be established first is, I can only imagine, years down the road. Some other options for Damascus Trail. That could be implemented post-haste, would perhaps be opening the construction road 24-7, getting rid of the gates, signage stating no construction traffic allowed on Damascus, and perhaps traffic calming measures on Damascus. I know and other neighbors have emailed and gotten replies from the village staff in the past regarding this, and I've been told that the street is monitored every couple or few years for traffic control, speed, vehicle size, et cetera. However, living on the street and near a stop sign, I witness infractions countless times a day, running the stop sign, speed, et cetera, not to mention just the noise of the large construction vehicles and other obvious construction traffic traversing the street. I rewatched the recent public works meeting where this topic was on the agenda. One reference was comparing this to Landmark Drive on the north side of town. It was mentioned that since nothing was done there, nothing should be done here. The actual comparison wasn't mentioned, but in looking at the two areas, it's hard to see the likeness as Landmark only has a dozen or so properties on it with multiple connectors nearby and certainly not near a school zone. Hoping Hamburg would do a better job at diverting traffic to bus road was also mentioned, and I'm hoping that hoping is not a considered strategy. And one more aside regarding the emergency services. I know this was brought up as a topic as well. I know the village has said that emergency crews have access to the construction road gate locks so that they can get into the subdivision when needed in case Damascus Trail is blocked. I don't believe that is as much of a concern for residents. We know emergency crews will get in regardless of a flimsy gate. But what about residents' ability to exit the subdivision if there is a significant emergency situation? Perhaps similar to the recent situation that blocked Damascus Trail, a gas line, that happened near the intersection of Pheasant Run. A gravel road parade probably is not the best way out. Thanks for your time.

Thanks, Chris. Pete Dahl.

Good evening, Peter Dahl, 901 Stony Hill Lane in the Village. First, I think we can all agree on one thing. It's disappointing that the Cree developer decided to pull out of the sports complex project. It would have brought new recreational opportunities for our families, attracted visitors to support our local businesses, created jobs, and expanded the village's tax base. I don't believe anyone on this board wanted to see that opportunity disappear. However, I believe it's important that we have an honest conversation about why the project likely didn't move forward. Trustee Erlandson's memo on tonight's agenda suggests that the village lost this development simply because the approval process took too long and the board didn't move the project forward quickly enough. I don't believe the facts support that conclusion. To my knowledge, there has been no public statement from the developer saying that they abandoned this project because of questions raised by the village board or because of delays in the approval process. Without a statement from the developer, any claim that either the board's questions or the timing of the review process caused the project to fail is speculation. Speaking from my experience leading large manufacturing operations and evaluating major capital investments, I can tell you that commercial developments like CREED are driven first and foremost by economics. Developers constantly evaluate financing costs, in this case municipal obligations, construction costs, and projected revenues. Those factors, not the timing of municipal approvals alone, ultimately determine whether a project moves forward. Your job as trustees is not to approve projects as quickly as possible. Your responsibility is to ensure they are the right projects in the right location with the appropriate protections for village residents and taxpayers. This memo also suggests that questions about traffic, public safety, and location should not have been raised when they were. I respectfully disagree. Those questions are not obstacles, they are your responsibility as elected officials. Before annexing land and committing the village to a project of this size, you have an obligation to understand how it will affect roads, emergency services, surrounding neighborhoods, and taxpayers. The previous board did exactly that. While I share everyone's disappointment that this project did not come to fruition, I don't believe it's fair or accurate to blame the village's due diligence. The responsibility of elected officials is to ask important questions as early as possible, regardless of where they may fall in the development process. Waiting to raise concerns simply because a later approval step exists does not serve the public interest. Residents expect their elected officials to identify potential issues, ask hard questions, and fully understand the impacts of a project before moving it forward. That isn't a failure of government. It's exactly what good government is supposed to do. Thank you.

Thanks, Pete. Mark Spahos.

Mark Spejos, village resident for 20 years, recently elected a commander of the American Legion post here in Cottage Grove, post number 248. I have the honor of serving as the commander of the American Legion. I've been a part of the Legion since I've moved to the community, and we're making great strides. You'll see next year, Memorial Day, what we're gonna be bringing to the community. When I accepted responsibility of serving as commander, I accepted more than a title. I accepted a commitment to stand for the values that make communities strong. the values of honor, integrity, accountability, and service above self. The same values should guide every person entrusted with public authority that sits on this board today. Throughout my life, whether in uniform or serving my community, I have believed that leadership requires the courage to ask difficult questions, the same difficult questions that are referenced in the mission statement of this new handbook that I don't agree with. Over the past two years, I've spent a significant amount of time reviewing village records, past projects, staff compensation, and how taxpayer dollars have been spent and committed. I continue to do so. I did this because every dollar spent by the village belongs to the taxpayers of Cottage Grove, the village of Cottage Grove, and every decision involving those dollars deserves careful review. Some may view difficult questions as criticism. I view them as a responsibility. The absence of questions does not prove that everything is right. It simply means that no one is looking closely enough. As I became more engaged and began asking more questions, I found myself never being appointed to any village committees. It's important to recognize that these committees are volunteer positions made up of residents like myself willing to give their time and knowledge and service to our community. I cannot know the motivations behind these decisions. But I believe my willingness to question spending, challenge assumptions, and ask for accountability may have contributed to that outcome. That should concern every resident in this village. A healthy government does not fear questions from engaged citizens. It welcomes them. Oversight, discussion, and thoughtful disagreement are not signs of disloyalty. They're actually signs of functioning democracy. Tonight I want to address what I believe is one of the greatest threats to good governance in the village of Cottage Grove. the current revision, actually the rewriting of the whole entire village handbook. A handbook that defines the authority and responsibilities of elected trustees is not just another administrative document. It is the foundation that establishes how elected representatives that speak for the voice of the taxpayers carry out the duties entrusted to them by the actual taxpayers. I believe the board made a serious mistake by allowing hired staff to create a handbook that governs the responsibilities and authorities of elected trustees. The authority of the board comes directly from the residents who elected them. That responsibility belongs solely with the elected representatives of this community. Staff members provide valuable expertise and play an important role in the operation of the village. However, staff should advise and implement the direction of the board, not define its authority. Responsibilities are limitations of the elected officials responsible for overseeing them, them the staff. Strong leaders do not surrender the authority entrusted to them by the people. They accept that responsibility and carry it. Our system of government was designed with checks and balances because concentrated power, even when well-intentioned, requires oversight. The elected board must remain the final authority because they are the ones directly accountable to the residents. My concern is that this handbook revision appears to move our village in the wrong direction by increasing the influence of an appointed administrator over the communication and operation of the elected board. The proposed changes will require much of the communication between trustees and staff to flow directly through the village administrator and would designate that position, most importantly, as the voice of the village of Cottage Grove. A person that does not live here was hired and appointed to a position and was not elected. The position that the person wants to, I don't know if he wants it, but in the new handbook is village public information officer. My concern is not about one individual. My concern is about the structure of the government. The people elected trustees to represent them. Ask questions, gather information, and make independent decisions. Those responsibilities should never be unnecessarily restricted by appointed staff. When authority becomes concentrated and communication becomes controlled through one position, transparency, accountability can suffer. Finally, my greatest concern with the current handbook revision is what appears to be missing, an explicit recognition of the most important responsibility of every elected trustee, the duty to protect the taxpayers of Cottage Grove. Not just Cottage Grove, the village of Cottage Grove. Every dollar spent, every dollar borrowed, and every commitment made through debt represents the trust placed in the board by its residents. A taxpayer does not get to negotiate their bill. They do not get to decide whether tax increases or whether new financial obligations are created. They place their trust in those elected to ensure that every dollar is treated with the utmost respect and responsibility. That responsibility should be the foundation of any handbook governing the elected officials. For that reason, I also believe that this is not the time to consider additional bonuses for salaried government employees, including the village administrator. Before additional compensation is awarded, the board should first demonstrate transparency, accountability, and careful stewardship of taxpayer resources. In the military, trust is earned through action. It is earned through accountability, integrity, and the willingness to accept scrutiny. Leadership is not measured by how many people agree with you. Leadership is measured by whether you have the courage to do what is right when the decision is difficult. My request tonight is simple. protect the authority of the elected board protect the trust of the taxpayers and ensure that cottage grove the village of cottage grove remains a government of the people by the people and accountable to the people thank you is there anyone else in the room that would like to give public comment is there anyone on zoom that would like to give comment while we're waiting for a hand to raise oh

Go ahead, Terry.

Can you hear me OK? About now.

Yeah, we can hear you.

Oh, okay. No, I just wanted to echo without saying anything that Peter and Mark's comments are pretty good there. They do explain things pretty good. And, you know, going with this creed thing, to, you know, have the notion that creed's gone because of an initial no vote, That doesn't make any sense. Why would he come back and get approved and then he bails out later? Something changed and it has nothing to do with that no vote. It's pretty obvious. So anyway, and the other thing, you got an ethical problem going on that I haven't even heard anything about. And, you know, you're looking at selling some land to Alliant. You have a board member that works for Alliant that went into closed session. major ethical problem right there. And there's no excuse for that. And why he was allowed to go into closed session knowingly being an Alliant Energy employee, that should never happen. So there may be other fallout on this one. So enough of that. That's all I got to say. Thanks for your time.

We do have a wish to speak for him from Mike Stiller, 200 Molly Lane. Writing in regards to the Juniper Fields development concerned about traffic and public safety from Molly Lane East School Road and East North Lawn Drive and wanted additional information which we'll be discussing tonight about the traffic impact analysis and then urges the board not to approve the development in its current form, asking for clarification and correction on the traffic impact analysis, the schools in session in particular, identification and construction of roadway intersection, pedestrian and public safety improvements that may be needed, additional routes or collector roads, and just making sure that we ensure that transportation infrastructure, public safety, and interests of residents are receiving a high level of consideration during future growth discussions. I'll ask one more time if there's anyone else in the room or if there's anyone on Zoom that would like to give comments. All right. Hearing none, we're going to move on to number five, discuss and consider the minutes of the Village Board meeting from June 15th, 2026 with those meeting minutes in the agenda. Move approval of the minutes as presented.

I'll second.

Motion by Murphy, second by JP. Any discussion on the minutes?

I have two corrections. On item 8C, it should say follow up. And on item 11C, it should say brat feed. So there's just a couple words there.

Minor corrections, OK, with both of you. All right. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Unfinished business. moving on to consider the offer to purchase with easement from Alliant Energy for the Village-owned property. We do have a closed session under item 11 that can be held at the end of the meeting, but we can have a discussion up front here, and I believe we have representatives from Alliant in the audience. You're welcome to come up to the front and just make sure your microphones are on.

go all right good evening my name is Nick handled I'm in the project management group here at a lot or at Alliant Energy so some of you I've talked to you about our proposed offered purchase I have some maps I could share but I don't know if I have a way to plug in to make that visible or would be the easiest way to do staff have the maps currently or if you log into the zoom you can share your screen we'll let you do that

Well, he logs in. Shouldn't someone who works for Alliant recuse himself at this point?

Yep. As I did in the previous meeting, I'm abstaining from the vote on this. I don't really have anything to do with property in Alliant. I work in IT. I fix laptops. But yeah, I'm abstaining as I did in the previous meeting from this vote.

Okay. I was counseled by our village attorneys to actually leave the room when a discussion item of substance was involving my husband, so you might want to rethink that.

I think we're going to watch our accusatory tone, please. I don't want to have the rest of the meeting be like this. Rick, can you please weigh in? I know you've weighed in on ethics before, during public comments included.

So if somebody is abstaining from a vote for ethical reasons, best practice is to leave the room for and not participate in the discussion for it. Whether a legal conflict exists under this scenario, that's a different question. Because the ethical rules say if you stand to benefit from the vote or anything that... you're gonna gain some substantial benefit or financial gain by a vote that creates a legal ethical issue. But it's up to individual trustee on whether or not they want to abstain or separate themselves from the meeting.

Sure, I have no problem stepping up and as I said, abstaining from the vote. So let me know when I can come back in.

So hopefully that's coming through on the Zoom call or you guys can all see that. So the agenda item here is the offer to purchase for the property that's located directly behind, we'll call it the Piggly Wiggly property. To understand how we got here, it's probably good to kind of take a step back. So roughly about 10 years ago, we started the planning process for the village of Cottage Grove. As it sits right now, we have two substations that feed this area. One is on the north side, which is Gaston Road. One's on the south side, which is what we call our Cottage Grove substation. There's nothing in the middle. So 10 years ago, I identified a gap that there is nothing in the middle. We should look for something in that area to fulfill the needs as the village of Cottage Grove grows. So I think in 2020, 2021, that's when Alliant Energy went down the Bonnie Road project. looking to purchase and build a substation there. That didn't materialize for a number of reasons. Then COVID hit, we had a bunch of staffing issues, and then now this has been brought back to the forefront of, through all of our issues and COVID, the need for the village has not gone away. Um, so we were doing the land search in and around the village of cottage Grove, um, looking at properties that either are listed for sale or could be for sale. And that brought us back to here. So this was identified right around the same time we were going through that Bonnie road purchase. Um, at that point in time, we couldn't negotiate terms with the owner of the Piggly Wiggly because it's a landlocked parcel. We'd have to get an access easement. Um, That has now changed, which has brought this back up as an option on the table for us to move forward, which is how we got here. I think we got the list of questions that we can go through, or you can ask any questions we have, but I think that's the high level. It's roughly one acre from the village of Cottage Grove, and then access and everything would be through a different owner.

Open it up to questions from board members.

I have a couple questions. What other sites are you also looking at right now?

I guess some of those were private landowners that I would not want to acknowledge. I'd like to keep that between us and that landowner. There is that commercial property that's literally right on, I think, Cottage Grove that's been for sale for some time. We looked at that, but I think our thought process is that would be a lot less appealing for us to be there than something like this, so we haven't pursued that.

So there are other sites that you're talking to, or at least looking at. Correct.

The need hasn't gone away, so if this one doesn't, we need to find something for the long term as you guys continue to grow.

Yeah, I understand that. Was an environmental review completed because that area has a natural conservancy behind it?

yeah so we did a high level we haven't gone through permits uh so we have a contractor that does our storm water grading so they did a high level memo that we can share with the village staff of what permits are needed and what we'd have to do but by and large a lot of the delineated wetland is outside of like there's that little sliver that the village owns Outside of that, you guys don't own, I believe that's owned by the owner of the Piggly Wiggly. Those are all delineated wetlands you can't touch. There's that little sliver that is buildable, and I could share that memo if that'd be helpful.

Yeah, I mean, I'd be interested in the environmental impacts because there is a lot of wildlife back there. So if you have more information that would be helpful for us before we make a decision, I would welcome that.

Yeah, we can send it.

Thank you.

Questions for the representative from the board? Can you talk a little bit about your easement access then? So you could get vehicles back there coming straight off of Cottage Grove Road.

Correct. So we're working with the new owner on access. So permanently, we'd have access around... We're working through access around the west side of the Piggly Wiggly, kind of going around, I think, hugging between the post office and going around that way. During construction for large vehicle traffic, we're going to get a temporary easement to allow us to kind of loop and then come around that senior living area. But permanently, it would be through on the west side of that property.

Could you talk a little bit about what the lines look like between the transmission lines and the substation?

I can give a high level. Again, I'm not ATC. So our feeders, as we leave from Alliant Energy, those would be buried and then tied back into our system along the road. From an ATC, I think that's one of the things that's appealing about this property is it's so close to the right-of-way. We, in high level, anticipate it roughly being two structures for them to tie in. I would assume it's wood, similar to what's out there currently, but I'd have to let them weigh in on that. They really haven't been engaged until we get to that point in the property acquisition process. Sure, but it's not substantial.

And this property is located within closer proximity. That's one of the appealing parts of this. Correct.

Yeah, I think it's roughly two spans or a couple hundred feet versus we tried to find property elsewhere in the village that has to get to that substation. So that's one of the key benefits of this is it's directly along that right-of-way or very, very close.

Okay, thank you.

Then we do have residential subdivisions towards the north. What is the lighting and the sound that would be emitted?

Yeah, I think that was one of the questions that we got or kind of ahead of time. So if you bear with me, I'll try to page through these. So this one is the lighting ordinance. and I'll have to zoom in, hopefully I don't get anyone motion sick, but by and large, we only have dusk till dawn lights on what we call our switch gear building, so those would be right in this rectangle here. Those loops, I believe, are the light to meet the village notifications from a foot candle standpoint. And then in emergency situations, we'd have our lights on, but by and large, you're just gonna have those two located in each door that fall within the village standards or requirements. Um, we don't have a good mechanism from a sound standpoint. Um, I believe our engineer who's not here tonight did his best. Um, and again, I can send these out after the call. Um, but basically documented that we would meet whatever the village standards are, um, and broke down the decibel drop kind of note noise chart as we left the property. Um, so I think the big concern was that senior living facility and, uh, by and large, by the time we got to that point, I think it highlights that it's like a quiet library or the road south of it's gonna be much louder, more cumbersome than what we have at the substation.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Renee. Hi, can you possibly speak to is there any potential known or potential future for this being related to any data center usage or is this strictly for residential?

I'll speak to this, and Kurt, tell me if I go off. So by and large, no. Frankly, this is smaller than usually anything we try to build. We really don't have any expansion option on this small of a property. For something of the data center, that's much larger and bigger scale. So no, I'm not actively aware. And Kurt, I don't know.

I did think of one other question, and this might be more for staff. Well, we have a concept here. Anything that will be built is subject to our regular approval plan process through site plan review and planning commission.

Site plan review, and it'll need to be rezoned once the parcel is split off.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, JP.

So just building off of your comment about the size in there, so you mentioned that this is typically smaller than what you typically build so like in comparison to the thing with the more one that's pretty prominent easy to see is the one um on the south the southern yeah cottage grove yep the cottage grove station is what you called it so this would be smaller than that one or on par i think it's very much on par with that one so usually when we're built buying new land for substations it's uh

fitting the need now, but also in the future, just in case, you know, load grows up or a mega customer comes in. For this one, it's literally, this is all we can do. And it fits the needs of backfeeding the top and south one. So it'd be very, I don't have the dimensions of each, but I'd say it's much more comparable to that Cottage Grove one. I'm not saying an exact fit, but very similar.

Okay. And so then you just addressed my second question, but I'll still kind of ask it so it's out there. In regarding future need, between the three substations, you feel very confident that that would address future growth is kind of what I'm hearing reading between the lines.

Okay. Do you want to? Yeah. Okay.

All right, so I'm Kirk Cederberg. I'm a distribution planning engineer for Alliant. And yeah, by my calculations, so the historical load growth rate in Cottage Grove has been about 2% annually over the last several years. I look back to when the original study was done in 2018. The growth had been like 2.1% at that time. And I just calculated again based on the most recent six years, and it's still hovering right around 2%, which is our corporate average is less than 1%. So there's higher than average growth here. But if we assume that 2% growth rate continues in the future, then when I looked at this in our modeling software, this would get us another 20 to 25 years before we start to see more issues.

Any final questions?

Just of what you have up on the screen, can we get a copy of that as well? OK. Thank you.

Sorry. Yeah, I'll send out the binder.

Appreciate it.

So then we will have the closed session at the end of the meeting. Probably kind of late tonight, but thank you. All right, so moving on, we have a discuss and consider potential property acquisitions in TID 9. This is also a possible closed session under item 13 at the end of the meeting. I'm not sure if we have Kyle on the call yet.

Yeah.

Oh, and can we bring Casey back in, please? Oh, Kyle, if you're online, do you want to give us a summary of the project, the work to date? And then, obviously, we have the closed session items, then have that for the end of the meeting.

Yeah, I'd be happy to. Apologies, my video isn't working for the moment. I'll try to get that sorted out. But we've had a few good conversations with some of the remaining property owners that we've been talking about in TID 9, some of whom we want to approach with specific prices for the properties. So sent some background information to the board and just wanted to discuss that a little further.

Anyone have questions for Kyle for open session?

Not for Kyle, but for Rick. Are we able to, because I know I got asked this question, are we able to say which properties we're discussing in open session?

I think we could. Yeah, I guess I don't, I mean, we've been having conversations with them. I don't know, Kyle, if the property owners have wanted to keep it open. confidential, but I don't think there would be an issue with saying which properties we're looking at.

We haven't specifically discussed about keeping it private or not, Rick.

It would be nice from a transparency point, because like I said, I already know one person asked the question.

Yes, I think for open session we could say the specific properties we're looking at without getting into specifics about the terms of the deal. So Kyle, I guess if you want to share the addresses at least for the properties we're looking at.

Yeah, it would be 604 and 608 North Main Street along with 113 East Cottage Grove Road.

Thank you. Any other questions regarding this item? Otherwise we have closed session at the end. All right, then we're going to move on to review draft of the village board handbook presented by the village administrator and assistant administrator, HR manager. If you, Matt, want to give us a little summary of how this started, the initial documents and kind of what it's transformed into.

Yeah. Back, I think in May, the board directed staff to put together a handbook kind of following some of the best practice recommendations from a professor that came in to speak to the board to kind of clear up the, this isn't a revision to any established existing handbook, we don't have an existing official handbook that the board has. So what was being referred to in public comment, that's an informal orientation handbook, which is just a resource that I've put together over the years to assist with orientation of new board members. So this new handbook incorporates a lot of those same, probably most if not all of those general topics we've also utilized topics from other municipalities that have an established board handbook but at the end of the day it's more so exactly what the title of it is. It's a village board handbook, so whatever the board wants, the topics that you guys would like to see in there. So if there's things included that you don't want to see, that would be good feedback to know. If there's additional topics that you'd like us to draft to bring forward to review at a future meeting, that would be helpful. Really any kind of feedback. As far as some of the other Comments that we heard about public information officer things like that the roles and responsibilities that are in here are reflective of job description ordinance statute This you know these were not just You know things that staff just made up, you know trying to obtain more power or anything like that. So I can assure you of that so anyway, that's all I had but I Inga helped me, well, helped me. She was the one making it look nice and putting it all together. So we're happy to help answer questions or take your feedback.

Yeah, so this is just a draft right now. So the idea is that we give them... what we want to see in or out of it and make sure that we are aligned on that as majority so that they can bring back at a future meeting sometime maybe in August or September, depending on how much editing we want to do tonight on it for final consideration by the board. So open it up to comments from the board and what they'd like to see changed or compliments, I guess. JP.

It's like you're in my mind. So first off, I really do wanna appreciate, or state my appreciation of taking the time to go through this as an educator who researches on learnings, different styles, and how to present information in a way that makes sense. Having a manual handbook that can be referenced throughout orientation, through a trustee's term. um is absolutely critical and helpful um because it is that central resource that and i appreciate having the links to different things in there um and so i think this is a definitely a step forward to help with the orientation and kind of the onboarding for new trustees especially after going through it this uh past few months um that Being said, I do have a few different comments and I can write, send these to you all as well. Just little word changes in there. I'm not sure if we wanna go into that level of detail here today since we are gonna bring it back. but I'll just send those like little word changes for you. But one comment I wanna bring forward, it's kind of stated a little bit further on, but more so in the policies and practice section, kind of the header section in there. Do we wanna state something along the lines that we follow Robert's rules? That's kind of our main part. I know you say it, I think in quite a few paragraphs down, But saying that out front, because that does set the stage for a lot of our discussions and formats and how we run meetings, I think that might be a worthwhile item to really call out and expand a bit more in there.

I had one thought, I guess. On page 19, At the top, it says, for action items, substantive discussion should generally occur after a motion and second have been made, allowing the board to deliberate on a clearly defined proposal. The chair may permit informal discussion before a motion when doing so to facilitate understanding of a complex issue. or improve meeting efficiency. The way we have our judges set up with discussing considers, that kind of gets a little muddled. Because we have discussion and then we have a motion and then we have discussion. And sometimes motions are offered before people might have finished with what they thought was going to be part of the discussion. So I'm just kind of wondering if it would be helpful to modify how the agendas are set up to have like a discussion portion for things which could help for like if we have like tonight we have a couple of juniper fields things in separate discussion considers if we discuss them both before we voted on anything it could help us get a more rounded view of the whole situation um so you've been doing this in your public works agendas uh not quite in the public works agendas we have Discussion and then a separate agenda item would be consider. What I'm saying is have all discussions before all considers so that we would discuss item A and then B and then C and then later vote on item A and it's kind of like how it happens at the state legislature. We have a public hearing which is really, excuse me, really asking questions and getting information and then we have the executive session which is the voting.

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as we still have the ability, once a motion is made, to speak on the merits of that motion.

Oh, for sure, yeah.

Yeah. I mean, I think that has worked. Didn't you do that with LEC, too, to a certain degree? I think so. On those agendas?

I believe so, yes.

Yeah. I mean, I don't have a problem with that.

Yeah, generally, yeah, I think that's good. I was also a little surprised initially coming in having just read Robert's Rules. If you just look at Robert's Rules, yeah, it is exactly that. First you motion, then you discuss, and not the other way around. Any prior discussion is informal, like this says. I could see a couple of edge cases where if the agenda is particularly long, you're going to discuss A through N, and then you're going to come back two, three hours later and vote on A. So I could see that occasionally being an issue. But in general, I think, yeah, that is a better way to structure it. I like the mirroring of the executive session kind of thing. I don't know if you have anything else on that. Yeah, go ahead, Chris.

I originally started thinking about this back when Renee was talking about order of voting because it could also, like if you're first in voting, you're not going to have as much time to maybe think about how you're going to vote. So this will give you a little more time to sit on it and mull it over and think out how you might want to vote.

That's true.

Rick.

Yeah, the only comment I'd have is I think the agenda, like how it's supposed to be set up, that's all set in ordinance. So we maybe need to just double check the ordinances to see if we have to make some change like that and kind of call out this is an exception to Robert's rules. But if that's the direction the board wants to go, we could implement those changes.

I guess my question, you kind of addressed it a little bit, so then you can think over the whole discussion before the motions and voting, although then for some people it might be the opposite where they now are thinking about the next, you know, there's so many, by the time you get to the end, it's been so long since you talked about the last thing. So, you know, depending on how each individual works, you know, that could be better or worse for them. But are there other benefits that you would see in switching that? Like, do you think it would be more efficient, or I guess, are there other reasons to consider changing?

I don't know. The one anti-argument I guess I would say would be if someone's here for a particular thing to talk about it and they're here for the discussion and they have to wait until the action item.

That's an interesting thing to think about, so thank you.

I think from a mental load perspective, having it all one topic at a time with the discussion and then the consideration is most helpful for me, but I will do whatever the board would like.

Yeah, based on the previous comments, one of the things I've been kind of stewing on is, separating them out just having back-to-back for each item discuss then consider because i think that addresses people sitting here waiting in there the cognitive load in there kind of keeps that whole part together and provides that clear delineation in there and then allows for that additional motion to bring up for that vote and further discussion

Are we allowed to try it out next meeting and then incorporate into the handbook if it goes well or not?

Yeah, I think the ordinance just has general topics of new business, old business, committee reports. So however you want to structure it within new business of discussion of these topics and then subpart of new business is consideration of all these topics, that could work. And where do you prefer the materials?

Should they all go under discussion?

Mm-hmm.

I guess I'd just like to go back to the handbook in general and appreciate all the work that's been put into this by Matt and Inga and some of our background work with a lot of presentations that have been given to the board in the past, kind of bringing those things together. I think there's a lot of opportunities in this that serving in our elected roles. There's just a process that helps us most efficiently and effectively help our constituents make sure that staff are involved that need to be involved and there's oversight of and consensus on work that overall we collectively decide should be done on behalf of the village and its residents. So I appreciate all the thought that's gone into this. I don't have any specific, I have some sections that I very much appreciate and had a lot of underlines in, but I didn't have any specific changes to make at this time, so thank you.

And then there was, a question posed to the board about the ethics and conduct statement draft that was emailed out to us and whether we'd like to include that in the handbook or not as well. I think that it's a good idea. So I would be in favor of adding it.

I just have a comment. There was a lot of work that went into the handbook. It flows really nicely, but is this meant to be a new board orientation information handout, or is this meant to be an actual policy that board members follow? Because I feel like those are two separate things, and they maybe should be separated.

The idea is that new board members would receive the document. They'd still go through all of the orientation process. And then as we revise or we have a discussion surrounding our mission, vision, and values every year, we would add this in as another document just to review on an annual basis.

But that doesn't answer my question. This also seems to be like a board policy. So two separate things. really kind of in one?

Yeah. From a training development side of things, in many ways, a handbook is designed to help with that onboarding element, but also serve as that manual. So it can be one and the same. Throughout the time period because it outlines all the policies and procedures in there that being said Renee I would be very curious to hear why you would are thinking about the distinction between the two because Reflect upon is going through all my training that we just went through Everything that we say that that's been covered in the training is reflected in the manual everything about procedures policies roles of the trustees is all

shown here and i don't see i'm trying i'm struggling to understand what you mean by that two different paths in a way so the you know i i hear what you're saying um and i understand that too that for a new board member orientation onboarding handbook packet and for current um board members, trustees, more of a policy ongoing where the board itself takes over and really has more oversight in creating the policies and the board, or excuse me, more policies relating to the board versus just a new orientation handbook.

I think I've got an example, if I may. One of the substantial questions I have that really gets more into the policy side of things versus just kind of informational happens on page 18. When we start talking about use of staff resources, to me that reflects a major policy shift from where things have been. In essence, what it says for the people listening at home are basically if a trustee requests information that is readily available or can be provided with minimal staff effort, staff will generally respond directly to the request. However, when fulfilling a request is expected to require a significant investment of staff time or resources, generally more than one to two hours, the trustee should seek to have the request placed on a village board agenda for discussion and approval. that's a major policy shift. And so I've got some concerns about that because, let me just ask my questions to the staff who wrote it and then I'll tell you my concerns. So who in the staff is gonna decide whether or not the request exceeds two hours?

Me, that would be me.

Okay, and how is that estimate gonna be documented?

I mean, it's just a general guess based on my experience, based on what's being asked and the scope of it.

Okay. I think it needs to be documented because I think that trustees should have the ability to understand what's being asked and also to make sure that there isn't bias, that some trustees don't ever get turned down for requests and some do. So you don't want to have bias in the system. And if I'm understanding this right, if I have an idea or a citizen brings me an idea and I want to do a little bit of research on that, I need to bring it to the majority of the board and the board can block me from working on that item or requesting staff to provide me with those details. That's the way I'm reading this. If it goes over two hours.

If staff, I mean, we don't work for individual board members, so... it's whatever the majority of the board wants to dictate. And this isn't a shift at all. This is common practice in Wisconsin and how I've always operated my 15 years here.

I think that the benefit of having the handbook is that the ways that we've been operating are now written down. So I've always understood this as being, the procedure moving forward. I've not been told.

This has been in the previous informal handbook and what I've coached everyone on for orientation forever.

Okay. Well, this, I mean, this formalizes it, right? When you put it in a handbook. And I guess my question is to Rick, you know, what legal authority allows the majority of the board to take away the right of a duly elected official of their government oversight duties? You know, I worry about people who are in the minority not being able to exercise their oversight duties because of this. So is this legal?

From a legality standpoint, I don't have any concerns with the substance of it, right? The board can set parameters on how to use village resources. So for instance, in other communities that I work with, basically, set a policy on who can actually like contact the attorney so it only designated officials can it's like for instance i work with a city where the individual alders aren't able to contact me directly for questions it all has to run through the mayor or a staff person so setting those kinds of restrictions is okay as long as it's something that the board has approved the There would still be the possibility of making records requests or asking for information that way, as well as doing your own independent research. But this is something that the board could do if they wanted to set sort of restrictions on how to use village resources.

So in essence, I could file an open records request and get my answers fulfilled that way?

Correct.

Just like a citizen?

Correct.

I don't like this section. I'll just say it right now. I think it really will impact the minority on the board who were represented and elected by the citizens. I don't like it.

So that's the whole point of this discussion, though. If you don't like something, what would you like it changed to be? And then is there a majority on the board that's willing to go in that direction?

I don't know why, unless it's a new initiative. Like let's say I just had this great idea that I just want to build a basketball court in the middle of something. If it's not a new initiative, if it's something that we're already doing in programming for, this shouldn't be an issue. So if you're going to keep this language in there, I would say then you say it's for any new initiatives because the purpose of this was to go through the committees, right? So you bring in an idea to a committee and you bring it up the food chain, right, to the village board. So I would say for new initiatives, fine. But for our government oversight of all the things that are happening already, this should not be in there.

It's not meant to limit any board member's ability to do their work. It's just some guard rail so staff know, so I know how to allocate staff resources to individual board member requests. That's all. Because if we got, using this tomorrow, if all seven of you had a request, that's potentially 14 hours of staff time right there. That's unplanned for tomorrow.

I'll give you the best example that there ever was, is the library, is that the village board and staff were not, this was years ago, not interested in working on some of the library initiatives. And they would not bring that forward at a board meeting. They would not allocate staff resources because the majority of the board was not interested in using staff resources that way and taxpayer dollars that way. And that's just how it was. You're respecting kind of the rule of four, the rule of majority. But then I think the guardrails are in place so that you bring it back at the next meeting. And the board has the conversation. And if the board then says, wait, we do have majority direction on this. We want you to allocate staff resources towards this initiative. You give that guidance to staff and then they work on it.

What do you do in time-sensitive situations such as the brown water that a lot of our village is experiencing? I mean, are we going to tell citizens we're going to wait until the next board meeting before we take it up? I mean, so how do you handle those time-sensitive issues?

Well, staff, I don't know why we're assuming. I think that's staff-like daily jobs. That's what they should be. That is part of their job description to handle those types of situations upon receiving a complaint and following that process.

Exactly, yeah.

I think the fact that we're having this dialogue outlines that we do need more specific parameters and I think that that's important and you know you've been doing this for a long time, Matt, so you have a lot of experience, but yet I think that guardrails, yes, they're in place, but we do need more transparency and maybe improved language to delineate better so new staff, new board members understand, have a better idea as well.

Can you elaborate on that?

So just like we're talking about this, the time spent in, and it's really up to your discretion. Well, maybe two hours here, maybe two hours there. But I think if the staff is going through the trouble of creating this handbook, then there should be more specific reference that for x amount of time, however, to reword that. And we have the ability to go through this and bring it back. So I think the fact that we're even having these discussions, we can take a look at that as individual board members and bring it back.

So do you want more hours allocated? Generally more than one to two. Do you want three to four? What changes do you want in this section?

I was using that as an example. I have to read through it and think through it before I'm gonna say on record what I exactly want. But just the fact that we're having this conversation lends me to think that we need to have more communication that's better outlined.

I think, can we just pause? Is there direction, majority direction on the board to change this particular section? I know that there's two yeses we want to change it.

So Paula and Renee, so I'd ask, so if you have an idea, as you said, a new initiative, or if it's something about an existing project, The response from staff, if it exceeds the two hours, is not, no, you can't. It's bring it to the board and thus to the full public for transparency and approval. I think that's the more transparent option in this regard. That does then show the taxpayers, hey, this is an initiative that's being suggested. Then we can see how... how much tax dollars it would take to do whatever initiative it is or to even investigate whatever initiative it is. So I'm not sure how that that seems to run counter to what you're saying.

Yeah. So I get what you're saying. So if I want to bring an issue to the board, I need to at least have some staff assistance to help me ferret out the issue to bring to the board, right? So it's a waste of our time if I put an agenda item and I suggest something and the staff says, well, that's not even feasible.

That's not possible, right?

So there's a balance act. And maybe that falls within the two-hour scope. Maybe it doesn't. But that's where I'm saying I get coming to the board and being transparent, absolutely, 100%. But we need to be able to at least bring an idea forward that has either data or systems or something that we rely on the staff for.

I think, I agree, but I think that's our role as trustees. That's our job is to do that research ourselves and to bring that research to the public. So any research that's going to require significant investment and maybe this two hours is not the right guideline for it, but there should be some sort of guideline before real money is spent because, you know, as Matt said, if we all just sent requests, you know, all the time that were two hours, three hours, you know, four hours like that, that's real money. That's not, you know, yes, staff are salaried and are working, but that's diverting them from other projects. So I think the fact that the response, you know, I think we should be preparing our ideas on our own time and asking staff for small inputs where, where we can at that individual level. And then if it's going to be a big project, it should go to the board because none of us should have the authority to start an initiative on our own. This is a joint body. No initiative should be undertaken without joint majority approval. And I think this does that.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Just a side note, I have done that where I have brought things forth and have been told, trust the experts, trust the staff. And so you can't have it both ways. If I'm going to bring forth an initiative, and the two of you were ones that said, trust the staff and trust the experts. So then I need to be able to have the ability to trust the staff and ask the experts. You can't do both.

Right, and you do, and that's when you bring it to the board. You get it as an agenda item. And if the majority doesn't go along with that initiative, then that's the way that democracy works. That's the way the board operates by ordinance. Again, you can do research that's part of what this handbook facilitates is providing us with access to all of the same public records that staff has. But getting staff to weigh in on lengthy research, again, lengthy being more than two hours in this case, that costs money. And money shouldn't be spent without the majority board approval.

And I can just say, without putting a ton of thought into it, off the top of my head, I can't think of more than a few times that this is, I mean, most requests, and we're not, by estimate, I mean, it's fairly loose language, I mean, Initially, do we think it's gonna take more than a couple hours of staff time? And if the answer is probably not, and it ends up being three, I mean, we're not stopping at two. This isn't supposed to be some super hard and fast rule i mean at the end of the day a lot of times if it's if it's a new initiative or idea i mean even even staff doesn't spend the time doing a bunch of due diligence on our own before coming to the board and saying you know maybe it's an ordinance we don't spend legal time before we get direction if this is even something that everyone's interested in working on so a lot of things are kind of like a two reading process anyway meaning like you're coming first to the board to introduce an idea and if the board's interested and wants to directed to a committee or directed to staff to work on, then it's however amount of time it takes to work on it sort of thing. But this is pretty standard practice in municipal management.

Kind of moving it along, does the board want to see changes, majority, in this area?

I think... Based on what I'm hearing here is that this has been kind of the process that's been established. We haven't had any issues with it. I'm OK moving this forward, also knowing, as is written, also knowing that we can revisit it. So if we do find an opportunity where it has become a barrier, I think that's where you bring it forward to the board and say, hey, I've tried this. This is what happened. Okay, great, let's revisit this as a policy handbook. This whole discussion is a good example on why we actually need this handbook, because there is a disconnect about someone's understanding of the entire process. And so having it all in one spot that we all can reference, and it's our expectations moving forward, I think is absolutely critical, knowing that we, and the annual process will kind of constantly review it with also opportunity to bring it up if need be.

I would agree with you. And I would just add, you know, if we could add some type of mechanism, like I asked, you know, like I don't want to call it an audit that formal, but, you know, just keeping track of the times that were denied, the request and who, I think would help inform us.

I've never denied one that I'm aware of. Maybe the library stuff. It's like, hey, we're not working on that until the board tells us to.

I'm asking for an assurance, if this is going to be the policy, that there is something to protect minority members of a governing body. That's all I'm asking.

so i'm willing to accept that and so we have that insurance so we have the part of discussion if something gets denied we can talk through work with staff bring that forward as a recommendation on what to do moving forward and what that transparency is so that everyone is aware i think that it just should yeah maybe we can add a sentence about putting it in you know the trustee puts it in an email to the village administrator with the request or something a written request

That way it's documented. Is there any other sections that we should be taking a look at?

I think the other one is on page 19 where we talk about majority rule and board unity. I know there's a sentence in there that says, once the board has taken official action, all trustees are expected to respect the decision of the governing body regardless of their individual position on that matter. I think this gets very subjective and I think that a post that was put out in the public on Friday kind of violates the spirit of what that says there. So, you know, I think there's a lot of subjectivity in that. And so I think we should have separate discussion around it.

So I think the, that example and um just some of the general comments as a whole about this handbook this is guidelines or where applicable you know the relevant ordinances and laws and so on none of this has other than the ordinances and laws none of this has the force of law these are shoulds these are suggested these are best practices and expectations um so i'm not again other than the specific parts where it says the law says you must, the ordinance says you must, I'm not seeing where this actually prevents any sort of action. It just educates. So if you have a specific example on that, I'm not clear on that.

Yeah, I think the concern, again, is balancing free speech rights and then official board action. And you're right in the respect that this particular section is shall and should, and there is no mechanism that if somebody does this that they're gonna be censured or anything else, but I think if we're not gonna follow the spirit of it, why have it, I guess is my comment.

I mean, I think we should follow the spirit of it. I think in regards to when the board makes a majority decision that, again, that's democracy. That is the will of the people is majority rule. you know this this is suggesting that you don't like continue to rehash an issue that has already been like voted on in that term that sort of thing i'm not again it doesn't i don't see that it prevents any speech it again it sets an expectation but go ahead jp you seem like you had something or yeah chris yeah i was going to say my reading of this is not necessarily you can't

talk about a decision, like I'm free to continue to whine about the police station project. But I'm not going to continually bring back frivolous motions and stuff to try to bog down the board with trying to overturn that decision.

That was my interpretation. You're the example I was kind of thinking of for that, yes. You've mentioned several times, you voted no on the police station overall. But you're continuing to work with the process since that's what it is, since that's what the vote was. And you continue to weigh in on the individual items of it. And so again, you're able to speak your mind, but you still work with what the majority decision was.

I'll just also add, directly to Paula's point, that's also another reason why we should have an ethics section in here, to spell that out clearly.

So there was the ethics and conduct statement draft that was sent out. Is that something you'd like to see in the next round?

I believe so, based on the discussion here. I think it's worthwhile to have that in. Then I have one more quick addition. Under page 28, planning and development resources, I think it would be great. if we could add the flow charts that Aaron put together about a year ago as a reference point for the development process so that all that's kind of included in there.

I do just want to point out, I do have a couple extra links that Erin had sent me for that section, so we'll plan on including those too. But if there's other resources that might be helpful in the various sections of the handbook, let us know and we can link to those as well.

So send edits to Inga and Matt's, small, minor edits. And then we've had the discussion today and I think that there's majority aligned to add the ethics conduct statement.

If there's word choice and things like that, maybe, I don't know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we could maybe just make those edits as they come in from board members, but in the document show, could we display who is suggesting those and then, have that go back to everyone, because otherwise it's kind of hard for, if someone suggests just a simple word change from a staff perspective, are we supposed to do that because someone sent it to us? And then that's one question. The other question is back to the ethics discussion. Do you want us to just insert the draft that's suggested, or do you want staff and legal to refine it? refine it and bring it back in the draft or just put it in as it was submitted by the resident.

But if we have a legal opinion that might be different, then I guess I would want to know about that or a reason why something shouldn't be included. Have you reviewed this overall or no?

I took a brief look at it. I mean, because there's a difference between the legal ethics code and sort of an ethics statement are, you know, what you sort of hold yourself out to. So I can take a look at it. Um, again, like the, one of the things I kind of struggle with is just like, you know, with an ethics section like that, what's the, if it's quote unquote violated, what's the remedy, right? So I guess there's censoring, but that's really all there is. Like I don't see a police officer writing a ticket to a village trustee over something like that. So I guess, If we're going to add it, just start with the understanding of it's more of just like a general policy statement. It's not something that's necessarily enforceable.

I mean, you have your ethics code in there. So I guess even if it was just edited just to do the conduct statement, just included that in the legal review, I would be fine adding that.

You're saying label it as conduct statement to differentiate it from the ethics code? Yeah. I'm on board with that.

any final comments rick were you going to say something else uh the only thing i was asking is if we had like a majority on the ethics or conduct statement but there's five yes majority um just just quick too jp had suggested adding a little bit more language about robert's rules of order to the beginning of policies and practices is that majority opinion as well

I believe it was, and we're going to maybe do some trial and error, some testing it out at the next meeting. Any other comments, questions? I was going to say something important, but I can't remember now. Oh, can you also take a look at it for inclusive language? I guess that was my other comment, which I think you did a nice job with. How about we move on to new business, which A and B have to do with the Newman development. And I'm wondering if the board would allow us to kind of move that to the plan commission. So we discuss all of the developments. So the annexation, the developers agreements, the final plan, et cetera, kind of all at once and have that discussion.

I would agree with that and I would also ask that maybe we could look at who's in attendance from the audience and try to move their items up so they don't have to sit here through everything else.

Brent, are you interested in moving up tourism? Yes. OK. If it's all right with the board, why don't we have tourism come on up? And then I do believe we have the Amazon night work we can discuss after tourism, if that's all right with all of you. Unless you want to stick around for a couple more hours.

So while Britt is coming up to the front of the room, just kind of an update to the overall board. So we did a little bit of investigating to see if the Tourism Commission was required. That came back and that is a yes. Because Britt is essentially presenting the same thing at both bodies, next year the plan is she would only be presenting at the Tourism Commission level and then we would send the video out to Village Board to kind of just minimize... Britt needing to come to meetings. Again, as long as that board majority says that's good. Obviously, if there's issues, there's language in the contract that you can say, Britt, come present something. We feel like you guys are having issues.

Yeah, is the majority okay with that change for next year? Yes. All right. Thank you for looking into that. I know I'd ask them, like, why are we doing this twice? But we love it when Britt comes. But let me just give you the tourism recap first. So Tourism Commission met on Wednesday, July 1 at 9 AM. We approved our minutes from last year. I'm the chairperson. Brittany is the vice chairperson, and then Jen is the secretary. We received the updates that we'll be getting right now from BRIT. We had talked about the summary of the 2025 room tax collection and the review of the 2025 annual reports, which is linked in that agenda. And take it away, Brent Leach.

Thanks for letting me go sooner. I really do appreciate that. I'm exhausted from the weekend, so thank you. Just want to start with thank you to the Village of Kedge Grove for your partnership, transparency, abiding by the state statute, and basically following the rules, like I mentioned at the commission level. I know for a fact that not every municipality follows the state statute and the rules in the state of Wisconsin, and I've been patted on the back from the state of Wisconsin on how well we all work together and cooperate with each other and that you all follow the rules. So congrats to all of you. Fun fact reported from destination Madison 2025 tourism impact numbers are in and wow, the hospitality industry is thriving like never before. In 2025, Madison and Dane County saw its direct visitor spending reach $1.6 billion, which is a record in the state that works out to be about 4.5 million a day spent by visitors. We also have the highest number of hospitality workers since 2019, which is 19,532. The Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors approved the 2026 budget in January of this year. I'll kind of go back a little like a year and a half since we're already into July, but several grants were approved at the tourism committee level for various events throughout the village and the town. Cottage Grove Car Classics show at 1855, Sprout and Full Harvest Festival, Hot to Trot and Run, Cottage Grove Fireman's Festival, Downdren's, Cottage Grove Holiday Craft Fair. So we're pretty proud that we're able to give out grants throughout the village so it helps support marketing and advertising with those events. With the grants comes along a toolkit that we created for the event hosts who most likely run a nonprofit and don't usually have a marketing department. So the toolkit allows the vendors to use local chamber members for their advertising and print needs. Some of those, for example, are Inkworks, iHeart Media, APG of Southern Wisconsin, and Honey Bee Media. They all happen to be Chamber of Commerce members, but they're also, they work with tourism, so they understand how the funds can be used legally. And we have the grant program set up where We don't give the funds directly to the nonprofit organization or the event holder. They spend the funds and then submit invoices and receipts to me so then we can make sure that it was done correctly. 2024 and 2025 we hired a local photographer from Cottage Grove to take photography of all four seasons so that was a fun project that finished up last year. We need a little more snow this year so hopefully he can get some shots of our trails and cross-country skiing. In the fall we produced a seven minute video that we highlighted area attractions and local recreation and restaurants and We used a locally owned and operated family-run company called Discover Wisconsin. They're located in Madison. We called it Small Town Big Heart. It currently runs on YouTube and all our social media channels, and it's at 36,000 views, which I thought was pretty exciting. In the spring, we had an opportunity to take a lot of the B-roll when the production company came to Cottage Grove and recycle it. So we did a project called Summer in Cottage Grove, a perfect day trip. And as of now, it's 29,000 views. Looks similar to the big video, but I thought they did a really good job recycling a lot of the B-roll and making it look and sound and feel different. And then this summer, we were, last project with that production, which was two social medias, they call them like small, just social media, like tiny shorts with the B-roll. So there was two of them that were produced. One was called There's More to Discover, and the other one was called Small Town... So both are available. You can have them. You can share them. I think they're on the Village's social media channels. But they're not just ours. They're for everyone to enjoy and to share and pass along. This fall, we have some fun projects coming up. We've signed a contract agreement with also Discover Wisconsin, but this will be an influencer package. So another, not as big of a production, but they're gonna come to Cottage Grove and they're gonna film several different areas and make them into two different influence packages. Naturally, we'll probably go with more of a fall-winter theme. And then the other theme, we were kind of interested in doing weddings because the wedding business fills the hotel quite a bit throughout the year. Then we went into a partnership with Honey Bee Media. We signed an agreement to do some geo-targeting for visitors with social media ads through Meta, and then targeted email as well, about 30,000, I believe we signed up for, with some display with retargeting. So we're excited to see those projects, especially because we will see the return on investment. They'll be able to break it down, who saw it, who got it, where they live. I mean, it gets a little creepy, but we will be able to see what we get from that investment. We also signed an agreement with the Sun Prairie Ice Arena on Highway N. We found out that quite a bit of traffic comes to the hotel from the Sun Prairie Ice Arena. So we're going to do what they call a Dasher ad on the rink boards in both ice arenas. It'll be 365 days on it. to be put up there. It'll be on their kiosk. It'll be on their website. And then we'll have some type of messaging to get them to come on down to Cottage Grove, just a short drive, restaurants, coffee shops, things like that. We have great partnerships with the hotel. We have great partnerships with the Rugby Clubhouse. We have a great partnership with our local wedding venues. And then I'm hoping to get a good partnership with Amazon when they open next year. And then last year, we invited Andrew Nussbaum, who is the tourism development specialist in Travel Wisconsin, to present at a chamber meeting just to talk to the chamber members, the businesses, and some of the residents to how they play a huge role on economic impact from visitors. So think of when you've traveled somewhere and how you were treated at a restaurant or hotel or concierge or coffee shop. And so his message was more or less just, welcome them. A lot of times you don't know where they're from or if they are visiting or they're in town for just the weekend and so we'll invite him back again this year. He does a really great job. We will also continue to promote the proximity of the hotel. So Comfort Suites Hotel, which is our only hotel at the moment, is conveniently located right off I-90-94, which you all know. It's the only hotel off 94 from Dane County Airport all the way to Johnson Creek. which is pretty incredible if you think about it. So when I talk to outside visitors or different tourism entities, right away they go, oh, that's the one right off 94. And I'm like, yep. to the interchange between the Dells in Chicago and then Milwaukee. We will continue to use Meta to boost our promotional videos. Meta's been a great resource. And then last but not least, if you don't follow or like Travel Cash Grove on Facebook, please do. Oh, and there is a free submit event tab on TravelCottageGrove.com. So any event you're having in Cottage Grove, anything you'd like to upload, please do, and we will do our best to get that submitted. Now I'd like to open it up for questions, or I can keep going because you know I like to talk.

Cameron, do you want to go over the room tax report?

Sure. High level, very similar collections from 2024. Last year's meeting, what came out of the tourism commission meeting was getting the tourism assistant grant posted to our website. So if you go to the board's commissions, committees, resources on our board, we have information about what that tourism assistance grant is. with a link to the PDF application and obviously Britt's always good answering questions. So thank you, that's all I had.

Stella.

Yeah, I just had a question. So it looks like we took in 103,000, spent 77,000. Do you have a beginning balance and a current balance?

I don't. So $147,000 we collected. So we dispersed 70% to the chamber to fund those operations. They've been running at a surplus for, I think, the last couple years, with what we talked a little bit more aggressive spending kind of as they're ramping up. So the 30% that the village holds from the room tax helps support like the E-permits and other type of economic development tools that the village has. But the 70% that, sorry. a vast majority of the 30% is still tied up in a post development grant. But the little bit that we do get to remain is currently with the economic development tools. I don't know, Britt, if you have readily available what you guys have.

I don't, but I can, I will call you tomorrow. Okay. I don't, but just keep, so keep in mind. So I joined the chamber in 2021. The hotel opened in the fall of 21. We didn't go into contract with the village until 23, like the spring. So we were, and they, you did a great job holding on to that 70% and really great job, by the way. And so we inherited a lump sum. So we run off of a budget every year, but that lump sum, I mean, so, you know, imagine just inheriting money and you don't just spend to spend because you have it. And so we, you know, we've spent a lot, but we want, we also, we didn't start from day one. So the Travel Cottage Grove entity didn't start until 23. And I don't know how much is, I can check for you though. I'd be happy to, yes.

Can you talk a little bit about short-term rentals and maybe some future initiatives on what the Village or Tourism Commission can do to make sure that we're in compliance?

Yeah. I know that there's an ordinance for hotels, I think is it 30%? I don't know off the top of my head. Or 30 days, I mean, for people to stay at the hotel. And then all the other... Something that's been brought to my attention from other municipalities is, are they called like tiny houses or something? People are putting tiny houses on their own properties and then they're renting them out as VRBOs. Yeah. Yeah, is that what you're referring to? Yeah. Okay. So that's something that you all may want to think about. Yeah, that's something you may want to think about in the future. Or the commission, I mean, but I think that would be a village ordinance that would need to be put into place. We don't have a lot of ERBOs, as I know right now, or Airbnbs. However, they do like to sneak them in and then not report them. And I guess that was my follow-up question. They do.

How do you enforce those rules?

I Google and try to find them. And if I find them, then I report them to the village. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we don't seem to have a lot. When I say that, I mean two, maybe. But the tiny houses, that's something you guys may want to look into. Before I build one. Just kidding.

Britt, has there been any talk about the possibility of opening a visitor center? And I know that I've often thought the school grounds building, which is kind of the gateway to the village, would be... you know, a good venue for that. I also know that should the chamber ever want to turn that into the visitor center, I think the historical society would love to partner and even maybe share in the cost of what that would look like in order to maybe host some historical items in there. But I don't know if you guys have had other conversations.

Not really. I mean, first of all, that would be awesome at the school grounds. I mean, that would just seal the deal of like historical and like just what kind of scope. No, we have a discussion. I'm fortunate enough where I'm the director of the chamber and tourism, and we only need one person right now. We just have the one hotel, and so there's just no need for us to hire another person at the moment, even a part-time person. And currently, the Bank of St. Perry has been very generous to me and give me a free office inside their facility, as you know. It's free. And so, no, there hasn't been discussion of that,

and and quite honestly i would love to get a hold of the gentleman who owns it and talk to i don't know if he has any future i have talked to him and i've actually planted the seed about the idea so i'd love to have more conversation with you offline because the historical society is looking at um renting space somewhere because all of our items are in the basement of flynn hall and nobody can ever see them and it's really a wasted opportunity so

I will email you and you can chat.

Yeah, because other municipalities have them.

Yeah, Stoughton did for a long time where they were in the Railroad Museum, the Chamber, and the Historical Society. So it's done in other places. Okay, yeah. No, that would be cool.

Any other questions or comments for Brett?

I just want to thank you for being here tonight and thank you for all of your work. taking the investment that we have through the room tax and it just gives a multiplier effect to all of our local businesses and generates more room stays. And watching the videos, I mean, they're a great reflection of our community and I really appreciate all the work that goes into it.

very happy to bring more people to come see cottage grove something thank you i know and a side note i mean i think most you know i live here and i've lived here a long time and i love i do love cottage grove and when we had to sit down and do the creative for this with the production company we you know as a producer and everything you had to really sit and go okay what do you want to talk about because you can't talk about everything and so and we when we Brainstormed and like did it and then it all came together. I mean not gonna lie I kind of like shed a tear because it was just like wow We really do have an amazing community. I think we're very fortunate. Not every community is like that So thanks for saying that because I feel the same way. So yeah Thanks for letting me move up tonight All right, thanks Brett

So just to recap, next year, the tourism will not come to the village board, but just presented the commission. We'll email a link.

Yeah.

Is it all right if we move on to public works E2? Kyla, are you prepared to... Absolutely. How about with that invite from Amazon? From Amazon, yes.

Correct.

Yeah, you're interested. We'll move on to the discuss and consider committee recommendations regarding the request for form road construction between 10 PM and 7 AM at Coney Highway and NTT intersection. And there's two PDFs linked in the agenda, including the memo and then the detour plan.

Come on up, gentlemen. So we have the Riley construction team here, the Pinnacle team here, Rock Road. Did I miss anybody? I think I said Riley, I meant the Ryan construction team. We have two Ryan and Riley's between different contractors in the village. At Public Works, they gave a presentation, a short presentation on their request. I'll let them go into more detail. What should be known as Public Works Committee ultimately approved the recommendation to the Village Board to approve the overnight work hours. Go ahead, gentlemen. Please just hit the button there.

Yeah, good evening. As Kyla mentioned, looking to get two nights approval for overnight work to finish paving at the roundabout at Highway N and TT intersection. Hopefully got a chance to read the memo and look at some of the attachments, but essentially the big things are safety concerns with if we did this during daytime operations. I have to do this under flagging and queuing up of traffic and plus concerns of worker safety themselves. And then another big one would be quality. We're able to pave this in one shot, well, over the course of two nights. There would be less piecemealing, better quality there and longevity as well. So that's kind of that. We've gone through and got approved detour routes. And Bill can kind of explain any more on that if you have any questions. But yeah, that's kind of the approval we're seeking.

I'll jump in here. The big thing to note is the Pinnacle and the Amazon team talked with Dane County. Dane County recommended the proposed detour route. They also got approval from City of Madison because they're using Sprecher Road. The safety behind it is the main aspect, both for the workers and for the public. If they do have to do it under flagging operations, they anticipate queues all the way down to Commerce, if not further south. Additionally, it should be noted that the DOT has some off-ramp work or ramp work that is going to be occurring, and that's going to be occurring during nighttime hours as well. One thing that came out of Public Works was to make sure that all of the local residents along that corridor are aware of the work hours and that work will be getting done. The dates have not been finalized. The plan for mid-August, give or take, Once dates are finalized, communication will be going out to Village Board and the public in general.

Questions or comments?

I think we also added at Public Works to notify the businesses like in the Commerce Park as well. Yeah. No, I supported this at the Public Works level. Will again. Somebody just brought up to me that one of the lanes under like by the first roundabout kind of going around is a little uneven. So hopefully we don't have any issues there. So I just thought, well, you're here. I'm going to mention it. So I don't know if there's a way to even that out because it does kind of dip. So... But you don't have to answer me now. That's not part of the agenda. I'm just passing along the citizen's comment.

Any other comments on this? There is an entertain a motion.

Move that we approve the request to perform road construction between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. at County Highway N and TT intersection as outlined in the memo.

I'll second.

Motion by Murphy, second by Erlandson. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Thank you for coming and sitting here.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right.

Page through my agenda here. We will move back up to new business C. Discuss and consider a temporary alcohol license to the Cottage Grove Lions for Rockin' at Bakken on August 27, 2026. And I believe we have some lions online.

Maybe. I think I saw one. Okay. Maybe. Go ahead, Lisa. Okay. So I will just give you the lowdown on this one. It's the same as what you approved for the lions for the car cruise, I believe it was, earlier in the year. Same thing other than they're doing it for the event that we're holding for Rockin' and Backin'. they will be doing the alcohol sales and providing the operators. And this has been background checked through the PD and everything is kosher and approved by them.

Comments or questions or motion? There's kind of a sister... item later in Parks and Rec on this too, but I would make a motion to approve the temporary alcohol license to the Cottage Grove Lions Club for Rockin' and Backin' on August 27th, 2026. Since it's our event, I'll second.

All right, motion by Murphy, second by Erlandson. Any other comments? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Discuss and consider the 2027-2036 capital prioritization plan. Cameron.

Thank you. So I was given some feedback last year that we had done two consecutive years of park pictures being the cover. So at that request, I have a roadway improvement, which is also exciting. So the cover page here is the intersection where the RRFB was installed. Just try to kind of keep any relevant project as a cover page. If anybody wants to submit one, by any means. So as a reminder, we're in the stage of the process where board members submitted their capital prioritization rankings. I take the results of whatever is recommended today to Ehlers for the financial management plan draft. What likely will happen once a tax impact is assigned to these projects is the budget review committee We'll review the tax impact and likely take projects out of the 10-year plan to make sure that we aren't causing a huge tax impact. And then ultimately, after Budget Review Committee gets the FMP, it will get forward onto the Village Board. So first and foremost, we start kind of with, when we're evaluating the process, the actual guidelines themselves. I look at this as an all-in process. KIND OF A BUDGET REQUEST FOR WHEN A DEPARTMENT SUBMITS EVERYTHING. THE PARAMETERS HERE BETWEEN BOTH THE ROAD, VEHICLES, AND MAJOR PROJECTS IS ROUGHLY $40 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS SPREAD OVER A 10-YEAR TIME FRAME. 2 MILLION EARMARKED FOR VEHICLES AND ROAD MAINTENANCE AND 20 MILLION FOR MAJOR PROJECTS. So the result of the survey, oops, forgot a little bit of a leg here. So funded, currently funded in the draft plan are any projects with a C plus rating or greater. I will say there was on the EMS fire station that had that cutoff of the 3.0 and the ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT. ULTIMATELY, WITH THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY THAT WAS LEFT IN THE PLAN, THERE WAS ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THE EMS AND FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENTS. OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE FINAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A PLACE HOLDER FOR, TO HAVE IN THE PLAN. SO ULTIMATELY, THERE WERE OUT OF THE ALL IN BUDGET REQUESTS BY ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, THERE WERE FIVE PROJECTS THAT WENT UNFUNDED. So if we take a look to see what that looks like when we're kind of combining all projects together. So right now we're working on, in the 2027 year, we gotta remember we're always kind of on a two-year hyper-focused capital plan where we have to do some engineering and designing, which is always brought forward through the budget. So right now, Strand's working on design of Ollie Street, not only the road reconstruction, but the water and sewer utilities, as well as South Main Street. I do want to point out in the prioritization plan that was sent out, the South Main Street project, you know, Kyle and I talked at length about also including burying the overhead electrical. We kind of received rough numbers that that would be about $500,000. We didn't feel like that. While cosmetic, that may look nice, I think, Ultimately, we brought forward a plan that did not include burying the utility. If that's something that the board would like us to bring forward in the final budget, we can certainly bring that, but that would increase the road portion of that project. So as you kind of can see here, the annual, you'll see kind of in every year a dollar amount related to vehicles, with the exception of 2029 here and here, and really 2028, 2029, depending on when the ladder truck comes. That's pulled out of the vehicle purchase line because we wouldn't be able to replace anything else with that one Purchase there, but still factored it in with the overall Tenure horizon I will say kind of in a more more so important improvement here to take a look at is because it has seen some movement over the last couple years the community park shelter and The replace shelter and restroom facility right now it's tentatively put in 2029. There was a lot of discussion last year about the scope of that project. So, if it is in 2029, I would strongly encourage some additional discussion on what that scope of that project is. If there's a dollar amount that is. desirable for the board to move forward with. However, in this plan it represents the full scope of replacing the shelter in its current capacity along with the restroom facility. I did receive some feedback. If we kind of go back to An item that did not make into the prioritization and something that can be brought forward at the financial management plan discussion is the fireman's park. Just because in that instance, we're talking about that shelter being a larger project and there's certain other amenities in that park that may require attention sooner than that, such as replacing pathway, roadway improvement to help facilitate ADA for Monona Grove Baseball. for Fireman's Fest and other events out at that facility. One of the things that came out of this was great discussion with EMS and FIRE still waiting on, we got some preliminary comments back from FIRE waiting for them to come back from their association to kind of provide some additional notes. But ultimately, we feel that there's a need that Parks and Rec might decide to do some general master planning for what does Fireman's Park look like in general, kind of revisioning what, if we're gonna, and that might not necessarily just mean amenities, it also might mean we have other partners that share that park, including Monona Grove, obviously the firemen and the village, What do future opportunities for possible cost share or what does that park even have in the future? So ultimately going through a master planning exercise could identify what that future of that park looks like with the stakeholders that ultimately use that park. Other large projects that are in the plan, you'll see periodically in the kind of the road reconstruction, trying to alternate road reconstructions with bigger maintenance projects. So you'll see in this plan, 2027, we have a reconstruction project, and we're only gonna do about $200,000 worth of road maintenance, but then no reconstruction projects in 2028, $2.1 million worth of road maintenance project in 2028. It is also important to note that these are the costs at gross, meaning we did get some LRIP funding while it's minor. It's still something. There is opportunities for other grant and opportunities. This document ends up being a policy document that allows us to go identify opportunities for applying for grants or working and collaborating with other groups. As we kind of go into, I obviously included kind of the feedback that was provided. kind of what we end up including in the this this page is included for reference for if a project shifts years kind of what would we put the attentive cost for that project and then ultimately vehicles and equipment you know we have that estimated 1 million dollar bucket each year really Obviously, 10 years out of vehicle planning can be difficult and challenging. This is really just to get visualization for the board on when to kind of anticipate estimated replacements. You'll see that many years that the annual funding for the vehicles may exceed what our allotment would be. But ultimately, through policy, we would only bring forward in the capital projects budget up to what is kind of preliminary authorized, unless there was preliminary discussion had. And again, a reminder, this would be on average. So if we had a larger year, we might choose to come back the next couple of years with smaller projects. But kind of similar to what was mentioned through some discussion with Chief Lang, the first part of the ambulance replacement in 2027, You know, we have our approximate share here of $88,244. We've been in preliminary discussion that that might be funded entirely through reserves. But again, this is just what the gross dollar amount is that we know it and then ultimately funding sources are determined through the budget process. And again, visualization for residents. This kind of puts the road maintenance, it takes it out of that block number and kind of separates the projects out by year. Ultimately, and Kyla obviously can answer more questions specifically, trying to group the projects out by location and then try to identify and take advantage of specific intersections when we're overdoing that work anyways. There was a couple kind of open-ended questions related to the traffic study for specific intersections. So ideally with the capital prioritization plan, while that's not a project on here, just getting board direction on what to see in a budget request for 2027 would be helpful for staff. So that being said, I will turn it over to the board to answer any questions and have any discussion.

Brought the asphalt to Cameron's attention about separating that out. And I have pictures on my phone if anybody wants to see them. But it's pretty treacherous up there. So during Fireman's Festival, I was watching moms with strollers. We had older people with canes or walkers. And it looks awful, but it's a trip hazard. And so even if I understand the idea of a master plan and such, even if we can do some asphalt repair in some capacity, I think that would be good. I also think about it, you know, we heard from Britt through a lens of tourism, right? You've got MG Baseball playing there, people coming from other municipalities, and that asphalt looks awful. It's not a good gateway, so... I would like to see that put in somewhere, even if it's just a couple of patch repairs to get us through to the master plan.

I have two questions. So based on how these, you've got like recommended years in here on some of the stuff. Based on the rankings from the trustees, did any of those change years?

Yeah, ultimately the community shelter had the biggest movement as far as ultimately recommended year and placement. To time it out with some larger projects, and I do see the ladder truck is in the wrong year. It should be 2028. But ultimately, relatively consistent. I think what becomes far less challenging is we don't have a large building project. Yes, the $8 million for the fire station is moderate, but this becomes a lot more flexible document now that that large infrastructure is taken care of.

Okay, and then you mentioned budget review committee possibly taking some more from funded into unfunded. Is that just gonna be lopping off the lowest priorities?

So that becomes a difficult kind of discussion because obviously you guys as board members rated and prioritized these projects and then you have a committee that might feel differently about projects and how they were graded. I ultimately do share with the budget review committee what your guys' ratings are and kind of try to lean on some of the board members who sit on that committee to kind of facilitate why certain things stuck in the plan. I do think it would be helpful to give the budget review committee maybe some direction on if a tax comeback came at a certain level, what are projects that you could or would see maybe coming out or could come out

So I guess what I'm kind of struggling with is if our rankings don't really change any recommended year and if budget review could just technically randomly cut stuff out, what's the point of ranking them? Like if it doesn't, it's just, I don't know, I guess it kind of feels to me like We're giving the impression that we're having an effect on this, but ultimately, it doesn't necessarily really matter. You know what I mean?

I would say the committee is going to recommend, and the board could go right back to what you guys prefer.

But I mean, also with ranking them, If you guys had something ranked as 2030, but all of us had it as an A+, is that gonna move it up to 2028?

We'll move it wherever you want it moved.

But if we have to tell you to move it, Ranking it doesn't seem like a, I don't know, it just doesn't seem like we have good use of our time.

Yeah, in general, if you look at the plan, obviously the two A-plus projects are in 27. The A-minus projects are still within that five-year outlook. I think, again, the unicorn that I'll keep referring to is the community park shelter. And that's even moved back from what it was submitted. So it was a B-plus project, but we didn't, It was kind of fringe on, should that really be before some of those A minus intersection improvements? And when we were evaluating the timing of it with the planned pavement, that was ultimately what stuck that year. I always kind of tell people there's no perfect way to do this. This is to get something in front of you guys. I may suggest that we start at some point with creating a baseline and then every year forward we just talk about changes. Because there's a lot less, through every plan that we've done, there's been less and less movement of the projects. So if we feel like once we have a good 10 year plan and then adopt it, and then we're only really voting on changes, maybe it's not a full grading projects every year. Maybe it's just providing feedback on the projects that are in the plan. I can certainly see where that grading process is a lot of effort, especially on the trustee side.

I think it's also kind of an affirmation from the board that these are still projects that we value and we want to see move forward or not move forward. And especially with new board members, it's kind of a good exercise to go through. Are you going to argue with me? No, no, no.

I just wanted to add one thing to what he was saying about community park is that was supposed to be originally replaced in 2022. So that needs to get done.

I'd like to argue with you about that one then. Because last year, majority board direction was that we move it back to 2031. based on some of the conversations that we'd had and now it's moved back up. And I understand that this current board is interested in having it move up further. I still think that the intersections of Parkview and Northlawn should be moved way ahead of a parks project like that. And I'd be interested in hearing a little bit more about the pavements associated with it and why those intersections should be in that year.

So the biggest thing with those intersections is I've heard a couple different reasons on the reasons behind wanting to move forward with them. One, there's the asphalt quality. Obviously that's important, but two is also the pedestrian safety is a big component for those intersections. It should be noted that we are currently accepting RFPs for the active transportation plan for the MPO grant that we're going to be reviewing at the public works meeting in August. As part of that RFP, I have requested that there is like an intersection pedestrian walkway feasibility study at the main RFP locations that we have through the village. So those are gonna take care of your Oak Street, your Clark, where we have RFBs already. The reason that was included in this capitalization prioritization plan, that's really hard to say, holy cow, apologies. was for the other intersections that Village Board has requested and wanted to see improvements on, not just for traffic, but also pedestrian safety. You kind of want to look at the entire corridors in general and not just look at one intersection at a time. While I love RRFBs and I love stoplights, you're not going to want to put an RRFB at every single intersection along Main Street. So looking at collectively, sorry, Chris, looking collectively at all of those intersections together at an overall pedestrian walkway feasibility as well as safety for vehicles that was the intent of the study so if this board is interested in moving forward with that that'd be something that i would bring in my budget request and strand ultimately would look look at all of those intersections combined as well as included in the mpo grant so we have a good understanding of what those look like both in our current condition and with future projections as well this way we're not putting in infrastructure for pedestrian improvements that aren't are going to be torn up in five years that's the last thing i want to do okay fine sorry so so chris to your comment too um so kind of what we would do in this instance with these two intersections is

This currently, the way that it's mapped out is we're doing major pulverization every other year. We don't have to do that like that, so if we want to do two consecutive years and then move those interceptions up, but ideally you would want this top schedule of streets to align with these two intersection improvements down here. That's what you're going to kind of look at, or I would at least recommend with movement, is you're going to want to capture both of those at once.

I guess maybe it's just a matter of shifting my personal expectations because I guess when I rank things, what I think is we should do this, then this, then this, and maybe it's just I need to think about it as these are the things we want to do, yes or no. So the rankings don't necessarily mean we're going to do them in that order. So maybe it's a me problem.

I mean, for what it's worth, Chris, I rank them taking into account the estimated year mentioned. That was part of my ranking. And so if I was like, oh, no, this should be done sooner, that made me rank it higher. Or if I was like, no, that's a good year for it, then I was expecting that if something was rated very highly by all of us, then yeah it would probably get moved up a bit from whatever year it was in whereas if it was just like b or c then it would kind of stay where it was and and just you know be in the middle of the pack um so if that wasn't what we were supposed to do then you know i mean maybe we could look at changing the definitions of the letters too like a means i think this should

Move, maybe we should move, I'm not seeing right now.

Oh no, I already have them done from two years ago.

I was just saying like A means we should move it up a year, B means it's a good year to do it, or some, I don't know.

Maybe this is a future agenda item for like next March.

Preferably earlier than that.

January, put it on the list.

I would second that informal not motion.

Agenda item, do we want to move What are the action items you want from us tonight? Moving items aside from me, which I'm not in the majority, so I'll drop it.

I had a really quick minor, very minor question. In the visualization part, Cameron, where it has the annual escalation percentage on the top, those are cumulative, right? Where it's like 5%, 5%, 3.5%.

Yeah, so ultimately, like if a project's two years out, first it would be 5%, and then it would be another 5% of that. So it's kind of like that compounding.

Yeah, I assumed, I just wanted to be sure. I was like, otherwise, why would things suddenly get cheaper for no reason in 2032? Thank you for confirming.

Yep, 100%.

Comments from the board about direction on this plan?

So ultimately, this is a pretty big step in the budget process. So ultimately, Ehlers will be using this document to create the first version of the financial management plan. And while there's not tax impacts in front of you, obviously every project has significant tax impact. So if there's movement that you guys, so the first and foremost, we'll want to make sure that ladder truck in 2028. But outside of that, making sure that any direction on movement, deletions, additions back in is very clear and defined. So if there gets to be, like let's just say you wanna do the intersections regardless of when we're doing the pavement, that's fine. It just might not be the most, we're always gonna bring the most economical project forward. That doesn't necessarily mean when, ultimately that project's decided to be done.

Thanks. I guess my question for my colleagues here, looking at the second most expensive project on the list, the North Main Street urbanization, Oak Street to School Road. I rank this an E. I know that there are, you know, it's a connection that we need to make across, you know, getting people across Main Street. However, we'll have crossings that we're going to work on the intersection pedestrian projects I Guess this is a project that we have the bike path on the east side of Main Street We're going to cause what I would imagine significant disruptions to the backyards all along the west side of Main Street urbanizing that area. This is a project that I did not rank highly. I don't know, Kyla, do you have any additional information about what that would look like?

That project would include a vast, there's ditch draining all throughout there, so you would urbanize it with curb and gutter on the west side. and it would also likely be retaining walls through that corridor as well, just given the drop off between the existing roadway as well as the property owners there as well. It would just bring that, typically you see a more rural feel when you have ditches and not curbs, so the urbanization would bring it to the full. Curb and gutter, storm sewer, that concept.

So then you would have retaining walls and potentially like a guard a rail like we have over here like is the drop off that big that we would have a really know it would depend on where the retaining wall is like if the House sits up higher than you wouldn't need one potentially a bike path if that's something we're interested on that side as well.

All options that we could look into.

I THINK KNOWING, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE GO THROUGH OUR COMP PLAN PLUS THE ADDITION OF KIND OF THE VISIONING WORK FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT WE'RE ENVISIONING THAT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, BETTER INFORM WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS GO DOWN AND IN ORDER TO KIND OF GET PEOPLE IN THE WALKABILITY TO THAT DOWNTOWN AND I GUESS MY RANKING WAS REFLECTIVE OF It's a good project, it's needed, but it's pushed out to 2033. Also wondering about kind of some of that financing too with the potential for other funding mechanisms. I think I had my notes in there.

I'll echo that, Cindy. Like I said, Heidi, that one said 2033, so I think I put that at a C. And I was like, yep, that seems fine at that time period as a distant thing. I agree that it wasn't a huge priority, but given the year, that seemed fine.

Yeah, I think the pedestrian improvements are really important to get people to cross. We also don't want to undo a whole bunch of work if you're going to urbanize it. There's a lot of pieces before we decide what.

So it should be noted that in each of those prices, the urbanizations And if I remember this correctly, the urbanizations didn't include the intersections. So we can do the intersections without urbanizing the rest of it. We would future plan that out with our engineers. I know Josh is on the line, and we would future plan if something needed to be changed that if we set ourselves up for that urbanization in the future. Yes, maybe there's a small patch of asphalt that you'd have to replace, but we would set ourselves up for the future on that.

Yeah, that's how it was set up, Kyla. On top of that, I think there'll be a bigger discussion because school road to the north can all be converted to four lanes, you know, two lanes in each direction. And depending on how the village changes and how it grows, there may be an improvement that happens on that at some point throughout the entire corridor, long range in the future. So it's just things to think about as you expand and correct that road.

Does anyone else have anything for the prioritization? Cameron, are you looking for any other specific feedback from the board tonight?

I guess a couple of things. Chris, I know you had a question in just clarification about facilities in general. The move to the police station won't abandon the need to completely abandon Bonney Road. So at some point, there will have to be that lot reconstruction. So ultimately, that's why it's stuck in. One other just note and why this feedback matters. A lot of, if there's not sidewalk where there isn't sidewalk, This plan does not include when we revisit those sections to add sidewalk. I think we heard that loud and clear through board feedback that leave it as it is and we'll ask for it when or if we need it. And ultimately, whatever you give us feedback here, I mean, the budget review committee will, I mean, hopefully respect any, the just general direction. So if there's, let's just say the tax impact is, you know, for the average home, like $40 more than what the budget review is comfortable with. You know, what kind of projects reduction are you guys comfortable with? Or project additions? Because this is where, as staff, we start to feel uncomfortable about kind of adding and subtracting things from the plan. This is really when we're trying to have the board take the driver's seat on the plan.

I have one last thing. On vehicles, I know a parks committee, we talked about challenges with mowing slope and we don't have equipment to mow at like a high, like a 15% grade. So this only includes equipment that we already own and need to replace unless it's already been, like that, I don't think that that equipment has gone through the process of approval yet. So this is just kind of our bucket for equipment?

Yeah, preliminary kind of allocations. I think really that's where we would see a right sizing of equipment. So if we had mowers that didn't do a certain function, we would want to, when we replace them, replace them with said mower that would achieve that function. whether that be a lot of the time that can be a one-for-one change, but if there's a significantly additional cost, really when I get together with department heads, when we put together a 2027 budget, it's then, okay, there's all of these things that are being asked for. Is there a clear and obvious thing that can move? Sometimes that's the case. So that's when we would prioritize like existing operations. I think where we get to like drone programs or other type of things that haven't been in operations, those are typically the things that move first. And then ultimately then the board kind of cuts it down even further. And again, kind of with further discussion tonight, you'll see a street sweeper in 2027. Just because that gets taken out, if the board moves with action, doesn't mean I'm going to replace it with $400,000 worth of cost. I would kind of maintain that, unless there was an absolute necessity need for it. It would basically be moving forward without that chunk of So I would probably come with $700,000 with the cost instead of the full 1.1 million.

So moving forward for budget review is the feedback from the board. If we do need to remove different projects from the plan in order to make it work, do we go from the lower range?

Yeah.

That's what you want an answer to tonight? Yep.

Okay. Does that mean pushing off a certain project?

I guess does the board want to go from the lower ranking and remove that, or do you want to go by category?

The lowest ranking is the EMS fire station. I guess word of caution there, because that would be direction that maybe a remodel If a remodel achieves the response times that are necessary, pushing for a remodel of an existing might be better than an existing station. I think... Facilities always creates a challenge and that's where we had that challenge in the plan with the police station project and how it affects kind of how other projects move.

And I think my comment was that I'd like it to come back and we do a revision with the FMP when we do know what we're doing with that because right now it's a placeholder and that's all it is.

Yep.

What does the board want to do for other projects who are making some changes?

I just have a question about the mower with the slope. So what has been used to mow those slopes?

Up until this season, we just used the mowers that we had and that we use for everything. And through working with CIVMEC, we were informed that some of the slopes are too great for the equipment that we have.

So the slopes... You were just notified recently that the slopes were too steep to mow and you've been mowing them?

Per insurance, yes.

That's interesting.

Backstory here. So when we switched insurance companies now two years ago, this will be our second full year, they were kind of going through existing policies, procedures. That was the policy that kind of came up next. So they identified kind of best practices for that equipment, 15% grade. I will say that's... in talking with other communities, that's a guideline where, and even talking together as a team from requiring development on storm waters and other things and requiring certain slope that is less than 15% is not necessarily practical. So I think there's still, I think this is the effort on mitigating risk, but not necessarily relevant in every situation, if that makes sense.

I don't know. It just seems like maybe a safety concern that's been overlooked until insurance brought it forward.

Since we're on mowing, do we ever look to the town to perhaps either share a piece of equipment or borrow a piece of equipment? I specifically think of a ditch mower, right? And the area along County Highway, and so do we?

Yes, our superintendents between all three departments, both public works, parks, and utilities, all are in contact with the town. Help each other out when need be nice.

So they let us use their ditch mower. That's great.

Okay for the locations I don't know about the ditch mower specifically, but we do help each other out with equipment in general when we ask great Moving forward on the plan.

This is a discuss and consider Make the motion to approve 2027 through 2036 capital prioritization plan. I

And there was staff direction to bring back the guidelines for review in January.

I'll second that.

All right. Motion by Murphy, second by JP. And so no changes were recommended based on what was put into the plan. Just clarifying.

There may still be changes, though, after we see how it looks in FMP.

Moving forward to the next step.

Yep, just the ladder truck in the right year.

I'm going to vote for it, but I'm still going to just say if there's a way we could find some asphalt in it, I would appreciate that.

Is the board aligned with finding, or do you want the asphalt in 2027? We need to be just more specific moving forward for the review. Yeah, I mean, if...

I don't even know how much it would cost, right? I mean, we have to get a quote on that, but I would say as soon as possible with the number of events that are happening down there. I think it would be good to even just do some patching or something of that nature.

Is that something that needs, Kyla, that you would need approval on? It's something that you can, or Sean, too?

I can look into it more on the patching side, what we can do internally and then go from there on funding. If it would come from like our operations or park operations, we can work with Cameron and then if we can't do it in-house, we can talk with someone. So more to come.

Back to budget review in August then?

Yeah, I guess this is kind of how I would see the flow. I would have it be a future Parks and Rec committee conversation. I would have that discussion in August and then ultimately have a budget recommendation come through in September. And then it just goes through the process.

Okay. Is the board aligned with that? Okay. Okay. right there's a motion in a second then you got all that lisa all right all those in favor aye opposed abstain motion carries and then cameron just remind us on the we approved the timeline back in may but where are we for the next steps is you're working with ellers and the next meeting is

You're getting really ahead on the agenda. I can cover that part now, and we can save some time at the end of the meeting. Do it. So as a reminder, the equalized value update will be officially released in the very beginning of August. So what I'm doing between now and then is compiling this plan with Ellers, getting that document put together. Ultimately, it will be presented August 18th to a budget review committee. Kind of a special note between now and then, Water and Sewer will look at their first cash flow analysis related to the next five years of projected rates for Water and Sewer. So that's a pretty significant meeting. Similar to this one, it provides direction to the Utility Commission for bringing forward a budget in August. and then ultimately the village board will look at this document, the financial management plan in its entirety on September 8th. One of the things that was talked about at budget review committee was the next couple months when we were doing service providers reviews, all before the next, um village board meeting i'll be sending out kind of like a cover letter of the all the service providers that are being done and what their annual cost is to the village in the in in terms of what was budgeted in um 2026 as well as you know estimated cost for 2026. um And then ultimately, September is an extremely busy time for committees, commissions, et cetera, because ultimately that is submitted to us and we'll bring kind of a first draft of the budget here on October 12th. And then October 26th being the budget workshop. I do need to send a message out to the town. I believe October 26th is also the normally scheduled fire commission. So just letting them know that we do have a budget workshop on that night. Yeah. Moving along in the budget process, I am very, I do believe our estimated equalized value and assessed value is gonna be much higher than anticipated, which is good news all around.

All right, thanks. For anyone that was watching, that was the update on the 2020, the end of the agenda. We are on new business letter E. Discuss and consider potential solutions to improve emergency access and secondary egress for the Damascus Trail neighborhood.

I had a question about this because we talked about this in public works too. Can we either combine it with public works or combine public works with this so we don't have to talk about it twice?

If that's okay with the presenters.

Sure. I mean, there's going to be a lot of overlap. Yeah. Yeah. We'll just kind of do it all at once.

All right. Let's move on to discuss and consider Resolution 2026-13, Disability Pride Month. Resolution is attached in the agenda.

I make the motion to approve Resolution 2026-13 regarding Disability Pride Month.

I'll second that.

Motion by Murphy, second by JP. Any discussion?

I'd like to say a few words. I appreciate this resolution very much. And I would love to see the board kind of move from words on a piece of paper to action. And I know that we have a family here in Cottage Grove. And I asked their permission to be able to share their story at this meeting. But there's a young man, a 10-year-old named Jeremy McClain, who has cerebral palsy. He's nonverbal autistic. And he has two seizure disorders. He was born at 23 weeks. And... His family is trying to raise money for a seizure alert dog. When I met with his mother, she told me some harrowing stories of how when he has one of the types of seizures, the worst seizures, how she has to beg him when he stops breathing. and she and her husband stay up all night so that they know if he's having a seizure. So as a community, I would love to see us rally around him. I think that that's what communities do. They are getting a seizure alert dog from Four Paws Rescue, and the rescue covers half the cost, but the family's tasked with raising $23,000 And so I guess I would just make a plea to my fellow board members that put any animosity aside that you have for me and really look into your hearts to see if there's something that can be done to help this family, whether it's donating or maybe just sharing Jeremy's story and awareness. I would really appreciate that. I think that would go a long way with showing this family with a disabled child that they are seen and they are heard. So let's take this resolution and let's turn it into action. Thank you.

Any other comments? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. We have discussed and consider holding a joint village and town meeting at 5.30 p.m. on Monday, September 14th, 2026. It's also on the town agenda for tonight. We're trying to schedule with PAA and Cedar Corp the review of the fire and EMS study. So if everyone could just double check their calendars.

We'd make a motion to hold the joint village and town meeting at 5.30 on Monday, September 14, 2026. I will also second that.

All right.

Motion by Murphy, second by JP. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Letter H, discussing the loss of Creed Sports Facility and why following the development process matters. Turn it over to Erlandson and Stoa.

So we've touched on this a little bit already, and there were residents that spoke on this as well. I could go on at length, but you know, It's already been said by a lot of folks that this was a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue every year to the school district especially, and that's the biggest part of everyone's tax bill. It was an incalculable boost to neighboring businesses, especially the hotel that, as we discussed, directly funds our tourism. But most important, this was a community space that would have served children and families both in and around Cottage Grove. And this project did fail directly because of the delay that came from voting no last July 2025 at the annexation and use permit stage. Construction costs are indeed what drive projects like this, and they have skyrocketed in the past 12 months. Also, Corey Randall at the Chamber of Commerce spoke with the developer, Aaron Colley, and confirmed that it fell through because of the initial delays and timing. Had the project proceeded according to our process, it would have been opening this fall. But there's not a single construction project in the country that hasn't seen costs increasing out of the ordinary in the past year. So that is why this didn't happen. I didn't bring this memo to... relitigate per se what happened, but going forward, these same mistakes are being repeated in large part by the same trustees who voted no and had this project fail. Throughout the plan commission and the village board meetings last year, staff repeatedly referenced the full site plan as the point where these concerns would be addressed, where concerns about traffic and safety, concerns about lighting, fencing being in compliance with the ordinances. That's done in the site plan in the developer agreement. We never made it to that site plan because of the initial no votes from Trustee Severson and Wenzel and former Trustee Dahl. Had they not rescinded their votes, nothing ever gets addressed, no one's concerns. We get no traffic study. We get no input from fire and EMS. Trustee Severson had made repeated reference to how the annexation is where our greatest legislative authority is, as well as stating that they always understood how the development works and our process, but that doesn't mean they necessarily like the process. They've stated that impactful issues are deferred to later stages, which can make it more difficult to ensure that they're fully addressed up front. That's simply not the case. The board is fully empowered to impose conditions at every step of the process until this final agreement is signed. And what the loss of this project shows us is that going out of order can ruin the entire thing. It's also contradictory to what actually happened in this process. If there are concerns that this board decides the developer should address before their project goes through, trustees should be making motions about addressing those concerns. It should look like a motion to approve with conditions of XYZ or directing staff to include XYZ in site plan or developer agreement. It should look like furthering the discussion, not sitting in silence and apologizing later for not rescinding your vote. And especially... again, tie this into current and future projects, we should not be repeating the exact same mistakes with other developments. Like, for example, voting no on juniper fields because of issues like traffic and stormwater that staff have already included as mandatory conditions. This is a frequent theme of either dislike of the process or distrust of our staff, framed as due diligence or careful consideration, and it has a real cost. In a similar vein, Trustee Buenzo had said during the initial July meeting that they wanted more time to review, more information, but were not specific about what information they needed that they didn't already have. And then again, when staff brought back information, a 13-page memo summarizing all these concerns, they did not rescind their vote. They also later stated in March of this year that the board was ultimately going to approve this all along once the details were ironed out between the developer and the board. That is, once again, simply not the case. Without the rescinding vote and the new items on the agenda in September, the project would have died in July with nothing being addressed. Again, my two points on this are, one, to make it clear that this project failed not because of due diligence, but because of unnecessary and costly delays. And two, even if you don't agree with how our process is, it is still our duty as trustees to follow it because that's how the concerns actually get addressed. A no vote never makes a developer pay for anything.

If I may. So I had a question for all staff and all board members. Does anyone have it in writing from the developer that the reason he pulled his project was due to the delays? Does anyone have it in writing?

I don't think that he heard back, so he emailed that.

That's been communicated to Trustee Severson and the board that we've reached out and we would be telling you if we knew.

Okay, so we're basing this whole conversation on a third party account of a conversation and the developer has not told us officially why he pulled out. I'm glad we got that on record because that's a big deal. And I have a problem with that. That means that folks are speculating as to the reasons. And if you've ever been involved in a commercial project, you know there are a million things that can go wrong. And I'm not going to speculate why he pulled out. I'm not going to do it because it's not based on fact. So a couple things in your memo, Casey, that are not factually correct. You say in the memo, the annexation step of the development process is not where traffic impacts are addressed. And by voting no at this stage, trustees were actually preventing that traffic information from being fully investigated. And then you also say the initial failed motion in July of 2025 would have led to nothing further at all, no traffic studies, no further diligence or review, and no negotiations. That is not correct. Wisconsin State Statute 66.0217, there is nothing in there that prevents a municipality from acquiring a traffic impact analysis for an annexation petition. And furthermore, you might want to look at the DOT's guidance that just came out in June of this year that talks about traffic impact analysis. So that is not correct, and I think to present it as being correct is misleading. Second, I want to mention that We first considered the annexation petition on July 21st of 2025. Yes, we delayed it. Yes, we made some different decisions in that process, but ultimately it got approved 56 days later. Casey, I ask you, how many days are we allowed by state statute to decide an annexation petition?

So both of these are irrelevant because... No, I asked you a question.

How many days? Let me help you. It's 120.

Yes, but when the no vote happened, it ended. It was not allowed to be brought back onto the agenda. Nothing can proceed, and that 120 days just runs out the clock. The only reason we got back into that 120-day deadline is because after the vote was reversed, the developer was reached back out to you. Yes. That happened after the fact. And so to your point about the DOT studies and traffic studies like that, they can be done, but this board can't consider them if there's no item on the agenda. Which is why in the first August meeting, when information was brought forth, President Kel Nelson asked you, Trustee Brunzo and Trustee Dahl, to rescind your vote to have the discussion. You could still have then voted no again. but you had to rescind your vote to have the discussion and that's what didn't happen and that's the issue is if we don't have it on the agenda if you vote no and if the majority votes no or in this case it deadlocks and fails there is no discussion that the board has

I understand that, and I understand how the process works, and actually that was done to us when I wanted to reconsider and take an item off the table, so it goes both ways. My point being, state statute allows us 120 days because an annexation petition is the biggest legislative decision that we have to make as a board. It's a big deal, adding new residents, adding new infrastructure, and so we are allowed to take that entire time, should we deem it necessary, necessary to do it. So 56 days. Lastly, I want to say to you, we did approve the zoning map and the amendment and the CUP in March, unanimously. September 15th, unanimously. September 2nd, unanimously. So yes, did we miss a step or two? Yep, it delayed it by 56 days. Secondly, I think that I'm incredibly disappointed in the public posting that you put out. And particularly, there's something that I want to call out. There's a lot of misleading that has happened in there. But saying that failing to understand the development, budgeting, municipal responsibility, and regulatory requirements... you insinuate that I don't know those things. So what is the evidence that you have?

I don't think I put anyone's names in.

You didn't put the names, but you, no, no. Bring it down. I'm being attacked, and you guys aren't letting me speak. You have said your piece. You have put your memo out. You have put your comments out, your public comment. I want to refute some of those things. I very well understand the development project. I have a bachelor's degree in political science. I've served in the Wisconsin legislature. I served on the Sun Prairie City Council and twice on this board. And when you put statements out in the public arena like that that says that I fail to understand those things, you sway the public a certain direction, and it's not based on fact. So here are the facts. The developer has not told us why he pulled the project. Multiple approvals occurred after the original vote. That's a fact. The project was ultimately unanimously approved at the site plan stage. I am just sickened by what was put out in public. And it was intentional, and it was dirty, and it was misleading to the public. Because now you have people saying, I want to know who the trustees are who voted against this. And you have your supporters posting our names. And ultimately, I did support this. And quite frankly, I think you not only owe me apology for that classless move, but you owe the people of this community apology for misleading what happened.

I think that your comments tonight are grossly inappropriate towards this board, and the way you've been talking to us has been slightly inappropriate. I'm sorry. I'm stating facts. Stop. I'm talking. I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings. That's not my intent.

I hurt my feelings.

Okay, then never mind. My post, okay, because we're talking about Facebook, like Facebook posts, public, I mean, it's a public forum, I suppose. It's my free speech. It's my amendment rights to post what I wanted in a post anyone's name. I thought it was a well-done post. I thought it was very diplomatic. I put that information out there. I did not call you out by name like you have done to me several times on posts. It goes right back at you.

Well, mine are grounded in fact, and I think maybe you'll be hearing from my attorney for the libel that you committed.

I think threatening trustee is inappropriate.

I have a legal right to sue anyone who misleads and makes false statements against me. And just because you're a member of the board and you have a title of village president doesn't give you a free pass. People need to be held responsible for their actions and their words.

I think we need to keep that discussion to the actual agenda item here.

Is there any more discussion on the sports memo?

Yeah, there is. I'd like to comment on that and I'd like to circle back around to, I took some notes, the employee handbook that we're talking about and You know, I'm going to circle back around to the Village President's public statements, repeatedly with attributes responsibility for the project's failure to three trustees and included statements such as they failed to understand the development process and they prevented the project from moving forward. and questions why no is the default response for some. And getting back to the memo, Casey, definitely there was presented disputed conclusions as established facts as the case. We don't know why the developer pulled out. Could be a variety of reasons. I'm not going to speculate. But you are also putting out there, as you did tonight on record as well, conclusions without facts. You assume that the development process only had one path, such as the initial motion failed would have led to nothing further at all. That's obviously what did not occur. It also characterizes trustees motives or reasoning that the board and trustees must be consistent and honest in their objectives. Are you implying that the term that you used as honest implied that some objections may have been dishonest? I'm unaware of any evidence supporting that implication. It risks shifting discussion, policy and discussion disagreements to questioning the integrity of elected officials. Your memo also assumes that annexation concerns cannot include broader policy considerations. The annexation step is not where traffic impacts are addressed. Those broader considerations can be relevant even before a formal traffic study is completed. Your memo also, I noted, that suggests that approving annexation was necessary to obtain additional information. Those are policy judgments that different boards certainly may approach differently. Your memo assumes that project benefits were certain to boost the community that would have benefited everyone. That's aspirational, nice. Economic development often has both benefits and costs, which were not reviewed or put out there by you. It omitted discussion of trustees fiduciary role. The memo emphasizes that the development process, but does not discuss our responsibility as a trustee to independently evaluate proposals. Ask questions, ask the developer questions with things like, finishing off roads, sidewalks, curb and gutter. It is part of our elected duty to exercise legislative discretion. It also frames all of this as disagreement as a procedural error rather than simply we're asking questions as our due diligence. And Let me see, I have more here. you had mentioned too, I mean, you presented your opinion as if it were fact, very publicly. And coming from a leader and circling back to the handbook, there's several things that you violated there. For example, these were simply your, this was your opinion, these are not facts. The decision made by three trustees, those are pretty serious accusations. Or is that just simply your interpretation

One other question. Again, Rick mentioned sticking to the topic, the engine topic, which is the metal.

I am sticking to the topic. Please don't interrupt me again.

It has to relate to the development process. It is.

I'm... It's talking about the development process here that you assume that economic projections were guaranteed. I mean, who prepared these productions? Were they independently reviewed? What assumptions were used? Was inflation, construction delays, vacancy, market changes, appeals considered? You know, the criticizing, just like Paula stated, this really exemplifies leadership. I don't have anything more to add other than I would like to know very specifically, can you identify the evidence showing that myself, Peter, Paula, rather than the market or the developer factors caused this project to fail? I mean, can you 100, you guys, you all claim that you're scientists based on data proven. Where's your data here? Were the projected tax revenues independently validated or were they developer estimates? What risks with the project were considered along with project benefits? I didn't see either of you put that out. Did the developer provide written documentation stating that the board's questions were the primary reason the project was abandoned? Didn't hear that. So can you identify which specific regulatory or budgeting requirements you believe myself, Peter, or Paula misunderstood? How do you distinguish between predictable review process and an expectation of approval? And with that, I have nothing furthermore to add.

isn't any motion on this so um i'll just reiterate again i am in no way suggesting that questions and concerns shouldn't be raised and addressed even early that is in fact my entire point is that the board did not get to address any concerns or impose any conditions because we did not get to that part of the process the proper form the proper process is indeed to raise them as soon as you like as soon as they become apparent and then make motions or direction to staff to address those concerns so to that's why when we make these motions we say with staff recommendations with with the condition x y and z so if there are concerns about traffic uh impact for for the sports complex that got brought up several times You would approve the annexation conditional to a traffic study and certain parameters being hit. If there's concerns about fire EMS access, then you say that this would be approved only if approved by fire commission, EMS commission as well. Those aren't the things that were done. That's the process that was lacking. That's very clear. And that is all I have to say on that. Cindy, we can certainly move on. If no one else has any other comments.

Yep, this is not a discuss and consider. And Paula and Renee, I am sorry if my Facebook post offended you. And it was not meant to point direct fingers. I made sure that I did not put names in it. And it was my own opinion. And it was my own assumptions. And I tried to make that extremely clear in my writing.

That is not a sincere apology when you say yes.

It is an absolutely sincere apology, Renee.

It isn't. And it was very intentional, Cindy. It was a very intentional post.

I was very specific about it. We shouldn't be having this discussion.

You can move on to reports from village boards, commissions and committees. So plan commission met on July 15th, 2026 at 7 p.m. We have a number of agenda items and we kind of move the agenda around a little bit. We had a public hearing for the 18 month moratorium on data center development of the village THAT IS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. WE ALSO DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED THE REQUEST FROM NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT THAT IS ALSO ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT ITEMS. WE DISCUSSED THE PARTICIPATION PLAN, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE GOING ON FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. THAT IS ALSO ON OUR DISCUSS AND CONSIDER TONIGHT. AND THEN WE ENDED WITH A discussion of an ordinance amendment related to the use of bird safety glazing in future buildings. That was just a discussion. There was a, Erin had done some work on picking out a couple of local ordinances regarding bird glass and was going to get estimates on cost to developers so that we can incorporate that in our discussion at the next plan commission meeting. future agenda items where comp plan and then we maybe will hear from the near far brewery and that was the entire meeting our next meeting is in august i'll have the date with me

That's the 12th.

Thank you. So first up on our agenda tonight is discuss and consider a proposed moratorium on data center development in the village of Cottage Grove. The resolution passed unanimously at the plan commission and is in the agenda tonight. And I believe we do have legal counsel online if there are any questions on that.

Sorry, could you just repeat what the plan commission passed?

The data center, the moratorium on data center.

Was it 12 months or was it 18?

So what we passed was a 12-month moratorium with a future agenda item to extend it for an additional six months. And that's written into statute, I believe. So that's how we would make it a full 18 months.

Is there a time frame when you have to, how long you have to wait before you can extend it? Not that I'm suggesting we come back in two weeks and extend it then, but is it after 10 months you can do it?

That's a legal question.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Bill Cole. I'm the attorney with Ashley Brunelson. No, there's no period specified as to when you would renew it.

At Planning Commission, we did talk about setting a reminder to extend it, but if there's no timeframe, I don't see why we couldn't do it before then. I think that this is a really important topic, and clearly our zoning ordinances and codes aren't prepared to handle something of this scale. It's a very new concept, as we all know, spreading across state and country. So I think I very much support this moratorium. while we understand more about how to protect our resources, residents, and neighbors from any effects of a large-scale data center. So I very much support passing this moratorium.

I would move Ordinance 13-2026, establishing a temporary moratorium on the consideration and or issuance of permits for data centers.

I'll second.

Motion by Severson, second by Erlandson. Any other discussion on the moratorium?

Can Bill clarify something? For the extension, the six-month extension, can you clarify if a public hearing is necessary before that extension? Or if it's not? No, it's not. Perfect. Thank you.

All right, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. All right, we have the discuss and consider the request from Newman Development for approval of a whole bunch of things. We probably should move back up to Ordinance 11-2026, which is annexation of Juniper Fields regarding the Newman Development. Turn it over to Rick.

Um, so I guess maybe we can just start off with, uh, um, how the developer present on the final plat and get staff and strands comments. Then we can talk about, um, the other items tonight. I just, uh, I think that just helps set the stage of what the project is and, um, give background information.

Yeah, sure. Thanks everyone. I'm Brian fridge with Newman developments. I think we're mostly familiar with what's being proposed here, but both the zoning and preliminary plat was discussed at last month's Village Board meeting. What we're bringing forward today is the final plat, which is specific for the first construction phase, which would break around this year still. It encompasses 38 lots. It would connect to both School Drive and Mollie Road. And there's been a handful of conversations and back and forth between our design engineer and strand and village staff. A number of conditions have been provided and we've worked through them and are comfortable with incorporating them as presented.

So I guess as far as items tonight, so we've got the annexation of the territory so obviously it's currently located within the town There is a development agreement and basically allowing them to Basically giving consent for them to start phase one of the project which they would have to complete within 12 months and And then there's also the final plat for approval tonight, which was just basically the phase one plat, which has to be consistent with the preliminary plat that was previously approved by the village board. With the final plat, did we get an updated one that has the outlot change? I know at plan commission we had a recommendation to... basically just a lot one. So it's because that's the future parkland area. So that's going to be dedicated as part of phase one. But there will be future divisions along the edge of it. So I just needed to be fixed. But the development agreement itself basically governs public improvements. It is geared towards ensuring that streets, sewer, water, everything is done in accordance with village plans and specifications, and that all the required improvements to serve the impacts of the development are provided for. There was a traffic impact analysis done, so as far as village infrastructure goes, I don't believe there was any sort of major changes or recommendations, but basically any changes impacts to village infrastructure that requires upgrades they have to do that to guarantee their performance in the development agreement they have to provide a 120 percent financial bond so if for some reason they don't move forward with the project we can call on that bond to complete the required public improvements there are a few things that are not being done immediately so one is a lift station that will be done at some point in the future Every time that they want to do a new phase, we have to basically come up with another phase agreement that says we're releasing these lots for development. If there are any special considerations for that particular phase, we will address them in that particular development agreement. So like the lift station, that's one of those where once that comes in, is required as part of the development, we'll handle that in a future phase agreement. The park land, so there have been some changes changes with statutory requirements. So the village used to require, or the village ordinances do require them to grade the park land that gets offset by park improvement fees or lowers their park improvement fees. So basically they will pay park improvement fees as part of phase one. They will potentially do grading with some other improvements depending on what, if there's a park master plan. So there could be other things that we may want to think about for phase two for that parkland, just depending on what the park master plan comes up with and what kind of improvements or efficiencies we might be able to get with having the developer handle that. But that has been pushed off to phase two just to allow us to think about what the park master plan might look like at that point. But generally, the development agreement itself is in line with previous agreements related to public improvements. I mean, that's really what a lot of these developments are. The village concern is typically how we handle public improvements in addressing the increased service and capacity needs. But generally in line with what the village has previously approved. But happy to answer questions about that item or any other items. annexation ordinance, I forgot to mention that one. So the annexation ordinance, one thing to note on that is for election purposes, we aren't having it go into effect until August 12th because it messes with Lisa's wards and voters and things like that. I forgot all the things that we have to do to it, but the annexation, if approved tonight, wouldn't actually go into effect until August 12, just for election purposes. But otherwise, it brings in the entirety of the preliminary platted area into the village jurisdiction. But happy to answer questions about any and all of this.

I don't necessarily have any questions, but one of the themes that I've brought up since the initial concept plan was before us was the traffic leaving the subdivision going on to County Highway BB. And I attended the town board meeting on July 6th, and there are two major concerns related to this. One was Meyer Road, because the plan that the developer was on their meeting talks about widening the edges of the road just with gravel, right? And so you're going to have chunks of asphalt also with that. And then the second thing that they brought up was they requested that the developer send Dane County their traffic to impact analysis, which the developer did. And They reported on the traffic impact analysis, which showed that 40% of the subdivision is going to use Meyer Road as their exit out. And I know we got an email from a citizen asking the question in that TIA about if it was during school time, which it was not, if that was factored in, because that should obviously impact the number of trips. But the county has weighed in on that and we got a copy of it today. So they are requesting that the traffic impact analysis be redone. But they have already said they're going to require turn lanes as well. And so I think as part of this annexation agreement or developer's agreement, i would like to see the board before moving forward really outline who's going to be responsible for those costs so that it doesn't fall to village taxpayers to have to make those improvements and you know obviously the county is going to do a deeper dive they said typically it's a 30-day review 60 days um It may not be that those turn lanes are required until the end of the subdivision, but I think we need to have some consideration up front and have something in writing that makes the developer pay for those improvements rather than village taxpayers. So I'm making that known now, and like I said, I've brought this issue up at every meeting we've had.

On page two, Rick, of your agreement memo states that the village doesn't have jurisdiction over those roads and can't impose requirements. Can you clarify what our role is today?

Right. So it's somewhat tricky just because we don't have jurisdiction over them. And like the county's role in its requirements for this. I mean, theoretically, under the annexation, we could maybe require them to... do any county road improvements required by the county. So I don't know if the developers had those conversations with the county or is anticipating adding the turn lanes or what the, if that's in their budget or when that would be required, but we could potentially look at that as something. But again, it's not our road, so we can't say you have to make these specific improvements to it.

And then in terms of Meyer Road, Ryan, would you maybe, I know you talked about it at the town board meeting, you also talked about it at planning commission, but can you update this board on just the conversations you've had and the work moving forward annually for Meyer Road?

Right, so we've been working directly with the town's highway superintendent and intend to, well, it's already in progress, is document the current condition of Meyer and essentially on an annual basis, likely in spring, we would revisit and repair any necessary changes or make any repairs as deemed necessary, I should say. And it'd be ongoing while construction is taking place. So we're assuming this would occur over the next 10 years or so.

Ryan, can you maybe speak to the fact that there was also concern about the width of Meyer Road as well, in addition to the increase in traffic and the denigration of the road?

Right, so that was an item that was brought to our attention through the traffic study. It's just for vehicles to go in and out both directions, the shoulder width might be too narrow. So it's something that we would incorporate in plans and present to the town and their staff to widen the shoulders to what the recommended width is as outlined in that traffic study.

My question's for Rick about the parkland grading and how that what kind of cross-check we might be able to have to make sure that the fee that's being reduced is comparable to the amount of work being done.

right so if for phase two we say developer you have to grade the park land which you know there are theoretically some efficiencies there because they're going to be grading all their lots regardless so i think what we would do is say that they have to provide us with cost estimates or what their actual costs were to grade the park and the village engineer has to sign off on those costs before we sort of approve them as a way of validating the cost offset for the park improvement fees. So that's how I'm envisioning the phase two would go. I guess we would have to make the decision if we want to require the developer to do the grading or just collect the impact fees. But I guess that there might be efficiencies that we can look at. And once we have the park master plan, we'll have a better idea of what that might look like.

So is there something that we need to write in an agreement now? Or would that be under the phase two agreement? Just to have, like you outlined, that kind of protection that the village engineer would review the cost estimates kind of before we proceed with that plan. Is that something that we need to memorialize in this agreement?

We could add it to like the, so there's a section on the future park improvements and we say like it'll be handled in phase two. So we could add that as, additional language to say like any developer improvements must be verified, costs must be verified by the village engineer.

Okay, I'd be in favor to my colleagues of adding that kind of language in the agreement.

Heidi, I just want to mention, so we do, this is very common with water and sewer utility improvements. A lot of developments don't require the larger size that we have. So it's a constant kind of estimate on what is the actual cost to get it to 14 inch as opposed to eight inch. Not as common in our park improvements here. So that's why the village board, this is having this discussion related to excavation.

Yeah, I think just because it's going to deduct from the amount of fees they have to pay later, it would just be nice to have, on our end, be able to verify that those fees are appropriately charged back.

Right, right. Yeah, so similar to what we did with the sewer and water in this agreement.

Following back, excuse me, following back on the Meyer Road thing, Ryan and then Rick, but Ryan first. So do you currently have an agreement in writing with the town with regards to that annual upkeep and that you as the developer are paying for that, for the repairs as needed each year? Or is that still being ironed out?

Yeah, it's still being ironed out. A potential use agreement was discussed at the last town board meeting. we wanted to have an initial meeting with their staff and actually examine those conditions first. But we'll continue that conversation with their staff.

Okay. So then, Rick, again, as you said, it's not our road, so we don't have jurisdiction to impose things, but is there some sort of conditional that could be structured so that we make sure that that's in place? So I mean, I think if we do it with like the county requirements, I feel like it should be the same sort of thing with the town.

So I think if we amend like basically a condition of approval of the annexation ordinance would be basically the agreement. The development agreement is required to have a provision in there for improvements to town and county roads. like I don't want to just write a blank check to say, all right, you have to do like a four lane, like fully urbanized Meyer road. Right. But like, um, recommend it like basically any improvements required as part of a TIA or recommended by a TIA for, for either the town or the County. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Cool.

Cause yeah, that's, I mean, yeah, that's exactly the sort of, but Rick, isn't there a key distinction there that, I mean, the County can, I mean, they may recommend something that the developer pushes back on from a legal perspective that they're only going to be responsible for their proportion share of the improvement.

That's why I'm a little hesitant to try to make it a full-on requirement that they do all the improvements because, again, they're not our roads, right? And the county may impose requirements that are, you know, greater than what something we would do if it were our road or something like that. So I just want to be mindful of that, just given that they're not under our jurisdiction. But we could do something along the lines of like tying into the TIA as those are required improvements. Okay.

Because, yeah, I think that's, you know, that's the sort of conditional... That's exactly what we should be doing with this process. So yeah, I'd be very much in favor of motioning and amending that those are required if there's agreement from my colleagues.

I would agree with that, and I appreciate that. I think it would also go a long way toward our relations with the town board so that we're not basically saying, here, we're doing this development, and now, oops, now you've got to pay for these road improvements. I think that would be a very good negotiating strategy when we want to talk to them about town and village connections. So I really would like to see that in there, and I would be apt to vote for that.

Yes, I think the annexation ordinance, if it's approved, would be with the additional condition of doing improvements warranted by a TIA approved by the county or something along those lines. Because then we could just incorporate that into the development agreement that includes the condition from the annexation ordinance.

Do we want to take the annexation agreement first then on the agenda for discuss and consider? Which is new business item A.

Sorry, Rick, you finished with a something along those lines, and I need to translate that into a thing I have to say.

So annexation approved subject to the development agreement containing a requirement to construct any improvements warranted by a traffic impact analysis. Any town and county road improvements are required by the town and county warranted by TIA. I'm all over the place right now. Lisa, did you get that?

Somewhat.

Okay, because I'm about to say so moved. We'll work on it. So moved.

Second.

I don't know who seconded. Motion by Erlandson, second by Severson for the approval of the annexation of juniper fields regarding new developments subject to requirements in the developer's agreement as stated. All right, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. All right, do we want to do the final plat next? Or do you want to do the next?

Yeah, I think plat makes sense.

OK, so we are going to move over to 8A2, the discuss and consider the request for the final plat. Any other comments on this, Aaron?

Sure. Um, so as Ryan mentioned at previous meeting, we approved the zoning, uh, content conditioned on the final plat being approved and recorded. So just to clarify how that'll play out then. So this final plan is creating some single family lots, but not all of them. Um, so the ones being created in this phase will be rezone to SR six. Um, the outlets, that will be divided in the future will remain rural holding until a final plat comes to create those lots down the road. And as far as planning conditions for the plat, to facilitate wayfinding and emergency response, we'd like to see the Molly Lane street name continue across Prairie Moon Drive instead of changing the name to Glacial Crest Court. Just be less confusing. An advice from Rick and Larry, we just want street dedications to be labeled as dedicated to the public instead of specifically for street purposes. Similar for stormwater management purposes, just dedicated to the public. The plan references a wetland delineation done in 2025. We just want to have a copy of that for our records. um it's kind of a stray note on out lot three that that doesn't apply and should be removed um the dimension street dimensions easement dimensions and the legend are a little wonky and seem misaligned we just want to make sure that's corrected um we want to see copies of covenants and property owner association documents prior to recording the plat And then we'd like the developer to supply a addressing plan to review by the village and emergency response departments, again, prior to recording the final plat. I know there was some conversation about the covenants at the last meeting, so I guess that's kind of a question for you guys. Do you want to see them at a subsequent meeting? So I would just build that into whatever motion someone makes one way or the other. And then I would turn it over to Josh for the engineering discussion.

Do you want to pause and can we just discuss the covenants really quick? Is there majority interest in having the covenants come back? I don't need it.

I mean, I'll voice mine first because I talked about it a fair bit. After reviewing it more and more, What we talked about last time, I'm comfortable with the general covenant. I don't think it's going to exceed any of our ordinances and laws, and that was my main concern with that. This isn't the part, though, where we'd be talking about the smaller lot sizes yet. That's going to be in a bit. Okay, then I will hold for that. But otherwise, I don't have anything on the covenants or the HOA.

No, no, no, maybe. Others have an opinion on it.

Nothing on sheds, Chris.

No, my only question is, for the Molly Lane, they had Glacial Crest Court. Was the intention to just keep it Molly Lane or make it Molly Court? Because there's some roads in the village that it continues to be the same road name. There's some that, like Lindsay Way becomes Lindsay Court. Starlight Lane becomes Lindsay Court.

We talked about that amongst the staff a little bit. Our opinion is it's less confusing to keep in Mollie Lane, but as you said, there are those precedents.

But also, like, Meadowcrest Trail stays Meadowcrest Trail, so there's no consistent.

I would recommend Mollie Lane. Okay. I mean, I don't care. If there's a strong preference the other way to follow the precedent.

Yeah, I don't care the way. I was just curious.

All right. Seems like majority board says we don't need to see the covenants come back.

OK, so then they'll just supply them and staff will look at them. Yeah.

All right. Josh, engineering.

So we put together a letter that's in your packets, about 10 pages. A lot of that, like I mentioned, a plan commission. A lot of that is just working on the details, making sure the standards are met. A lot of little, you know, fine plan details to make sure that we're meeting all the codes and regulations. A lot of that stuff we've been talking with Ryan and the development team and their engineer. I'm not worried about the majority of that. So just big picture stuff today, trying to touch on things that that people may not have covered in the letter. Public Works still needs some time to look at stop signs and pavement markings and understand where those are gonna be. There's been a lot of discussion about that in the past in some of these developments, so we wanna understand the whole development before we sign part of it and how that's gonna proceed throughout. That's something that development can start and we can kinda make some of those decisions as we go along. Same thing with some street lighting design, where the street lights are gonna be. as they get started. We also talked about, and we were requiring some turnarounds at the ends of some of these streets, even though they're gonna extend in the future to the east, even within this plat in future phases, it might not be till phase four or five that some of these streets that now have a dead end. So we're suggesting some turnarounds there for emergency service, for public work staff, just so they're not these short dead ends for long periods of time. We think that's important. few other details. I'm just kind of scanning through my letter here. Sidewalk and ADA requirements throughout the development that we're making sure that we get with some steeper sidewalks. Typical section for Meyer Road and just make sure we actually show a good detail. Now, this will be the villages portion where we connect into Meyer Ward Road. There'll be a small section there through phase one that's still left is like a rural section without curb and gutter and making sure that that's the correct width as we put some new sections back. And that would be outside of the town stuff, obviously, to the south. Their stormwater management does meet all of the villages, counties, and DNR's requirements. We're still working with them on the overall plat, the preliminary plat, There's some overland routes and some other things. But, you know, so that's set up for future approvals when they come with other phases of this development. And then the TIA, which I think was discussed at good length. Paula pointed out the same comments we had. The counts weren't done during the school year. The county wanted some additional projections on where growth will go overall in the community and the county, so they wanted some of those put on there. And then we talked about sending it to the Dane County for their jurisdiction. And in the TAA, it talks about turn lanes potentially on that road and a reduction in speed, and we thought probably the county was going to have some comments based on that, and they did. something to point out is some of this stuff i don't think the county's fully weighed in yet and we talked about a little tonight that some of that may happen later to it doesn't necessarily happen to probably have to happen at phase one um people might have the concern then well a school road and um what am i blanking school road what's the other one it's getting late Yes. Are they going to require something else with some of this new traffic? You know, there was a very little increase. If you look at some of the tables between existing and then full build out, a couple seconds, they still stayed at a level service A overall at those intersections. I don't personally anticipate anything, but we'll see what the TIA says when it comes back, that they'll probably need to do anything on either one of those roads that connect to Main Street, County Trunk Highway N. Can you give us a, like...

Ranking 101, what A, B, how far down does it go?

So that's a good question and it's different for signalized versus unsignalized. So it goes from A to F. So as a signal, a level of service A is 10 seconds of waiting on average or less. B is 10 to 20 seconds. C is 20 to 35 seconds. D is 35 to 55. E is 55 to 80. And F is 80. Usually when you get to about D, you start to consider an improvement. Once people are waiting almost a minute at a signal, They start to get impatient. Now, this is on average. That does not mean, and I've probably said this before, that you're going to pull up to a signal and sometimes wait a minute and a half and other times wait 20 seconds, 20 seconds, 15 seconds. It's the average kind of over a period of time, you know, multiple times. For a stop sign, those thresholds are less. So you'd hit a level of service of D between 35 and 55 for a signal. But for a stop sign, it's 25 to 35. The reason that it's less on stop signs is people don't have the patience. They want to come up and go. People have more patience at signals because they know I have a red light and it's going to turn green at some point. Where at a stop sign, they're waiting for a gap. They get a little more aggressive and they don't want to wait. So level of service is a little different for stop signs. Does that answer it, Cindy?

Yes, it does. Thank you. So really we're looking at even in 2034 after the full build-outs, the intersections probably aren't going to need. You said level E, D was when we would start making modifications? Yes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Most of those, the two others on N, I think we're at like A's and B's, so there's still quite a bit of capacity. Now one side, the other side of, oh, I've got to open it up. The other side of School Road, and this is part of that bigger conversation, is it school? No, North Lawn. The other side of North Lawn in the PM is at a D already. Now, in perspective, a person seeing on average 32 seconds there. So it's just tipping them into D level for that because it's a stop condition. But the queue length is only 25 feet, which is one car. So they also, you start to look at that too. You could have, if you only have a queue length of one car, what are you really backing up? And sometimes people are deciding to go other places or they'll shift around. If you have you know 10 cars backing up then you know it's it's a bigger problem i think on for instance if and i'm getting off topic here if we go back to the school and wellbridge some of their level of service d e was also a very long queue of d e that we'll try to obviously have to monitor and and understand as as the school year starts So there's two things you look at, level of service of delay, and then also how far are you queuing?

No, I appreciate that, because I know that that was an initial concern coming out of that neighborhood, was those intersections and the amount of new traffic that was going to be generated and the capacity for those roads. So I appreciate that.

judge i'll uh i'll say i'm glad that you guys you know were already aware of the concerns that like we've brought up and and residents as well you know the school in session tag for the tia is that are they going to redo that or was that just like maybe an error and they meant to put no and the results are based on no schools do we know what happened with that

Yeah, we're circling back with them, so I don't have an answer tonight, but I'm guessing it was probably an error that they should have put no. Then typically what you do is you state that in there, and then when you're out of season, there's some seasonal factors that they can go to the DOT or Astane County of what they would adjust that to. So they may have a seasonal factor at school that You can't always count during the school year, and sometimes developments happen that have to happen outside of the school year, and then this stuff happens over the summer period. There's thresholds. I don't know if the top of my head is that like an extra 5%. What they'll do is they'll increase all the traffic to make up for that. So we have to get back with them, have to get with the county a little bit to understand where we want these thresholds to be because they didn't count it during the school period.

Okay. No, that's all very good information, but I wanted to be sure that because you had already caught it as well, uh whatever you know condition things you're on are going to be contingent on them either correcting that or getting accurate data if they they actually did survey that way right yep yeah it would be one of the one of the two we'll see we have to discuss it with the county and both us and the county have made they they know they have to kind of redo the numbers as kind of paula and others stated earlier yep okay good as long as it's being accounted for that's excellent thank you all right is there anything else on the uh final plat

Otherwise, entertain a motion.

I move that we approve the request from Newman Development for approval of a final plat for a 38-lot portion of Juniper Fields, a proposed 108-acre, 226-unit single-family residential subdivision with staff conditions.

Second.

Motion by Murphy, second by Stoa. Any other discussion on here?

And I just want to clarify, that includes the planned commission condition on the outlot as well?

Correct. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. The developer's agreement, which is item 7B.

Yes, so basically this would approve the agreement subject to the amendments we discussed. So with the parkland and verifying costs and then the TIA and warranted improvements required by town and county.

I would make the motion to approve the developer agreement with those modifications as our attorney suggested.

And that also includes phase one, the phase one phase agreement.

So the developer agreement, including the phase one agreement.

Yes.

With those conditions. Thank you.

Seconded with phase one in those conditions.

Motion by Murphy, second by Erlandson. Any other discussion on the agreement? And the phase one agreement. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain. Motion carries. We're going to hop back over to 8A3, discuss and consider the public participation plan for the comp plan updates, which is... linked in the agenda. And I think feedback from plan commission was, um, some more emphasis on, uh, you know, direct communication with residents, whether that be town hall or focus groups or, you know, something, um, here at village hall where people can drop in and give comments. Yeah. I also asked for a Spanish version of the survey.

Yep. And, um, I've had some conversations with grave since then. Um, The way they have the survey set up, they think they can have like a button you can press to turn it into Spanish, so that should not be a problem. The survey is, we have a final draft that we're going to look through. The idea would be to get it active probably in early August through the middle of September. There's a mention of them attending a community event. I think we decided that's going to be community night out on August 19th. We were looking at probably early September for that workshop, and I did pass on the feedback that we want kind of tactile, interactive things, and they were totally on board with that.

Oh, the website, they have that created and I believe it's on our website now.

If not, it will be soon, so that's all ready to go as well. Already well underway with a lot of these things, but this is a required element for per state statute.

Any other comments on the plan?

Otherwise it's discussed and considered. I have a question on the virtual meetings. It says the project will include up to three virtually virtual only focus group meetings with key stakeholders selected by the village. So can you tell us more who the key stakeholders are and then how will they be selected and by whom from the village?

I guess that's. Ultimately up to you guys. GRAPH is gonna come to the plan commission in August and then to the board meeting, the next meeting after that. So that would be a good opportunity to provide that input on what kind of direction you guys would like to have them pursue.

Thank you.

I would make the motion to approve the public participation plan for the villages comprehensive plan update as presented.

I'll second. Motion by Nick Murphy, second by Kel Nelson. Any other discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Deer Grove EMS Commission, KC. Two meetings to talk about and one discuss and consider.

Yes. So we met back on Thursday, June 18th. at Deerfield Village Hall. Let's see as we approve the previous minutes. Discussed the May financial reports and bills for budgeted and approved expenses and write-offs and aging accounts. I don't believe there's any particular items there other than just the general still issues with Medicare or Medicaid. I always forget which one it is. But whichever one was still technically on federal hold. And then the item that we have the item to consider is amending the IGA. Right, because that's the one where this is coming back to us here at the Village. Sorry, I forgot because we then didn't have the Village meeting in between. And then for the July 16th meeting, No specific actions, but much more of the same. Looked at the June financial report, bills for expenses, and write-offs and aging of accounts. We did also discuss the, it wasn't really a specific action item, but sort of going forward, having the chief not bring every single individual hardship waiver to the commission, as is already sort of the practice. Yeah, I think that's all.

Questions or comments for EMS?

Casey, are you receiving a large number of hardship waiver requests?

No, I think this was the only one at the July meeting and there weren't any for the June. Okay. So it's not, yeah, it's not a large number. Okay.

Well, I think what pointed out in the process for this one was there was four individual runs for service that all four hadn't been completed in the process yet. The hardship process of evaluation uses federal poverty guidelines. It's very sterile and very static. So if we were to stray for that, those would be the ones as we move forward in a suggested policy that will come to the Commission meeting next month. Anything to stray from federal poverty guidelines would be what we would bring to the Commission, whereas if it's straightforward and that they meet them, then it's self approving effectively.

Thank you for that additional clarification. That makes a lot of sense.

All right, we do have a discuss and consider then, which is Resolution 2026-12-0521. This is the amendment to the IGA. There's a closed session if we feel like we need to go into closed session. The commission approved with our additional edits from the June Village Board meeting, and then it's going to all the municipalities. So are there any comments on this?

I guess I'll say in open session, and I've said this before, I'm not in favor of the change, restricting the commission members to be able to contact the attorneys. The system that we have and we utilize in the village now is that any one of us trustees could reach out to the village attorney with questions, and I think there's a lot of value in that. I will mention that I did request a closed session to be able to talk about in terms of that item and any potential litigation. That's why I don't want to speak about it in open session that the district may be involved in.

So we do have the option of closed session. Obviously, if the board feels that it's required to, we could go into closed session at the end of this meeting and discuss this further. So basically, it's the board's discretion.

Paula, is that a motion from you to go into closed session for this then?

It's my request. I mean, do you want a formal motion?

But we have to. Well, not right now. No, not right now. If we're going to do closed session, there has to be a motion for it, correct, Rick?

Right. But we would do the motions with the other two items to enter into closed session. So we'd all do those at the end of the open business.

Just looking for a majority to go into closed session. I mean, if there's legal issues that we need to discuss, then yeah, I think... We'll go into closed session. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thumbs up. Thank you. All right. We'll move into that. I'll get moved to the end as well. We already talked about tourism commission, so we can move on to parks, rec and forestry.

Okay, thank you. Parks, Rec, and Forestry met on Thursday, June 25th. We did talk about the Juniper Hills concept, preliminary plat with the parkland concept, which the committee did recommend utilizing Park Development Fund for master planning the Juniper Hills parkland. So that was kind of part of the phase one, and then we'll figure out the park land and grading during the next phase. So I don't know, Sean, if you have the ability to pull that up. Well, I can go through the whole meeting and then we can look at that because we will be discussing, considering utilizing park development funds to go through this master planning process so we can get the park kind of graded, hopefully, for what we would potentially future, you know, our future uses for the park. So the committee would go through that exercise with our park consultant to lay out what this park would look like. We also talked about the pier in the fifth addition to West Lawn. So the West Lawn Estates neighborhood has a number of retention ponds with kind of a path connecting them There's a couple improvements benches and such one of the ponds has a pier and the pond is now kind of taken over by cattails which we cannot really remove. So, the committee decided to leave the pier in place. I'm sure Kyla looks like she wants to say something about the cattails. Cattails are on my list. They are not easily removable.

There's DNR approval. You have to treat them all different types of ways. It's a stormwater pond that I'm working on in the future.

And so, at this time, we don't have another use for it. the pier, so we're going to, the committee recommends leaving it in place for now. We also had a resident come forward with concerns about cottonwood seeds, fluff, and talking about different options that other communities have looked at regarding cottonwood trees. Some communities ban any planting of cottonwood trees moving forward. There are some that just say that their municipality will not plant any on their own municipal property, which we already, it's not one of the trees that we plant or use for street trees. And so the committee was interested in hearing a little bit more about what some other communities are doing in our area and any types of ordinances. So Sean was going to work on gathering a little bit more information on that for the committee to consider. We also approved a community snake project. If you've seen the painted rocks around town, You know, people leave a kindness rock. So this is kind of bringing kindness rocks together at, I think we decided on Community Park. So look for a social media post about the Community Snake Project and feel free to bring your kindness rock to the location that will be pushed out on social media. The Shady Grove Park update, the gazebo work, and some other kind of remaining work. It's being completed at Shady Grove Park, so portions of the park are kind of off limits while that work's going on. But substantially, the playground portion is completed. So yeah, our one that covers all the items that we talked about, so our discuss and consider is about utilizing Park Development Fund for master planning the Juniper Hills parkland. And in our parks packet there was kind of a general concept and then sort of a fee estimate from strand this work would take place July to December of this year so kind of kicking off a little bit as much as we could at this next meeting but really the work would start mostly in August to December so we can have that land kind of prepared and not work against it in the future So John, I don't know if you want to pull up either of those or if the board is interested in looking at that part of the packet.

Sure. Thanks, Heidi. I apologize. A couple attachments did not make it into the packet. So they were identified. But I just wanted to share. With you real quick, this is the most recent rendering that Newman has put together. So it just kind of shows us the general area of the park land. And one of the things we've talked about is we are in desperate need of just flat green space. So we just wanted to make sure that we can incorporate at least, again, not a competition necessarily facility where we're going to have games going on there, but practices and things like that, so we just kind of wanted to show what that looked like with the 13.08 acres. So again, this is not the overall master plan, it's just a general idea of what we could put in there. One other thing that I wanted to share that didn't make it in here is this is the overall price tag that we're looking at. I highlighted that in the bottom. So it's the $30,000 is what we're asking to take out of park development to cover this master plan. So I did not put that in the memo for some reason, but those are the two things that were not shared.

And the other question, I guess, would be we have the funds in the park development fund to provide this for the project. Is that, yeah.

And it's a not to exceed?

That's correct. That's, yes, not to exceed $30,000.

Oh, JP, did you have something?

Okay, well, I was just gonna motion to approve using park development funds for the master planning of the Juniper Fields parkland.

I'll second that.

All right, Erlandson and JP, did you have a comment?

Yeah, I do have a quick comment or question for clarification. Sean, for this design, just to get an idea of the space size of the fields, are those youth-based fields or are those adults' regulation size?

The baseball field that's shown there would be considered an adult field. It's 325 foot fences and the soccer field is that intermediate. It's not a full sized, but it's that one level down from there. And that's just showing them both together. We could obviously make either one bigger if we wanted to. One thing to note, just so that everybody understands, if we were to put a baseball field in there, baseball fences are horrible when it comes to park land. So if we put a baseball field in there, it would be a temporary outfield fence that we could remove so that we don't lose that green space for soccer or anything else that wants to happen there.

All right, there's a motion and a second. There's no more discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries.

There was one other item. It wasn't on Parks' Rock and Forestry Committee meeting, but it is under Parks, so yeah, for the Rockin' and Bakken to suspend the alcohol consumption ordinance at Bakken Park on August 27th.

Any discussion on this item?

I would make a motion to suspend the alcohol consumption ordinance in Bakken Park for Rockin' at Bakken on August 27th, 2026.

I'll second.

Motion by Murphy, second by Erlandson. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Public Works Properties and Sustainability Committee.

We met on July 8th at 530. approved the minutes from the previous two meetings we discussed recommendation and approved um moving forward with purchasing a street sweeper immediately instead of next year we talked about the road construction at night which we already talked about here at the board tonight We talked about West Lawn 4th and 5th edition row connections, which we will talk about again in a few minutes. We talked about the right in, right out at Fundamental Way. And traffic calming on Bus Road south of BB. So there's a couple discuss and considers. We already did the one with the overnight construction. The next one would be discuss and consider purchasing a street sweeper in 2026. So, Kyle, I don't know if you want to take over there.

Yeah, there's a memo included in your packet. Kind of goes into different types of street sweepers. Kind of gives a background on our current street sweeper that we have. It's been overheating for the last several months. In 2025 alone, we spent approximately $12,000 just working through those repairs. um we have been in contact with a company the link for the regenerative air street sweeper can be found if you want to do more research on a street sweeper in general within the link but we are looking to move forward with purchasing the street sweeper here as soon as possible to continue our level of service for sweet street sweeping as we move into the fall at this point in time we are doing We are not doing any proactive street sweeping. It's all reactive. Public Works did move forward with the recommendation to the village board to purchase it. We put a down payment that would go into the final payment of the street sweeper that we'd be paying at the beginning of 2027. Any questions for me?

I'd make the motion to approve the purchase of a street sweeper in 2026 as presented.

Second. Motion by Murphy. Second by Kel Nelson. Any other discussion? What? Why are you laughing at me? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries.

And then we also had a discuss and consider about recommendations for West Lawn 4th and 5th edition for any road connections. We also had a... So we had a memo at Public Works from President Kell Nelson and Trustee Murphy. We also are wrapping the... memo from Trustee Benzo and Trustee Severson about any possible solutions to leaving that neighborhood.

Why don't you present your memo, because it was listed first in the agenda.

Sure. So, you know, my memo tracks quite along with yours and Heidi. Since that point, I did ask Heidi at Public Works if she had a sense from her neighbors if they wanted... more so just an emergency access or a through road. And at that time, it was kind of split. I did email a number of the citizens that emailed us back and asked them that clarifying question. Is it that you want an emergency access only, or is it that you want a through road? they all said a through road. So I think that kind of changes the conversation a little bit in terms of what those residents are looking for. So also received comments from them about some things that we can do kind of in the interim. So we could ask Andrew Hamburg, for instance, if he could just leave the construction entrance open 24-7. Somebody emailed today, you know, can we post a no truck sign like we did over at Landmark? I mean, I think that's pretty easy to try to minimize that truck traffic. But I do think there are some I guess more in-depth options, and we kind of talked about it at Public Works a little bit, which was an emergency access option off Meadowlark. So there's about a 65-foot gap between the town and the village there that it would be very easy to just pave that and have that be an emergency access. You could do a gated fence there that emergency services have access to. It could also be a pathway out, a more permanent pathway to get through the neighborhood. Another option that I mentioned was looking at the feasibility of connecting Mourning Dove through the town because we've got Mourning Dove in the village, little chunk in the town, Mourning Dove connects back in the village. And we discussed a little bit about it at Public Works and the committee basically said before we spend any time on engineering, on what it would cost, for instance, for the storm water and so forth, we really should have a conversation with the town. And so that was kind of their direction. I do think that in any of these scenarios, we should probably have a conversation with the town. I know that they have voted not to have sidewalks and different things, but I think there could be some opportunity if we talk to them about connecting Morning Dove, for instance, if we provide urbanization for the town residents in that portion, that they may be amenable to connecting that road. But again, I think that's something that we're gonna need to discuss with the town. And I think going forward, we should probably open up these conversations anyway, because in our comp plan, there are a bunch of planned neighborhoods, you know, further up by bus and Gaston, where we're gonna kind of have the same scenario where if we develop those planned neighborhoods, they've got the town neighborhoods there. And, you know, I think this is gonna be an ongoing connection issue. So I guess where I'm heading is, like I said, ask Andrew to keep the construction engines open. Let's post a sign through truck traffic. But I think we need to move a little bit more quickly on a permanent through road. And then the other piece is gonna be who pays for it that we need to discuss. Did I miss anything from Public Works, Chris?

I don't think so. I did have one question about the truck traffic sign. I don't know if that's something we can do, because the one we have over here is no through truck traffic. And that's mostly construction that are going to a specific thing. So is that even something we can do there?

What we...

It was also going from like an industrial into residential.

Another way we could potentially address that is make it a class B highway because then it is a, the weight limit is 60% so it drops down to 48,000 pounds rather than 80,000 pounds so maybe you get less construction traffic that way. Because that one's pretty easy to do. The no through traffic or no truck traffic, that one, I don't know if we can stop them from going to their destination if it's at that area, but the Class B highway might be a way to address the same thing.

As far as truck traffic is concerned, I think we should just put in a bunch of speed humps so that it's more annoying to go over that than the other way. But I don't know the answer for getting in and out of the village for people who live there.

Just for some knowledge, I did a traffic, the last traffic study that I did up there was Damascus near London, and that occurred for two weeks in October of 2025. The average speed was 24 miles per hour. And then when you do class counts between small, medium, and large vehicles, you have 0.2% of what's classified as a small vehicle, so a motorcycle. A medium vehicle had 96.4%, which would be a sedan. And then a large vehicle had 3.5%, which is a truck. Overall, you had total vehicles from the two-week time period of 11,811. So the average age the aadt was um 794. and that was all presented at public works last fall as well so does that basically mean that 96 of the traffic is local residents yes local sedans yep not large you're not seeing the large construction vehicles potentially

So we're talking about talking with the town about different options they may agree to. Kyla, I was wondering, there's been some sort of drainage problems also at Nightingale. Do you think that there may be some opportunity to tie together some improvements for drainage there, because the town has indicated in the past that there's only two houses there, maybe that is the least burdensome with our residents, and maybe we can, I don't know, get extra support for it with some goodwill and stormwater management.

I definitely think that's something that should be considered if we're looking at the different options between the connections. As we talked about at Public Works, Meadowlark is the most direct access from Gaston from that fifth add. So you're not having as many residents swing in and out of town roads. Nightingale does have challenges with the existing grade. That's why there's not a stubbed road there. So looking into the feasibility behind that is going to be an aspect as well. But looping in the stormwater, I think, could be helpful. An option to move forward. Same thing with morning dub and pheasant run. Those were kind of already discussed. Those kind of make sense in terms of overall layout. The one thing I do want to discuss is the feasibility behind keeping the access gate open on London. Andrew Homburg and I previously discussed this last year. Construction traffic was brought up. There's a very large liability behind that aspect with closing, with keeping the gate open full time. It's property that the village does not own. It also leads to a road that is the Homburg's quarry. if something were to happen on that road yes emergency access vehicles can enter it but we have no legal standpoint in terms of right-of-way public access for police that type of thing it also isn't something that the village would want to maintain on that rock road the humbergs have generously been keeping that maintained the dust control they roll it they add rock um and they keep it open for their construction access. I would recommend not moving forward with keeping that gate open at all times just for the legal aspect behind it.

Yeah, I did hear that there was some vandalism to some of the vehicles in the back. Like it's not very well lit. And I would imagine if we asked Chief Gary like some safety concerns for people like traversing that at night might.

Yeah, it's not lit per any of our standards. There's no street lights. There's no sidewalk. It's a gravel road. It doesn't really meet any standards. And it's not platted right now. It's also on the Homburg's property. So that's another big constraint.

So the other piece that I was wondering about, if some of these connections are made where while the residents that live in the community have different ways to get out, there's people that will be driving through the neighborhood that are not currently now to cut through, so that may warrant some additional safety pedestrian measures because that might actually increase traffic because it's not just the residents that live there that are using the roads now. Now we have other outside people so that I guess I would also want to look into what the impact of that would be in the future like if

Adding speed humps or something like because people will likely cut through to get to the schools and such that can't Yep, your people are going to travel the past of least resistance It's kind of just how natural traffic patterns flow. So if there's a connection people are going to use that especially for school-aged traffic Yeah, so just as we kind of think about what options are going forward.

Yeah, definitely incorporating that Thanks, so the town chair had previously mentioned that nightingale lane might be the one connection that they would entertain because it's a cul-de-sac and then the width would be like an appropriate size road for them so that their residents could still park on the sides um and so i don't know if that's kind of like the number one connection that we would want to ask for if we choose to propose something to the town um

I think the grading there might be a challenge, though, in that connection. And if you just go a little bit up, that's where Meadowlark is. So it's not far, and that would pose less of a challenge. I guess one of the questions I had is, do we have any indication of how many people are using the schools as a cut-through?

I can see them out my back window. I mean, I see a lot of cars driving on in. But some people are going to the schools, which that's what it's used for. But some people probably are not.

I just don't know if that's posing any additional risk to the students that are in that area, if neighbors are using that to cut through.

I mean along that thought one other thing to keep in mind is potentially starting this fall is yet the heyday path isn't there as well so part of their development plan was to provide that pedestrian multi-use path going up north to GRS which was going to put even more pressure on pedestrian because that's where we're going to have Shady Grove like the whole point is draw that connection in there as a safe way to traverse.

So would this be something that we could add on to our joint village town meeting or I guess or are we directing village president to contact town president like I guess town chair I guess are we do we want to have a negotiation at or you know talk with them at the joint meeting or go a different route?

I feel like it would be most efficient if they had a conversation, if there was a request coming from the village and given to them that they could discuss it first before we have a joint meeting on anything.

I would support President Kel Nielsen to send that request and then indicate that we plan to follow up with discussion at our joint meeting.

So to be clear on the request, it would be a Nightingale and Meadowlark connection discussion?

I don't know if I would limit it, but... All of them. We want to connect all of the roads. Or any, any which... I don't know if there's any other...

I mean, really, I think just having the conversation and opening up with it, because I think what's going to be most impactful is what they hear from their residents, right? And another nice thing about Meadowlark is there's not as many residents as there are in Mourning Dump, right? So it's going to be kind of them reaching out to their constituents as well. So I would leave it open-ended.

The other options were the, so it seems like London Road right now is not an option just because it's not village property and we'd have to, but that is a long-term solution to improve connectivity out to Bus Road. And there was another option to kind of complete Damascus Trail up to Gaston Road. That again is like another very much future option. with the addition, right? Is that something the board? You're just kind of going through all the other options for discussion, too. It's a possibility. It would be expensive. We'd have to work out a developer's agreement. I don't know what Mr. Homburg's plan is for the pace of development to finish out the area, either. And I know Heidi's been in some contact.