[0:00] meeting. On Monday August 3rd, 2026.
[0:03] This is a virtual meeting occurring both
[0:04] in person at Village
[0:10] And then you can either watch our live
[0:12] stream now on our YouTube channel or
[0:14] check us out later.
[0:16] It's 6:30, so I'll call the meeting to
[0:17] order.
[0:19] We have a quorum and the agenda was
[0:20] properly posted. So, we'll stand for the
[0:22] Pledge of Allegiance.
[0:27] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:29] United States of America
[0:32] and to the Republic for which it stands,
[0:34] one nation under God, indivisible, with
[0:38] liberty and justice for all.
[0:43] » All right. This is the public
[0:44] appearances public's opportunity to
[0:46] speak. We ask that you say your name,
[0:48] address, and limit your comments to no
[0:50] more than 3 minutes. Um we'll start with
[0:52] anyone in the room who'd like to give
[0:54] public comment and then move to Zoom and
[0:57] individuals on Zoom can hover over the
[0:59] react button and use the raise hand
[1:01] feature so we can unmute you.
[1:03] Is there anyone in the room that would
[1:04] like to speak?
[1:08] Is there anyone on Zoom?
[1:13] Not seeing any. All right. We're going
[1:15] to move on to discuss the minutes of the
[1:17] Village Board meeting on July 20th,
[1:18] 2026.
[1:20] Are there any comments um on the meeting
[1:22] minutes as presented?
[1:27] Seeing none, we're going to move on to
[1:28] consider the minutes of the Village
[1:29] Board meeting on July 20th, 2026.
[1:33] >> I move approval of the minutes of the
[1:35] Village Board meeting on July 20th,
[1:37] 2026.
[1:38] >> And I would second. Motion by
[1:41] Severson, second by Murphy. Any other
[1:43] discussion?
[1:44] All those in favor?
[1:46] >> Aye.
[1:47] >> Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries.
[1:51] Um moving on to unfinished business. We
[1:52] have discussed the traffic impact
[1:54] analysis um regarding Cottage Grove
[1:56] School and we have our Village Engineer
[1:57] Josh and a Director of Public Works
[1:59] Kayla on um the Zoom call, so I'd let
[2:02] them unmute. Um we also have two
[2:04] documents linked in the agenda um for
[2:07] review.
[2:10] » Hi everyone. Um so this was previously
[2:12] discussed at the Public Works Committee
[2:14] level um about 2 and 1/2 months ago.
[2:18] The what came out of Public Works is a
[2:21] variety of things, and Josh will go in
[2:23] more to the TIA analysis um from
[2:26] Strand's point of view. But what came
[2:28] out of Public Works is in discussions
[2:30] with Chief Gary, who was also on the
[2:31] call at the Public Works Committee, was
[2:33] that we were going to look to see how
[2:34] traffic ended up
[2:37] playing out once school started. There
[2:38] was no reason given in the TIA why they
[2:42] moved a right in, right out um for
[2:45] circulation at the Cottage Grove School.
[2:48] We believe that it helps traffic flow on
[2:51] their parking lot side. However,
[2:54] there is a level of service at the Well
[2:56] Bridge zone that is failing based on
[2:58] their analysis. So from there, we're
[2:59] going to see how traffic actually flows
[3:01] because while TIAs are very beneficial,
[3:03] sometimes you never know how
[3:06] drop-offs actually occur with school
[3:07] zones. With that, I'll let it you go,
[3:10] Josh.
[3:13] » Thanks, Kayla. Can [clears throat] you
[3:14] hear me okay?
[3:17] » Yep, we can hear you.
[3:19] >> Yeah, okay. So, you know, like Kayla
[3:21] said, um as part of that site plan kind
[3:24] of modification that they have there,
[3:26] um the Plan Commission and the Board
[3:29] asked them to put together kind of a
[3:30] traffic analysis. They put together a
[3:32] technical memorandum. It's just kind of
[3:33] one intersection, similar to like a TIA,
[3:35] just kind of a uh
[3:37] a kind of a
[3:38] tighter summary of just the one
[3:40] intersection. Um you know, we reviewed
[3:42] the we reviewed the summary, and they
[3:44] kind of came up with some of the same
[3:45] conclusions we did. Um if you recall,
[3:49] the site now is going to instead of
[3:51] having two two entrances to the school,
[3:54] you'll only have one, the south one. The
[3:56] north one will kind of be reconfigured
[3:57] for the buses only to enter. The buses
[4:00] can enter both left and right, but the
[4:02] school entrance one will be right in,
[4:04] right out. So everybody will have to
[4:06] approach the school from the south and
[4:09] they'll have to exit the school going
[4:11] north.
[4:12] Um that's just for the peak hours. So
[4:14] it's just for drop-off
[4:17] and pick-up. Otherwise, you can go in
[4:19] and out of that driveway
[4:20] um however you would like the rest of
[4:22] the day.
[4:23] So as part of that, um obviously we knew
[4:25] that traffic was going to be rerouted.
[4:27] You know, everybody from the north that
[4:29] wants to get to the school is going to
[4:30] have to work their way around. Um
[4:32] that's obviously going to be down alley
[4:34] or or somewhere over in that side just
[4:36] to the west of of Main Street and it's
[4:39] going to end up at the Well Bridge
[4:40] Taylor um Main Street intersection. So
[4:43] they looked at that and what they found
[4:45] um their traffic engineer found that the
[4:48] existing building
[4:50] had roughly the AM peak is really the
[4:52] critical one. Um but the AM peak had
[4:55] roughly 374 trips in the morning today
[5:00] um from 294
[5:02] enrolled students. Some of those are
[5:04] people coming to school or the teachers
[5:05] coming to school as well.
[5:07] The evaluation added an additional 223
[5:11] morning trips.
[5:12] Or I'm sorry, 223 new students for an
[5:15] addition of 116 new trips.
[5:18] So um it was quite a few new trips, but
[5:21] the biggest thing is the pattern
[5:22] difference, right? And and
[5:24] um they looked at that specifically
[5:26] and
[5:28] you know, what they found in the AM
[5:30] is that, you know, right now at Well
[5:33] Bridge down there, I'm just kind of
[5:34] summarizing,
[5:36] in the AM peak,
[5:38] so the peak hour in the AM, 16 people or
[5:41] 16 vehicles take a left turn out of
[5:43] there.
[5:44] Once that school peak he he hits, it's
[5:47] going to change to about 233 vehicles
[5:49] trying to take a left out of that
[5:51] intersection. So, it's a big it's a big
[5:53] difference and a big number and it's a
[5:55] stop controlled and everything else on
[5:57] Main Street, right? Has no has no
[5:59] control. So, they have to wait for a gap
[6:01] to get out. And what the modeling shows
[6:04] is that
[6:05] um
[6:06] the intersection, you know, is over
[6:08] capacity on that one leg, meaning that
[6:11] you know, the queues get pretty long.
[6:13] The queues get up to 500 ft actually
[6:16] along that route. They'll probably go
[6:17] back on Wellbridge, end up Ali a little
[6:19] bit depending on where vehicles are
[6:21] coming. And on average it exceeds about
[6:24] a 3-minute wait. Now, again, that's for
[6:27] a small period, probably 15 to 20
[6:29] minutes, maybe half an hour max during
[6:30] the day. But, it's a point where you
[6:34] know, as we stated in our thing that
[6:35] people are going to probably get a
[6:36] little more aggressive, try to take some
[6:38] smaller gaps. We're going to monitor the
[6:39] situation, you know, as they try to turn
[6:42] out of there.
[6:43] In the in the afternoon, it's not as
[6:45] bad, but it still has it still has about
[6:48] 175 ft. Overall, it operates a little
[6:51] bit better and I forget the average
[6:53] delay, but I think it's in half of what
[6:55] it was
[6:57] in the AM.
[6:58] So,
[6:59] um what they pointed out
[7:01] in here was it was something that would
[7:03] have to be monitored in in their traffic
[7:05] analysis. We suggest maybe two
[7:07] alternatives. You know, they looked at a
[7:09] stop they looked at an all-way stop
[7:11] there. The problem is
[7:13] it doesn't it meets warrants for like
[7:15] that 30 minutes to an hour, but the rest
[7:17] of the day you know, it doesn't really
[7:19] meet warrants. You know, having people
[7:20] stop on Main Street for no reason at
[7:22] that intersection could get frustrating
[7:24] also just to the main north-south
[7:26] traffic. But, that's something to
[7:27] explore
[7:28] maybe as we see how this unfolds um in
[7:31] the fall.
[7:33] Um the other two primary alternatives we
[7:35] thought was, you know, if it gets to be
[7:37] real bad, you know, one is posting an
[7:40] officer there to direct traffic at least
[7:42] it during those peak periods, which, you
[7:45] know, takes a resource away from um the
[7:49] village. So, maybe that isn't the best
[7:51] alternative.
[7:52] Um the second alternative is possibly
[7:56] to, you know, go back to the school and
[7:58] ask why maybe they only want right in
[8:00] and what right out. You know, was the
[8:02] left in allowed that bad um before and
[8:05] is there a reason for it? I think some
[8:07] of it was trying to get capacity at the
[8:09] site.
[8:10] >> park and walk drop-off as a backup if
[8:13] things get hairy. So, one of the the
[8:15] places that comes to mind for me is UMB
[8:17] Bank
[8:18] um as a um backup drop-off where kids
[8:23] already are on that side of the street
[8:25] and could walk up um you know, from 7:15
[8:29] to 7:45, UMB doesn't open till 9:00. Um
[8:32] so, could we have like a
[8:35] backup remote parking lot, too, just in
[8:38] our back pocket in case
[8:40] I think it's wise for us to see what
[8:42] actually is happening before we make any
[8:44] sort of permanent changes, but maybe
[8:45] just having a few
[8:47] creative ideas in the background
[8:50] to would help.
[8:52] >> Josh, you um you mentioned reevaluating
[8:55] the the site. How long do you give
[8:58] school the
[9:01] you know, people to work out their
[9:02] routines before you start doing some
[9:03] type of evaluating of the site or of
[9:06] that intersection?
[9:09] » I mean, obviously, I would say and and
[9:10] Chief knows this, you know, probably
[9:12] watch it day one as, you know, this is
[9:15] going to be a new condition, you know,
[9:16] change for the first week, but you
[9:18] probably wouldn't actually look at some
[9:19] of the cues and everything else until
[9:21] you're getting into the second or third
[9:23] week once people get kind of used to the
[9:25] routine and adjust a little bit on their
[9:27] own. I don't I I do anticipate the first
[9:29] few days to be just different, right? Um
[9:32] one, the school district has to get the
[9:33] message out that they can't turn left
[9:35] into that driveway. They have a
[9:36] circulation plan that they have to get
[9:39] um everybody used to as well.
[9:41] There's [clears throat] new parents
[9:42] obviously that probably aren't you know,
[9:44] that were in a different totally
[9:45] different building. So the first week
[9:47] could be a little could could show the
[9:50] true you know,
[9:52] what it's going to be like. I would give
[9:54] it a week still monitor it during that
[9:56] week and have some presence there to to
[9:58] help the situation of traffic it's bad
[10:00] and then
[10:01] probably you know, Kyle we can discuss
[10:04] and the board can discuss you know,
[10:05] maybe after that what what's the next
[10:07] steps as far as do we count traffic? Do
[10:10] we just watch some queuing too? I mean
[10:12] that's easy enough to do. How far did
[10:13] the queues get back during some of those
[10:14] peak hours to understand like how how
[10:16] much is the delay? So there's some
[10:18] visual things you can just do right away
[10:21] and it kind of get a feel for what the
[10:22] level of service is.
[10:25] >> Chief, how realistic is it to have an
[10:27] officer there in the morning during that
[10:28] time?
[10:31] » Depending on staffing, we'll do our best
[10:33] to have somebody present.
[10:37] » Heidi.
[10:39] >> Thanks.
[10:40] Remind me I I don't recall if the school
[10:42] mentioned that there'll be signs for the
[10:44] right in right out during the school
[10:46] drop-off times or will they have someone
[10:48] out there like telling people not to
[10:50] turn left in or do I don't remember if they said does it
[10:57] say somewhere here or do you know of any
[10:58] signs going up?
[11:02] » You know, they mentioned we had some of
[11:03] those same comments right at planning
[11:05] commission I believe and they mentioned
[11:06] that part of orientation some of the
[11:09] information that they send out prior to
[11:10] the school year and then they were going
[11:11] to have you know, on-site
[11:15] representatives that was going to help
[11:17] especially that first week. I think
[11:18] Heidi you know, to make sure that
[11:20] everybody understands even their
[11:21] internal drop-off
[11:23] situation. So
[11:24] they made it sound like that first week
[11:26] for them too was all hands on deck sort
[11:28] of thing.
[11:29] >> But we won't have any signs
[11:31] installed on the roadway? No. Or right
[11:34] in, right out only or anything like
[11:37] that?
[11:40] I'm not asking that there should be. I
[11:42] just wasn't sure if they were going to
[11:43] be.
[11:44] >> They do have Not at this time, but it's
[11:46] definitely something that we can look
[11:47] into.
[11:49] >> Is that the village's responsibility to
[11:51] put those types of signs up?
[11:56] » In this case, the right out would only
[11:59] would be a school district sign cuz it
[12:00] would be for them.
[12:02] Uh
[12:03] on our end,
[12:05] I would have to discuss with Aaron cuz a
[12:07] lot of times that would be like a
[12:08] requirement of like plan approval and I
[12:10] don't remember if we ever saw anything
[12:12] Josh in plan in the plan removal
[12:14] requiring that.
[12:16] But it's something that's not an overly
[12:18] expensive ask, so we could probably talk
[12:19] to the school uh school district about.
[12:22] And the contractor.
[12:24] >> Yeah, but definitely don't need to
[12:25] decide that.
[12:26] >> Are you thinking permanent signs,
[12:29] Isla? Permanent signs or just signs that
[12:31] they put out
[12:33] they just put out boards?
[12:35] >> you could put like a sandwich board out
[12:36] or something, but you know, there's
[12:38] always adjustments that we can make
[12:39] [clears throat] after you see the real
[12:41] life. Thank you.
[12:43] >> Correct.
[12:43] >> Yeah, I don't think they they probably
[12:45] wouldn't put permanent because they want
[12:46] they will allow left in the rest of the
[12:48] day and left out after drop-off. You
[12:51] know, if you if you were to come to the
[12:52] school in the middle of the day for
[12:54] whatever reason, right? To pick up your
[12:55] kid to take him to an appointment or or
[12:58] what, you could turn left in there.
[13:00] They're not restricting access
[13:02] during the day, just during drop-off and
[13:05] pick-up, from what I understand
[13:07] from the school district.
[13:08] >> I think they do have a
[13:11] right turn only sign when you're leaving
[13:14] CGS. Um they do have videos and
[13:18] communication that's going to be going
[13:19] out to all parents that they're going to
[13:20] be rolling out pretty soon and the
[13:21] village has been asked to share that
[13:23] information as well. So, we'll be doing
[13:24] that.
[13:29] Any other discussion from board members
[13:31] or questions about the TIA?
[13:36] » Um yeah, I guess this isn't this is just
[13:38] to discuss. Um so, we're not doing any
[13:40] specific action, but um I'm inclined to
[13:44] agree certainly early on like for these
[13:46] first couple weeks, I like the the signs
[13:48] idea and potentially an officer again,
[13:51] if nothing else just for this first
[13:53] these first couple weeks to to make it
[13:56] as little chaos as possible and then
[14:01] Yeah, but it but yeah, if we're not
[14:02] doing anything specific right now,
[14:03] that's just my thoughts, I guess.
[14:05] >> If there's uh no other discussion on the
[14:08] TIA, um I'd ask the board if they'd be
[14:10] amenable to having
[14:11] um 7
[14:13] B and B1 moved up to continue the
[14:15] discussion.
[14:17] Um
[14:18] Trustee Stola and myself uh worked on an
[14:21] some
[14:22] agenda item to talk about some of the traffic and some potential measures
[14:27] near CGS that we could take.
[14:29] That's all right to bring that item
[14:31] forward now. All right.
[14:33] So, we'll move on to 7B, discuss traffic
[14:35] calming at CGS.
[14:38] Trustee Stola.
[14:39] >> Sure. Um
[14:40] so, yeah, I just
[14:43] it's I mean it's I think it's pretty
[14:44] clear to everyone that this is going to
[14:45] be a bit of a mess to start with. So,
[14:48] just wanted to talk about concrete steps
[14:51] we could take to
[14:52] maybe alleviate it as best we can. I
[14:54] know Cindy
[14:55] um curious about having
[14:57] similar parking signs as the right
[15:00] that's like no parking during the
[15:01] drop-off times. Um we could do temporary
[15:05] no left turn signs.
[15:07] Um
[15:08] just curious to see what everyone else thinks.
[15:17] » [clears throat]
[15:17] >> So, during the
[15:19] So, I was on planning commission when
[15:20] this first first came up and during that
[15:22] discussion,
[15:23] um and in the subsequent board meeting,
[15:27] it seemed like everyone was very
[15:28] amenable to doing the no parking on the
[15:32] east side of Main Street during that
[15:33] drop-off time frame. Because then that
[15:36] would help with the queue, it helps get
[15:38] them off the main road.
[15:40] Um so, from a traffic standpoint, uh in
[15:43] case we do get a backup, it's one
[15:46] we have that lane that's free that they
[15:48] can queue up. And that us Oh, I have to
[15:51] go back and look. I Unfortunately, don't
[15:53] have it in front of me.
[15:54] Um close to 130 cars between what's in
[15:58] the parking lot all the way down to
[16:00] pretty much close to Wheel Bridge
[16:01] Taylor.
[16:02] Um so, most likely for that peak
[16:06] drop-off,
[16:07] there's a good chance that it could be
[16:09] addressed by
[16:11] just having the block and all Main
[16:14] Street all the way down there.
[16:18] » My thought on that, which I like the
[16:20] idea. I'm just curious if people who are
[16:22] dropping their kids off are going to see
[16:24] that and think they can't queue there
[16:25] cuz it says no parking during those
[16:27] times. So, how will how do we tell
[16:29] people that there's a difference between
[16:31] parking and queuing?
[16:33] I don't know.
[16:35] >> So, I guess maybe this is a question for
[16:36] Chief or Kyla. There are signs out there
[16:39] um
[16:40] along kind of the length of CGS that say
[16:42] no stopping, standing, or parking.
[16:45] How does that apply to a queue line?
[16:50] » So, if it reads no standing, um
[16:54] that would affect a queue queue line.
[16:56] But, if it just says no parking,
[16:59] then so, like on the west side, it says
[17:02] no parking during certain hours.
[17:06] That leaves the road open for the
[17:08] queuing and for traffic to move through
[17:10] and flow.
[17:13] So, that's the way I would view it as a no parking.
[17:18] >> So, I guess
[17:19] >> That That one.
[17:24] » Yeah, so that one should probably come
[17:25] out if that's still there. But, I don't
[17:28] I mean I don't know
[17:29] >> So, you have the curb the curb's painted
[17:31] yellow wherever that sign is, I believe,
[17:33] Kyla. I think.
[17:34] >> Which is the
[17:36] sign? Yeah.
[17:36] >> that sign's in.
[17:39] >> I mean, I
[17:40] >> I'm sorry, I'm sharing just so everybody
[17:41] knows.
[17:42] >> my question is how customizable are like
[17:44] the no parking signs? Can it say no
[17:46] parking, school queuing permitted, or
[17:48] something like that?
[17:57] » I guess I would put
[17:58] >> I believe we can
[18:00] do that. Oh, go ahead.
[18:01] >> No, go ahead, Kyla.
[18:04] >> Um I believe you can make that sign. It
[18:07] just
[18:08] I would recommend that it would be used
[18:09] in very limited spaces cuz it is not a
[18:12] standard DOT kind of regulation sign.
[18:16] Chief?
[18:19] » I was just going to say I'd I'd use the
[18:21] signs similar to what are on the west
[18:24] side that have the hours already spelled
[18:27] out of no parking.
[18:30] >> [clears throat]
[18:30] >> I mean, I think it's only going to be a
[18:31] problem for the first
[18:33] couple weeks, and then people will after
[18:35] that people will understand that it's
[18:36] okay to queue there.
[18:37] I just worry that they're going to
[18:39] see that,
[18:41] keep driving,
[18:43] and get frustrated cuz they're going to
[18:45] have to turn around.
[18:45] >> Mhm.
[18:46] >> And they'll have to turn around by going
[18:48] from alley to Wheel Bridge.
[18:51] >> Could we also utilize the message board
[18:54] sign that we have, and then the police
[18:57] department's speed sign to reinforce
[18:59] those two messages?
[19:01] And then one other thought I had was um
[19:03] to specifically slow traffic down
[19:06] um is using flexible delineator posts
[19:10] um for that kind of the length of that
[19:13] area, it also helps slow things down.
[19:16] Um,
[19:17] just as another thought.
[19:24] » Additionally, I would also like to see a
[19:26] striped crosswalk at the crosswalk
[19:28] there.
[19:29] So, it's higher visibility.
[19:33] » Is it not striped? The one that's right
[19:34] by the school? Oh,
[19:40] » Chris, [clears throat] are you looking
[19:42] for
[19:43] um, striping in terms of ladder
[19:45] striping?
[19:47] >> Yes.
[19:52] » I'd be in favor of
[19:54] for high visibility crosswalks and I am
[19:56] in favor and I'm
[19:58] still in favor of no parking.
[20:00] Um,
[20:05] any other discussion on this?
[20:07] >> I'd prefer a raised crosswalk, but I'm
[20:09] willing to to compromise and just have a striped
[20:12] crossing.
[20:17] » Um, let's move on to consider traffic
[20:19] calming at Cottage Grove School.
[20:22] And entertain a motion.
[20:30] » Okay, I'll make the motion to put the no
[20:34] parking signs with the appropriate times
[20:39] and the striped So, on the west side of
[20:43] or sorry, east side of Main Street,
[20:45] school side, from the school all the way
[20:48] down to uh,
[20:50] Wheelbarrow Taylor.
[20:53] And
[20:54] put the striped crosswalk or make sure
[20:57] that crosswalk is striped up by the
[20:59] school.
[21:03] » I would second.
[21:05] >> Motion by JP, second by Seaverson.
[21:08] Debate on the motion.
[21:10] >> Can I just ask
[21:11] >> Can I ask the clerk Can I ask a
[21:13] clarifying, Cindy?
[21:14] >> Yep.
[21:15] >> Um Chris, just so I don't mispaint this
[21:19] and have staff paint it, are you is the
[21:21] village board interested in having this
[21:23] one green? It would be the only green
[21:25] crosswalk that we have in the middle of
[21:26] a street. Um
[21:29] but since we're going to have to
[21:30] restripe it, I thought I would throw
[21:31] that out there
[21:34] The green would match the bike path
[21:36] green that is along the bike path on
[21:38] Cottage Grove Road that we just did in
[21:40] front of driveways for the commercial
[21:41] areas.
[21:43] >> I mean, I I don't know.
[21:46] Uh is I I don't I was under the
[21:47] impression that greens usually mean
[21:48] green usually means bikes and that's not
[21:50] really
[21:52] connecting bike paths, but I mean, if
[21:54] it's
[21:56] I don't know the standards from the
[21:57] MUTCD, but
[21:59] um
[22:00] I'm fine with it.
[22:01] >> I was going to suggest type is yellow to
[22:04] match the crosswalk sign that's right
[22:06] there.
[22:11] » Yellow's not a standard, so it would not
[22:13] be yellow. That would be conflicting
[22:15] with the road. Um
[22:17] I can I will look into it. It will be
[22:20] striped and I will confirm if we go
[22:22] green or yellow green or white, but I
[22:24] just wanted to throw that out there um
[22:26] for discussion if it's interested in
[22:28] being green. It would kind of throw
[22:30] everything off compared to every other
[22:31] school zone that we have. I probably
[22:34] wouldn't suggest it, but since we did
[22:35] just paint green and I know Chris, you
[22:37] like green.
[22:38] >> Do you like Do you have any leftover
[22:39] from the last paint job?
[22:41] >> You're on duty.
[22:43] >> I do like green. Um do you have any
[22:44] leftover from the last paint job on the
[22:46] um multi-use path?
[22:49] >> We do, yeah.
[22:51] >> Okay.
[22:52] Yeah, I mean, I
[22:53] Go ahead, Jamie.
[22:54] >> So, Chris, would you
[22:56] um agree with the amendment to the
[22:59] striping to say that conforming to
[23:04] this is where I'm going to need some
[23:05] assistant.
[23:07] >> I'm your guy.
[23:07] >> Oh, sorry. Sorry.
[23:09] Would you agree to uh make them the
[23:12] change to straight the striping in
[23:14] conforming with the DOT regulations or
[23:17] the appropriate entity which I don't
[23:19] know
[23:20] exactly what that is.
[23:21] >> I I'm going to say sure and just trust
[23:23] that you know what you're talking about.
[23:25] Okay.
[23:26] >> Kyla's nodding, so I think
[23:27] >> Yeah, okay.
[23:27] >> I think Kyla gets it and then
[23:29] >> I'll make sure it's right.
[23:30] >> All right.
[23:31] Um any other debate on the motion?
[23:34] All those in favor?
[23:36] >> Aye.
[23:37] >> Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. And
[23:40] then just to summarize, too, um we do
[23:42] have a discussion about crosswalks with
[23:44] the schools and they have been sending
[23:47] us communications, so we're going to
[23:48] start getting rolling all of that
[23:49] information out after we meet with them,
[23:51] but then I'll bring up this list, too,
[23:52] of um creative ideas and then also some
[23:55] asks for signage or, you um just in
[23:58] updating them, too, on our discussion
[24:00] and then,
[24:01] you know, how will we monitoring this
[24:03] and then maybe have to, you know, meet
[24:05] and make some pivots um
[24:07] in the next first couple weeks of
[24:08] school.
[24:11] All right. Let's pop back up to 6B,
[24:14] which is discuss the Deer Grove EMS
[24:16] Intergovernmental Agreement, um which
[24:18] has been edited. Rick.
[24:22] >> So, the draft tonight is kind of a blend
[24:25] of the proposal that was presented last
[24:27] week and the original agreement. So, the
[24:30] original had a 2-hour limitation for
[24:32] attorney time for the EMS district for
[24:35] commissioners.
[24:36] So, this reduces it to 1 hour, but
[24:38] allows the commissioner uh but allows
[24:41] the commission to vote to exceed that
[24:43] 1-hour time limit
[24:44] to incorporate some of the elements of
[24:46] the previous draft. Uh basically
[24:49] clarified that the commission chair or
[24:52] the EMS chief then forwards that request
[24:55] to legal counsel
[24:57] and uh notification is also provided to
[24:59] the commissioners right away. So, the
[25:03] other communities have not acted on this
[25:06] or the commission hasn't acted on this
[25:08] proposed amendment. I think
[25:10] if it's approved tonight, it would then
[25:12] go back to those other entities for
[25:14] consideration.
[25:16] >> Any discussion on the the amendments?
[25:20] Can move on to consider the IGA
[25:24] amendment.
[25:26] >> I move approval of the Deer Grove EMS
[25:27] intergovernmental agreement amendment as
[25:29] presented.
[25:30] >> I'll second.
[25:31] >> Motion by Murphy, second by Erlingson.
[25:33] Any debate on the motion?
[25:36] All those in favor?
[25:38] >> Aye.
[25:39] >> Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries.
[25:43] Seventh, new business, our annual review
[25:46] is of service providers are kicking off
[25:48] tonight. Um, and our first one up is
[25:50] Cities and Villages Mutual Insurance
[25:52] Company. Um, there's a PDF linked in the
[25:54] agenda as well as some documents
[25:56] um, on the table for you. And I invite
[25:59] our presenter up.
[26:02] I'll let Cameron introduce and then you
[26:04] just need to have your microphone on.
[26:06] >> So, just to kind of kick off because
[26:08] it's our first service provider review.
[26:10] So, again, this is kicking off that
[26:12] annual process um, for our service
[26:15] providers. Um,
[26:17] SIVMAC was happy and excited to go very
[26:21] first and the only one tonight. Um,
[26:23] picked a good meeting, short meeting.
[26:25] Um, one of the tentative changes to the
[26:27] process this year, um, and I'll send out
[26:29] in a formal memo, um, to the rest of the
[26:31] providers, but I did send it in an email
[26:32] today,
[26:33] um, was to include the general fund and
[26:35] water and sewer portion of the cost
[26:38] related to the service provider. Um,
[26:41] you know, and then kind of just give a
[26:43] little mini preview to kind of looking
[26:45] into what potential changes might be
[26:47] happening in 2027. Um, so today,
[26:51] obviously, we have SIVMAC. Um, on August
[26:53] 17th we have Palaterry, Johnson Block
[26:55] and Strand, and then on September 8th is a little bit of an extended list, but
[27:00] Ellers, Baker Tilly, Colonial Club,
[27:02] Stafford, General Engineering and
[27:04] Associated Appraisal. Um Associated
[27:06] Appraisal may be uh kicked back until
[27:10] November 2nd,
[27:11] um but right now they're on the list for
[27:13] September 8th.
[27:15] Um so, please ask um ask our providers
[27:18] lots of questions tonight. Um nothing's
[27:21] off limits. If you have something for
[27:23] staff direction,
[27:25] um for future agenda, um please mention
[27:27] that under future agenda items on how
[27:28] you would what what you would want staff
[27:30] to do and and bring back as, you know,
[27:32] and get some sense of consensus as a
[27:34] board, so.
[27:35] With that said,
[27:36] um
[27:38] take it away.
[27:39] >> Well, good evening. Thank you for having
[27:40] me speak. My name is Andrew Taylor. I
[27:42] work with Cities and Villages as Cameron
[27:43] just said.
[27:44] Uh I'm picked the right day. I'm glad
[27:46] this is I saw those hefty lists, so I'll
[27:49] try to make it a memorable first one for
[27:50] you. So, uh first of all, who are we,
[27:53] right? Cities and Villages Mutual
[27:54] Insurance Company is your insurance
[27:56] company. Uh the village is a 157th
[27:59] member owner of our pool. So, we are a
[28:01] mutual insurance company. Our goal is to
[28:04] provide you great insurance and great
[28:05] service.
[28:07] It's your money. It's your taxpayers'
[28:08] money that funds this pool.
[28:11] It is yours. Any profit, so to speak,
[28:13] any extra comes back to you in the form
[28:16] of our surplus, our ability to pay
[28:18] claims, or in the form of service. And
[28:20] so, what's nice about working with
[28:21] SIBMIC, we'd like to think, is that all
[28:23] of that is your resources. I've had a
[28:25] pleasure of working with a number of
[28:26] your uh village staff in a number of
[28:28] trainings. It's nice to see some
[28:29] familiar faces.
[28:31] And what we do is hopefully represent
[28:33] your interest by providing great
[28:34] insurance and providing service.
[28:36] So, what I'd like to do is just run you
[28:37] through a little bit of how that works,
[28:38] kind of what you have with us, and and
[28:40] how that goes. And of course, at any
[28:41] time, if you have questions, please feel
[28:43] free. This is of course your your
[28:44] meeting.
[28:45] Um and I'm happy to answer them.
[28:47] So, I'm Andrew. I've been with SIBMIC
[28:49] for about 10 years. I am our member
[28:50] engagement manager. I'm also our
[28:52] full-time leadership and training
[28:54] trainer. So, I'm the person that does a
[28:55] lot of your uh leadership and
[28:57] communication training. So, I have the
[28:59] pleasure of working with all 57 members
[29:01] across our state, and I do a lot of the
[29:02] public speaking and training for them.
[29:04] So, I'm typically working with city
[29:05] staff or village staff. Uh I'm always
[29:07] happy to work with elected officials,
[29:09] too, though, if you're interested in
[29:10] attending webinar or training. That's
[29:11] always, of course, open to, as well. Uh
[29:13] in front of you, you've got a couple
[29:14] books. You've got the insurance guide
[29:16] and the service guide. These are the
[29:17] documents that we send out to our
[29:19] membership, as well as any prospect
[29:21] municipalities that were to think about
[29:23] joining SIBMIC. Just kind of explain
[29:24] what we are. So, a lot of what I'm
[29:26] talking about today, you'll see in the
[29:27] service guide.
[29:29] So,
[29:30] first and foremost, we are your
[29:31] insurance partner. All right. So, we
[29:33] like to think that as your insurance
[29:35] provider, we're able to provide you a
[29:36] number of things that uh hopefully
[29:38] increase your peace of mind. Your
[29:40] primary insurance with us is probably
[29:41] what you think of as your liability
[29:43] insurance. That includes any of your
[29:45] liability that comes from your general
[29:47] liability, your auto liability, your
[29:49] public officials, your um
[29:51] your EPL, your HR-related claims. So,
[29:55] for instance, if you've got um
[29:57] you know, any kind of major lawsuit
[29:59] where someone's blaming the village and
[30:00] saying that you're at fault, the
[30:01] liability insurance likely covers.
[30:03] Um, and so, that's your primary
[30:05] coverage. That's what every SIBMIC
[30:06] member has to have to be a part of our
[30:07] pool. Most or all of our members also
[30:10] work with us for the workers'
[30:11] compensation insurance. So, you're
[30:12] probably familiar with the work comp
[30:13] side of things. Um, as well as our auto
[30:15] physical damage program for your
[30:16] vehicles. So, if you were to get any
[30:18] kind of accidents or totaled out a
[30:19] vehicle, that's what we're doing on the
[30:20] insurance side. SIBMIC also acts as your
[30:22] go-between to the larger insurance
[30:25] market. By working with those other 56
[30:27] municipalities across the state, you're
[30:29] able to get the power of pooling on your
[30:31] behalf to get you better rates uh in the
[30:34] group purchase space. So, you have a
[30:36] number of what we call group purchases,
[30:38] where we kind of take that power of
[30:40] pooling. 25% of the state's population
[30:42] as was said by Mick. We have almost
[30:44] 20,000 plus employees that work for the
[30:46] cities and villages that make up our
[30:47] pool. And so insurance providers get you
[30:49] much better rate than you'd likely be
[30:50] able to find on your own. So you have uh
[30:52] a number of those group purchases
[30:53] including pollution coverage, crime
[30:55] coverage, equipment breakdown, some of
[30:57] those.
[30:58] So those coverages are placed with
[30:59] SIBMIC. We're happy to work with you. If
[31:00] there's stand-alone policies that you
[31:01] need for things like a fuel tank or
[31:03] anything like that, we can work with our
[31:04] broker to secure those coverages.
[31:06] So that's the insurance part, maybe a
[31:08] little humdrum. I don't know if that's
[31:09] really exciting. But the that's the
[31:11] hopefully that peace of mind part that's
[31:12] behind the scene. If you're looking at
[31:13] the book that says
[31:15] uh insurance
[31:16] uh more than insurance
[31:18] you've got uh the insurance guide
[31:19] rather, sorry, with the green cover. Uh
[31:21] that's the one that kind of breaks
[31:22] through those coverages if you wanted to
[31:23] see that in more detail.
[31:25] So I want to just kind of walk through
[31:27] just real briefly. I know you want to be
[31:28] respectful of your time. Uh SIBMIC uh is
[31:31] a pool. I mentioned we have 57 members.
[31:33] You can see uh on the slides here that
[31:34] we're sharing that those 57 are listed
[31:36] on the screen. Cottage Grove joined in
[31:38] 2004. We're very excited to have you
[31:39] join throughout 2023 and your policy uh
[31:42] started on January 1, '24. So it's been
[31:44] uh we'd like to hope some good 2 and
[31:46] 1/2, almost 3 years of working with you.
[31:48] And so you can see that we are governed
[31:50] by municipal municipalities. I mentioned
[31:52] before, we are member-owned.
[31:54] So seven each one of our villages and
[31:56] cities has a member rep that represents
[31:58] your village. In this case that's Inga.
[32:00] And of those 57 member reps, seven of
[32:03] them sit on our board of directors. And
[32:05] so you can see on our board of directors
[32:06] list included Inga who uh joined this
[32:08] year at the at-large seat. Kind of helps
[32:10] represent your village and make sure
[32:11] that you're uh getting all your
[32:13] services. So you're well represented.
[32:16] So we like to say our members are our pool is governed by people that are
[32:20] in a very similar position to your
[32:21] village staff. These are folks that
[32:23] understand the municipal needs of
[32:24] Wisconsin because well, they're
[32:25] municipalities.
[32:26] So SIBMIC does offer a number of
[32:28] services. I wanted to kind of highlight
[32:29] those for you tonight so you just had a
[32:31] sense of kind of what we're doing for
[32:32] you beyond the insurance piece. Of
[32:34] course our hope and I'm sure yours is
[32:35] that you never actually have a claim.
[32:37] So, what are the services that you're
[32:38] using, right? Are the things that you're
[32:40] taking advantage of? So, one of the big
[32:41] things that we offer our membership is
[32:43] what we call our technology suite. We
[32:45] offer you the NeoGov suite. So, NeoGov
[32:47] is provided to all our members at no
[32:49] additional charge. That's included with
[32:50] being a member. And that's often how our
[32:52] members both post positions and hire,
[32:54] bring them on through onboarding,
[32:56] and then train them up and get them into
[32:58] compliance with the learning management
[32:59] system. So, that NeoGov suite is paid
[33:02] for by Sivic. That is available to all
[33:03] of your village staff. And that's
[33:06] something that we offer right away. We
[33:07] also offer our risk reimbursement
[33:08] program.
[33:09] That's a 50/50 matching grant program.
[33:11] So, as you spend things to increase
[33:13] safety in your village, you can submit
[33:15] those receipts and get that
[33:16] reimbursement.
[33:18] Uh probably what we're most known for is
[33:19] training. This is the thing that I have
[33:21] the pleasure of working with my fellow
[33:23] loss control team members on is that we
[33:25] work with our cities and villages both
[33:26] on site. You might see us in your break
[33:28] rooms or in your, you know, boardrooms
[33:30] doing training. But, we also offer
[33:32] programming both on the Zoom space as
[33:34] well
[33:35] as in our training center in Milwaukee.
[33:37] So, if you're familiar with the
[33:38] Milwaukee County Zoo, our building is
[33:39] right across the street. We have what
[33:40] we'd like to think is a fairly
[33:41] state-of-the-art training center. And
[33:43] so, we can be working with anywhere from
[33:44] 20 to 40, 50 plus people doing round
[33:46] tables, connections, trainings, anything
[33:47] you name it.
[33:48] So, we offer a variety of safety
[33:50] programming to reduce your work comp
[33:51] claims and hopefully your liability
[33:52] claims as well. So, anything from
[33:54] chainsaw training to blood borne
[33:55] pathogen
[33:57] all the way ranging to those more HR
[33:58] topics including
[34:00] FMLA, ADA, anti-harassment training,
[34:03] those pieces.
[34:04] So, Sivic is proud to provide you that
[34:06] training. We offer it both in person and
[34:07] online. That learning management system
[34:09] has all those e-learnings and programs
[34:11] that many of your your
[34:12] village employees use as part of their
[34:13] onboarding. And then as part of any
[34:15] other annual training initiative.
[34:18] We also include cyber and volunteer
[34:20] insurance for all of our members. By the
[34:21] way, this is a lot of information. So,
[34:22] if anytime you want to jump in, please
[34:23] feel free.
[34:24] The volunteer and cyber is included as
[34:27] part of the Sivic membership. So, we
[34:29] recognize we are in an evolving cyber
[34:31] space with a lot of risk. We're seeing
[34:33] that roughly once a month we have a
[34:35] member with what would be considered a
[34:37] significant or close to significant
[34:39] cyber breach. And so we offer that
[34:41] proactively to our membership. That
[34:43] comes with all that cyber support if
[34:45] there is a breach, but in in advance as
[34:47] well as training. We also provide system
[34:49] scanning for your village so that you
[34:51] can get a chance to have your external
[34:52] system scanned by a third-party expert
[34:54] and let you know about any
[34:55] vulnerabilities. So it's a bad day when
[34:57] there's ransomware or any threat like
[34:58] that to your village. We want to make
[34:59] sure that never happens or at least we
[35:00] try to make sure it never happens. And
[35:02] that's what we offer with our cyber.
[35:05] We're also big supporters of the law
[35:06] enforcement space.
[35:07] SIMUWIG is a proud partner with WILEAG,
[35:09] the Wisconsin Law Enforcement
[35:10] Accreditation Group. We host their
[35:11] meetings in our building. We have a
[35:13] staff spot, a board spot for our member
[35:17] members represented on the board, which
[35:18] is nice. We also have a number of
[35:20] training opportunities through WILEAG.
[35:22] We can connect with groups like Lexipol
[35:23] and other groups at our training site.
[35:25] More importantly though, we're with your police and fire protective
[35:29] services um
[35:30] through how we offer any critical
[35:31] incident support if there is an
[35:33] incident, how we offer peer support,
[35:36] training, as well as if there's media
[35:37] training or critical incident. So on the
[35:39] unlikely and hopeful never event that
[35:41] you have any type of major
[35:42] officer-involved shooting or a major
[35:43] public safety crisis, SIMUWIG steps in
[35:46] with that media coach and tries to
[35:48] provide you with all that support.
[35:51] We also have dedicated service team,
[35:52] which is working directly with your team
[35:54] on site, pretty much one phone call
[35:56] away. I'll be brief in some of this, but
[35:58] that dedicated service team is what we'd
[35:59] like to think keeps us
[36:01] really connected with you as a village.
[36:02] So you have a number of
[36:04] employees working directly with you. And
[36:06] the goal is to be on site meeting your
[36:08] needs. So we have a safety and risk
[36:09] management specialist that works with
[36:11] you to provide all that safety training,
[36:13] risk management consultant. You might
[36:15] see them doing playground inspections or
[36:17] ergonomic assessments in your building.
[36:18] They're the ones doing your fume hood
[36:19] testing and all that. So that's about
[36:21] keeping your building safe.
[36:22] And you can see that they offer quite a
[36:24] few services. We also have an HR advisor
[36:26] that works directly with your leadership
[36:28] team to help work through members with
[36:29] your employees
[36:31] issues rather with your employees and
[36:32] make sure that if there's any needs that
[36:33] those are solved as well.
[36:35] And so our HR advisors are hopefully
[36:36] almost an extension of your HR team.
[36:39] They can be on site doing file, you
[36:41] know, file reviews. They can be helping
[36:42] you write policies, talking through
[36:44] difficult employee situations, anything
[36:45] like that.
[36:47] So I mentioned the leadership training
[36:48] before. We have a number of
[36:49] certification programs both virtually
[36:51] and online. I mentioned a few of the
[36:52] city staff in this village staff rather
[36:54] in this room have attended which is
[36:56] always great to see and so we're very
[36:57] proud of being able to prevent what we
[36:59] hope our claims or miscommunication or
[37:01] any issues with your employees in
[37:02] advance. So we spend a lot of time doing
[37:04] training
[37:05] and it's nice to connect with your
[37:07] leaders that way.
[37:08] So long and short of it is we are here
[37:10] hopefully working with you and for you.
[37:11] We try to connect through our member
[37:12] connection forums, roundtables,
[37:14] providing your staff an opportunity to
[37:16] connect. We have a number of important
[37:18] roundtables that we do like law
[37:19] enforcement, fire roundtable, our HR
[37:21] roundtable, park and rec roundtable and
[37:23] the goal is to connect and and stay with
[37:26] you, find out what you need. We do a lot
[37:28] of different programming including our
[37:30] newsletters and our semi-annual meetings
[37:32] really just trying to bring our
[37:33] membership together to share best
[37:34] practices. In the greater Dane County
[37:36] area, a number of your neighbors and
[37:37] kind of communities nearby are part of
[37:39] Civic including Stoughton, if we look
[37:43] around kind of go around Fitchburg,
[37:44] Verona, Monona, Sun Prairie,
[37:47] Waunakee,
[37:49] Middleton. We have a number of Madison
[37:50] area members and so it's nice when we
[37:51] get together and you can share those
[37:52] best practices and learn from each
[37:54] other. We're proud to be able to provide
[37:55] that space for you.
[37:57] My last slide for you tonight before we
[37:58] take any questions of course feel free
[37:59] please to ask if any that you have are
[38:02] the services that we offer to your
[38:03] village. You'll see that there's been a
[38:05] number of really successful programs
[38:07] here throughout the two and a half years
[38:09] that the village has been with Civic.
[38:10] Sorry.
[38:12] Let me go backwards. Just moving that
[38:13] out of the way.
[38:14] So we've done about 150 trainees and over 177 total
[38:20] hours of training. We've got on-site
[38:23] services ranging from those ergonomic
[38:24] assessments, salary assessor reports,
[38:26] your playground inspections, your sound
[38:28] level testing, your HR advisors work
[38:30] directly with your HR team for a total
[38:31] of 8 hours. And then you've had a number
[38:33] of employees already go through our
[38:35] leadership certification programs, which
[38:36] is pretty special.
[38:38] So, it's nice to work with a village
[38:39] that's well engaged. I would argue that
[38:40] your employees are doing a great job.
[38:42] Your village is doing a really nice job
[38:43] of leveraging Civic resources. We'd like
[38:45] to think that that partnership helps
[38:47] keep your claims down, keep your costs
[38:48] down, and help your employees improve.
[38:50] >> I do see one thing missing from there.
[38:53] So, each year we've taken full advantage
[38:55] of the 5,000 risk reimbursement. So,
[38:58] we've we've applied and and gotten
[38:59] $15,000
[39:01] in total over the last 3 years.
[39:03] >> Thank you, Kim, for calling that out.
[39:04] It's a good call. We also have a $2,500
[39:06] annual law enforcement reimbursement
[39:07] grant, which I believe you've used as
[39:09] well for a total of 7,500. Yeah.
[39:14] » Thank you.
[39:14] >> Yeah.
[39:15] >> I'm opening it up to
[39:16] board members for questions or comments.
[39:22] Go ahead, Casey.
[39:23] >> Um apologize, this is a slight curveball
[39:26] to start you with, but in
[39:32] Does Civic use any sort of AI, [snorts]
[39:34] and I'm not talking about, you know,
[39:36] like Copilot's kind of built into
[39:37] everything Microsoft Office has, but
[39:40] like in terms of generating trainings or
[39:43] reviewing claims or anything like that would be, you know, an in-house
[39:46] sort of thing.
[39:47] >> Yeah, it's a good question. I think like
[39:48] many organizations, Civic is trying to
[39:50] figure out how is it appropriate to use
[39:52] AI for that type of thing. The nature of
[39:53] a lot of our data, of course, is that
[39:55] it's it's
[39:56] fairly
[39:57] sensitive, right? So, the last thing we
[39:59] want to do is get that out there, have
[40:00] any kind of leak. We use AI in a very
[40:02] minimal capacity. I won't be lying if I
[40:04] said we weren't exploring opportunities
[40:06] to try to use it more.
[40:07] But, what we've been trying to do is
[40:08] train our members on AI liability. We've
[40:10] got a lot of members that jumped feet
[40:12] first with AI, maybe didn't realize some
[40:13] of the risks. And so, we come in and do liability training, make sure they
[40:16] understand what they're getting
[40:17] themselves into. Most of what we use AI
[40:19] for is that you mentioned, probably
[40:19] search tools within Outlook, you know,
[40:21] building images for PowerPoints,
[40:23] uh basic data analysis or certain like
[40:25] spreadsheet enhancements. That's
[40:26] probably about the most of it. We
[40:27] haven't moved to any type of AI agent or
[40:29] any type of deep data projects with AI
[40:31] or anything like that. But, it's a good
[40:32] question.
[40:33] >> Okay, thanks.
[40:34] >> Yeah, certainly.
[40:38] » Are there any services that are
[40:40] underutilized that you would like staff
[40:43] to
[40:45] >> That's a good question. Well, thank you
[40:46] for that one. Uh you know, as someone
[40:48] who does a lot of the training, it would
[40:49] always be nice to see more people You
[40:50] guys I would say the village is doing a
[40:52] fine job. Uh we offer a number of
[40:53] different things that are available as
[40:55] needed. So, things like e-learning or
[40:58] streaming video are available. I would
[40:59] say those are the types of things we
[41:00] would tell any member they may be used
[41:02] more of.
[41:03] Um we naturally, as your insurance
[41:05] company, love the idea that employees
[41:06] are getting trained and hopefully making
[41:07] good decisions in advance. And so, I
[41:09] wouldn't suggest that you haven't done
[41:10] that. You have. I think the data shows
[41:12] your your employees have uh been well
[41:14] trained. But, the hope, of course, is
[41:15] that they could always do more, right?
[41:16] That's something I'd always tell our
[41:17] members, like, feel free to explore more
[41:19] of those programs and and attend more of
[41:21] what we're doing. We like to offer uh
[41:23] what we hope is like a good enriching
[41:24] webinar every month. We bring in outside
[41:26] speakers or in-house experts to talk
[41:28] about evolving issues.
[41:30] Um and and that's one of those things
[41:31] that we would uh we would always
[41:32] encourage more of.
[41:34] Yeah.
[41:34] >> [clears throat]
[41:35] >> Thank you for asking.
[41:36] >> We do have an employee communications
[41:38] newsletter that goes out every month
[41:40] that highlights many of your trainings
[41:41] for the employees.
[41:42] >> Thank you.
[41:45] » Paula, back to cybersecurity. Um are we
[41:48] actively using their
[41:51] system for this?
[41:53] >> Um a combination. So,
[41:56] All right. We primarily utilize the
[41:59] tools that Johnson Block has. Um
[42:01] primarily because they do both do the
[42:03] same thing.
[42:05] And what we do on the Johnson Block side
[42:07] will get us an extra million dollars of
[42:09] cyber coverage. Um so, it's kind of
[42:12] accumulating as much coverage as as
[42:14] possible. Um,
[42:16] so what where is helpful is like from a
[42:19] policy creation perspective, we've
[42:21] tapped into them. Like we're currently
[42:23] kind of
[42:24] in progress the AI policy and things to
[42:27] protect village data. Um, so very
[42:29] mindful on, you know, data segregation
[42:32] and things that we can do to
[42:33] protect the villages' data.
[42:35] Um,
[42:36] they also have
[42:39] um,
[42:40] you have a couple things. Do you have
[42:41] the the the Kindle tool? Is that that's the um, that's the tool that we
[42:45] aren't taking advantage of currently um,
[42:48] because it's duplicative of what is
[42:50] currently being done.
[42:53] >> Thank you. And then another
[42:55] cybersecurity question. Um, are you
[42:57] doing anything kind of proactively in
[42:59] terms of um,
[43:02] like utility systems? We, you know, we
[43:04] saw the cyberattacks and and water
[43:06] systems in Minnesota. Are you doing
[43:09] anything to address that specifically?
[43:11] >> Yeah, that's a great question. So beyond
[43:13] what Cameron mentioned, which was that
[43:14] third-party site scanning, all that uh,
[43:17] the carrier's Tokyo Marine, but the
[43:18] carrier will work with us to provide all
[43:19] that training and the fishing training
[43:20] all the things you can do in advance if
[43:21] you wish. Uh, just on Friday we we sent
[43:24] out a message to our entire membership.
[43:25] Our team and I was putting that together
[43:27] about 5:00 on Friday saying, "Hey, we
[43:29] saw a rash of attacks across the country
[43:30] including Minnesota." I'm sure many of
[43:32] you are aware of that. And so we sent
[43:33] that out to our membership to try to
[43:34] make them aware of those types of
[43:35] programs. The other thing that we're
[43:37] doing that we think uh, kind of an
[43:38] example of what we talked about before.
[43:40] Not only are we putting out model
[43:41] policies and training for you, but we're
[43:42] also putting together group like the IT
[43:44] round table. So one of the things that
[43:45] we do is bring our membership together
[43:47] on a monthly basis talking to each other
[43:49] about what are some of those IT best
[43:50] practices, connect with those state
[43:52] agencies, provide those training
[43:53] programs and support. Uh, that's part of
[43:55] where Kind came from and some good ideas
[43:57] from our members. And so those round
[43:59] tables are often a great opportunity for
[44:00] IT leaders to speak. Whether you use it
[44:03] in-house or a third-party for that IT
[44:05] contracting, we always think it's a good
[44:07] idea to be aware of what your IT is
[44:08] doing, have a good honest faith check on
[44:09] them, make sure that you're you're
[44:10] protected. And so that's what we try to
[44:12] do with our members. So yeah, as much as
[44:13] we can in advance we try to. It's always
[44:15] a lot easier to prevent them than deal
[44:16] with them afterwards.
[44:17] Yeah.
[44:19] >> So on the utility IT side, um because
[44:22] the vast majority of our SCADA stuff is
[44:24] um
[44:25] LWA Allen is kind of the contractor that
[44:27] works on it. Um so both Larry and myself
[44:31] get uh CISA notifications whenever
[44:34] there's any type of municipal
[44:35] infrastructure attack. Um
[44:38] the biggest I would say risk on the IT
[44:41] environment is aging infrastructure.
[44:43] Um so that's something where we've
[44:45] recommended a replacement often times a
[44:48] year or two before the absolute latest
[44:50] replacement is because a lot of it's
[44:52] exploiting uh technology especially with
[44:54] the way that AI can penetrate um
[44:58] dated systems. Um cuz it lacks the
[45:00] complexity, you know, it used to be
[45:01] eight characters, 16 characters, now
[45:03] characters aren't enough, so passkey and
[45:05] then passkey and password's not enough,
[45:07] so
[45:08] um
[45:09] you know, so just trying to stay on top
[45:11] of that. So when we're the board has done a really good
[45:15] job of making sure that we have an IT
[45:16] budget that's efficient to make sure
[45:18] that we're keeping up with that
[45:19] technology. Um
[45:21] there are um systems um that LWA Allen
[45:25] will let the utilities know
[45:27] that if they're up for
[45:29] um
[45:29] updates.
[45:31] Um I guess I would be curious, do you
[45:32] guys do any type of site anal- like
[45:34] on-site analysts for vulnerabilities?
[45:37] That would be something.
[45:38] >> It's a good question. I I don't know
[45:40] that we've had that question before.
[45:42] Um I would have to check with my IT
[45:43] team. I don't have the answer for you
[45:44] prepared on the camera, I'm sorry.
[45:46] >> Yeah, I think the the physical the
[45:49] physical IT risk would be something I'd
[45:51] be interested in.
[45:52] >> Okay.
[45:54] >> I Any other comments from board members
[45:57] who haven't spoken?
[45:59] >> Do you have another one?
[46:00] >> I have more questions. Um
[46:02] so are there in terms of like our
[46:04] premiums, are there additional actions
[46:06] that we could be taking
[46:09] um, to reduce our premiums? And then I
[46:11] think of like workers comp, are there
[46:12] additional things that we could be doing
[46:14] that we currently aren't with you um, to
[46:17] reduce those claims?
[46:18] >> Yeah, that's a wonderful question. I would say the first thing is a lot of
[46:22] the a lot of insurance so I'm sure most
[46:24] of you know this already. I don't mean
[46:25] to
[46:26] say anything you don't already know, but
[46:28] uh, you know, the workers compensation
[46:29] program is all regulated by the state.
[46:31] Every employer in the state of Wisconsin
[46:32] is following those same statutes. And so
[46:34] one of the things that we talk a lot
[46:35] about is our experience modification and
[46:37] how do we help keep your mod rate, so we
[46:39] call it mod rate, uh, lower so that you
[46:40] pay less insurance or you pay less
[46:42] premium for the same insurance. So one
[46:43] of the things that we'd recommend of
[46:44] course is that you have strong culture
[46:46] of safety, that you work together with
[46:48] your safety, you know, committee, that
[46:50] you work proactively to try to prevent
[46:51] those claims. That's all something that
[46:52] we do with our members. Um, other lines
[46:55] of insurance that are more mod kind of
[46:57] experience mod based would be like your
[46:58] driving, your auto physical. So when we
[47:00] have fewer claims, fewer crashes, fewer
[47:02] incidents, uh, then your village would
[47:04] see a a lower rate increase or hopefully
[47:06] no rate increase uh, year over year. And
[47:08] so so a lot of the insurance partnership
[47:10] and one of the things that we think
[47:11] makes this pool so special is it is the
[47:13] partnership. When we work together and
[47:15] bring those service teams on staff, when
[47:17] your staff is attending these programs,
[47:18] coming to our round table, sharing those
[47:19] best practices,
[47:21] we're hoping, right, it leads to fewer
[47:22] claims. As officers or other drivers for
[47:24] instance are uh, you know, more aware
[47:27] and more senior and more trained then in
[47:28] theory we have few fewer issues. So I
[47:30] would say across the board, right, um,
[47:32] attending those programs and focusing on
[47:34] the kind of the culture that we build,
[47:36] that's a big part of what we hope to do
[47:37] and that prevents claims. Uh, in terms
[47:39] of the liability side, you know, between
[47:41] the statutory protections that the um,
[47:43] you know, the village has already,
[47:45] there's a number of things that you're
[47:46] kind of already protected from, um, but
[47:48] we try to keep a real steady rate
[47:49] increase, a nice low increase across our
[47:51] pool. That's always been our model. It's
[47:53] like a two or three percent increase
[47:54] annually is really our our goal when the business kind of support that.
[47:58] Um and so thankfully historically we
[48:00] haven't really had to raise rates very
[48:01] high in the liability space. Uh and that
[48:03] continues to be our model moving forward
[48:04] where
[48:05] owned by municipalities. We know how
[48:06] important it is during budget season to
[48:08] keep rates stable so that you can
[48:09] project those costs into the next year.
[48:11] And so that's kind of what we try to
[48:12] focus on. So I would say the village is
[48:14] doing a good job, right? Our goal is to
[48:16] continue to be that partner for you and
[48:17] keep those rates low, but that proactive
[48:18] attitude is what keeps rates down. So
[48:20] that's great.
[48:21] >> And since you mentioned rates, um can
[48:24] you talk a little bit we're currently
[48:25] like in a $1,000 deductible per instance
[48:27] on auto. What
[48:29] um what could happen if we moved let's
[48:32] say to a $2,500 deductible and what that
[48:34] might do to some of our pricing and
[48:35] such?
[48:36] >> Sure, that's a great question. That's a
[48:37] question we encourage every one of our
[48:38] members to explore annually is what's
[48:40] your risk appetite. So naturally if you
[48:42] take on a little bit of a higher
[48:43] deductible or a higher level of
[48:44] self-insured retention, you pay less
[48:45] premium. But then of course if there is
[48:47] that accident or that then in theory
[48:49] that you you have more of that
[48:51] responsibility. So a lot of of our most
[48:53] of our members, especially of the size
[48:55] roughly the same size population kind of
[48:56] budget of Cottage Grove, is probably
[48:58] working within that $1,000 deductible
[49:00] with an auto. That's pretty standard. Um
[49:02] and so that's something that we would
[49:03] encourage uh you know, Cameron or anyone
[49:05] from the finance team to work with our
[49:07] underwriter and our insurance to help
[49:09] you analyze those numbers. Some
[49:11] communities are are interested in maybe
[49:13] taking on a little bit more of that
[49:14] risk, self-insuring a little bit more
[49:16] um in the unlikely event that there is a
[49:18] claim maybe so that they can save some
[49:19] money on the premium. So I would say
[49:20] that analysis is a great question to ask
[49:22] and is one we encourage our members to
[49:24] talk to our team about every year.
[49:26] Mhm.
[49:30] » Any other questions or comments?
[49:35] Thank you for coming tonight.
[49:36] >> Thank you for having me. Appreciate it.
[49:39] >> Um so just so the board is aware, so um
[49:43] AMPEK is while we get our property
[49:46] insurance from them and it's kind of
[49:48] through Sevmic, um they are technically
[49:51] a separate provider. If the board's
[49:52] interested, um, we can also have MPIC
[49:55] come in and speak. Um, but currently we
[49:58] just have Sedgwick speaking kind of on
[50:00] behalf of insurance. So, we would just
[50:02] need direction to bring MPIC in if the
[50:04] board would be interested.
[50:07] » Is there interest from the board?
[50:13] I'm seeing shaking heads, no. Yeah.
[50:20] Where am I?
[50:21] All right.
[50:22] Uh, we already talked about traffic
[50:24] calming at CGS.
[50:26] Um, so we are on um, 7C, which is
[50:30] discuss the minimum parking mandates in
[50:32] the village code, which is Trustee Stoa,
[50:37] who's stepped out for the moment.
[50:39] Um,
[50:43] so we can uh,
[50:47] » JP, do you want to take it or motion to
[50:49] postpone?
[50:50] >> I think I hear I hear the door.
[50:52] >> Is he coming back? Okay.
[50:54] >> Chris, you're up.
[50:58] We're just saying.
[51:00] We have um, 7C, discuss the minimum
[51:03] parking mandates in the village code.
[51:04] There's a um,
[51:06] a memo in the agenda and this is
[51:08] presented by Trustees Stoa and JP.
[51:12] >> Thank you. I love everybody waiting
[51:13] around for me to come back. That's
[51:15] not embarrassing at all.
[51:17] Um, okay, I'm going to read from a
[51:18] prepared statement cuz this is uh, too
[51:21] important to me to just wing, so bear
[51:23] with me.
[51:27] So, this is the first in what I hope is
[51:28] going to be a series of code changes
[51:30] aimed at um, affordability. This one
[51:33] would eliminate government parking
[51:35] mandates in the village. Um, so let me
[51:37] start by first stating what this is not.
[51:39] It's not eliminating parking. It's not
[51:41] telling anyone that they have to
[51:43] decrease the amount of parking that they
[51:44] already have.
[51:46] It's not telling anyone that they have
[51:47] to redevelop their lot. All this is, I
[51:49] think, is bringing the
[51:51] starting to bring the village code into
[51:52] the 21st century. Uh property owners go
[51:55] through a lot of due diligence when
[51:56] developing their properties. They have a
[51:57] business model or a home building plan
[52:00] that they go over extensively when they
[52:01] are getting ready to build.
[52:03] They're well aware of the costs of the
[52:04] projects and the parameters they need to
[52:06] meet in order to make their business,
[52:07] home, or property successful. The
[52:09] Village of Cottage Grove should not
[52:10] undermine their efforts by forcing them
[52:11] to build more park- parking spots than
[52:13] they might deem necessary.
[52:15] >> [sighs and gasps]
[52:16] >> Forced minimum parking mandates mean
[52:17] that a business may have to either buy
[52:19] more land or shrink the size of their
[52:21] planned development to meet an arbitrary
[52:22] stall requirement. This can cost a lot
[52:24] more money either in upfront costs or in
[52:26] reduced income due to a smaller business
[52:29] building footprint.
[52:31] Uh the village should let property
[52:32] owners decide for themselves how much
[52:34] parking they need to help their
[52:35] businesses survive.
[52:37] Uh parking affects every- a lot of
[52:39] everyday life. It determines the size,
[52:40] shape, and cost of new buildings, the
[52:41] fate of old ones, patterns of traffic,
[52:44] viability of transit, life of our public
[52:47] space, character of neighborhoods, and
[52:48] affects the budget as well.
[52:51] There's no denying the need for parking
[52:52] space, especially in a place like
[52:54] Cottage Grove, which is heavily
[52:55] car-dependent.
[52:56] But we have to examine what too much
[52:58] parking caused by parking mandates can
[53:00] lead to. You know, parking is never
[53:01] free. Too much can increase the cost of
[53:03] a building development, which we all pay
[53:05] for, whether that's through increased
[53:06] rents or mortgages or higher costs of
[53:08] goods so that business owners can pay
[53:10] their rents.
[53:11] that may be higher due to
[53:12] unnecessary parking requirement. Those
[53:14] costs are then passed on to consumers.
[53:17] It can lead to the consumption of
[53:19] valuable land by impervious surfaces,
[53:21] which it also can lead to more runoff,
[53:22] more pollution, and heat island effects.
[53:25] It leads to sprawl, forcing more land to
[53:26] be used for asphalt instead of homes,
[53:28] businesses, or nature, which means to
[53:30] meet demand for additional
[53:35] homes and businesses, uh um additional
[53:37] farm land's going to um need to be
[53:39] developed if if that's the way they're
[53:41] going. It can stifle small business
[53:43] growth. It's It's hard enough to start a
[53:44] small business, harder still if you have
[53:46] to buy more land or asphalt than you
[53:48] need because of government mandates.
[53:50] It can stifle not only new business
[53:52] development, but also business or
[53:53] residential infill.
[53:55] If a business in a building goes under
[53:56] and another business that might be a
[53:58] different use of the building wants to
[53:59] locate there, there could be additional
[54:01] parking spots that are required that
[54:02] they might not be able to afford. Or if
[54:04] a home wants to evolve or simply
[54:05] renovate to be a little larger, they
[54:07] might need to add more parking spaces
[54:09] because of its size.
[54:10] Uh simply put, we should entrust
[54:12] property owners to evaluate how much
[54:13] parking they need, not mandate it based
[54:15] on nothing but gut feelings.
[54:17] Letting property owners decide for
[54:19] themselves might not change how they
[54:20] operate, but it could. And letting
[54:22] people build smaller, more affordable
[54:24] development saves homeowners and
[54:25] businesses and business owners money,
[54:28] helps preserve farmland, and prevents
[54:29] sprawl, lessens runoff and pollution.
[54:30] Getting rid of parking mandates is a
[54:33] free market decision that is
[54:34] pro-business, pro-affordability,
[54:35] pro-infill, pro-sustainability, and
[54:36] pro-environment.
[54:39] Thank you.
[54:42] » JP, since you
[54:43] are the second on this, do you have
[54:45] anything you'd like to add before
[54:46] opening it for discussion?
[54:48] >> No, and again, I think Chris covered it
[54:50] very
[54:52] or I say not really, but um Chris really
[54:54] did a good summary in there. Um the one
[54:56] thing I'll just kind of expand is um
[54:59] as he mentioned, this is not a new
[55:01] concept. This is actually happening
[55:03] across the nation and many
[55:04] municipalities, cities, villages, even
[55:07] towns
[55:08] um have been making this transition and
[55:11] there's plenty of instances that show
[55:14] that it's been a positive change. There
[55:16] hasn't been uh any negative consequences
[55:19] to that.
[55:20] And the other thing is is still we still
[55:23] have the ability to do dilige- do
[55:25] diligence, ask the questions, confirm
[55:27] with developers whether they have the
[55:29] appropriate um parking based on their
[55:31] needs in there. So, we can still have
[55:33] that conversation, but it's is longer
[55:35] mandated in there that they have to have
[55:38] XYZ based on square footage, etc., etc.
[55:43] » Open it up to the rest of the board for
[55:45] discussion.
[55:50] Aaron?
[55:52] >> Uh yeah, just had a couple thoughts. Um
[55:54] I I like it. I think Chris did a great
[55:56] job putting this together.
[55:58] Um
[56:00] couple things just to think about if we
[56:02] choose to go through the process here.
[56:04] Um
[56:06] I guess my only concern about leaving it
[56:08] up to the developer is that with
[56:09] construction costs being so high, this
[56:11] could be a place where they cut corners
[56:13] and
[56:14] um could go below what they actually
[56:17] need.
[56:18] Um
[56:19] you know, another way to do this would
[56:20] be to
[56:21] have a minimum but write into the
[56:23] ordinance that the plan commission and
[56:24] board can allow them to go under it if
[56:26] they
[56:27] can kind of make a case to us that
[56:29] they don't need what's in the ordinance.
[56:31] Um
[56:32] but I know other places just get rid of
[56:34] it all together. So, it's I think
[56:35] something we can look at both options
[56:37] moving forward.
[56:38] Um
[56:40] and I guess the other thing just to keep
[56:41] in mind, you know, parking lots are also
[56:43] often a way for emergency vehicles to
[56:45] get close to the building and if parking
[56:47] lots get smaller, we just want to make
[56:48] sure we're still
[56:50] you know,
[56:51] allowing the vehicles to navigate
[56:53] through them properly. So.
[56:56] » Chris?
[56:57] >> Yeah, I I mean I think we're still going
[56:58] to have to
[56:59] they'll still have to follow the fire
[57:00] code. And
[57:01] >> [clears throat]
[57:01] >> as far as cutting corners, I think
[57:06] I
[57:07] >> [clears throat]
[57:08] >> I mean I I think they're going to do
[57:09] what they need to do in order to attract
[57:10] the customers they need to have a
[57:12] successful business. I think if they try
[57:14] to cut corners and they don't build
[57:16] enough, they're
[57:17] going to fail.
[57:21] So, I mean in the end I I I trust that I
[57:23] trust that businesses are going to
[57:25] do what they need to do to succeed in
[57:28] the village.
[57:32] » Heidi?
[57:33] I guess I'd like to see this be sent
[57:35] over to plan commission and maybe look
[57:38] at some case studies and
[57:41] uh comparisons and make a recommendation
[57:44] back back up to us if um you know,
[57:47] eliminating altogether or
[57:50] Garen, another idea, minimum but allow
[57:54] to go under with approval or
[57:57] I guess I'd you know, to kind of toss
[57:59] this back to committee level to make a
[58:01] recommendation.
[58:02] >> I think it for sure needs to go to plan
[58:04] commission. Um
[58:06] my concern about still having a minimum
[58:08] but letting them
[58:10] go under is
[58:13] I think it's a half measure and I think
[58:15] it still leaves a door open to
[58:17] weaponization.
[58:19] Um
[58:20] by trying to defeat a development that
[58:22] maybe you don't like, you can use
[58:23] parking as a
[58:24] uh as a sort of cudgel to try to
[58:28] kill that.
[58:30] Um
[58:32] yeah. Again again, it's just
[58:35] my preferred outcome would be parking
[58:36] maximums, but I'm trying to come to a middle ground here.
[58:41] Um
[58:43] and yeah, this in the end this is this
[58:44] is
[58:46] it's a it's a it's a it's free market,
[58:48] right?
[58:50] >> Paula, I have a question on the flip
[58:52] side of that. So, what if if we take
[58:54] this away, um take this away and and and
[58:58] a developer comes and it's pretty clear
[58:59] that we don't
[59:01] that they don't have enough, right? Um
[59:04] what is our recourse if if we remove this requirement?
[59:12] >> Why does there need to be a recourse?
[59:13] >> So, okay, so if we take the minimum
[59:15] parking requirements [snorts] away and a
[59:17] developer comes forth to the plan
[59:19] commission and it's clear that they
[59:21] don't have enough.
[59:22] What I mean, what do we have in terms of
[59:25] remedy in that if we remove this
[59:27] provision.
[59:28] >> What
[59:29] I I I mean I guess I don't know how
[59:32] we'll know if it's enough. Again, that's
[59:34] just sort of an arbitrary
[59:36] gut feeling saying that I don't think
[59:38] this is enough.
[59:40] I think we should trust businesses to to
[59:42] do what's right for their
[59:44] business.
[59:46] I mean I guess a worst case scenario is
[59:48] someone
[59:50] says, "I don't need any parking. We're
[59:51] just going to have street parking." And
[59:52] then it's a place where we don't want
[59:53] people parking on the street.
[59:55] >> Um
[59:57] >> But then we've kind of given our away
[59:59] our opportunity to say no, you can't do
[1:00:01] that, right? I mean
[1:00:04] >> Yeah, I guess that was kind of my
[1:00:05] concern and we just I want some kind of
[1:00:07] safeguard against that, however we
[1:00:10] choose to do it.
[1:00:11] >> I mean
[1:00:13] we have on-street parking
[1:00:14] >> right?
[1:00:15] >> Like like taking this to the extreme, we
[1:00:16] have on-street parking. We have really
[1:00:17] wide roads. Those roads are not
[1:00:18] aesthetic, they're functional, right? So
[1:00:20] they should
[1:00:21] in theory be able to park on those
[1:00:24] roads.
[1:00:25] I don't think we're going to get another
[1:00:26] authentic that's like, "I don't want
[1:00:28] parking." I don't think that'll happen
[1:00:30] because they won't get anybody. People
[1:00:31] like to park at their house, right? Or
[1:00:33] their residence. I don't think they're
[1:00:34] going to not have that there. You might
[1:00:37] get one or two room apartment may Excuse
[1:00:41] me.
[1:00:42] Maybe that is thinking about it, but
[1:00:44] again, if that's probably going to be on
[1:00:46] a residential street that can handle it
[1:00:48] with
[1:00:49] street parking.
[1:00:50] >> And Casey had his hand up.
[1:00:51] >> Yeah. So, um this is sort of for Rick
[1:00:55] and or Aaron. I mean, so yeah, say
[1:00:57] there's some extreme example, you know,
[1:00:59] a very large business says we're going
[1:01:01] to have no parking whatsoever. Um I
[1:01:03] imagine we could still impose conditions
[1:01:06] on their their plan developer agreement,
[1:01:09] something at level, even though we don't
[1:01:10] have a mandatory minimum, we could say
[1:01:13] we could impose that even without this.
[1:01:15] Rick, you're shaking your head at me.
[1:01:16] >> I
[1:01:17] It would depend [clears throat] on where
[1:01:18] you're at at the stage. So, if let's say
[1:01:20] somebody has a
[1:01:22] parcel that's zoned just like rural
[1:01:24] holding, and they come and they
[1:01:26] have a proposal to rezone it,
[1:01:29] at that point, we could, you know,
[1:01:30] potentially look at uh imposing a
[1:01:33] requirement as part of like the rezoning
[1:01:35] condition.
[1:01:36] But if the parcel's already like zoned
[1:01:38] for their
[1:01:40] use,
[1:01:41] um and all they need is a site plan,
[1:01:44] really, we can only apply the ordinance
[1:01:45] standards that are applicable when they
[1:01:47] apply for their site plan. So, there's
[1:01:50] going to be less If you don't have a
[1:01:52] parking requirement, you can't impose a
[1:01:53] parking requirement as part of the site
[1:01:55] plan.
[1:01:55] >> I see. Okay.
[1:01:58] » I had a couple other questions for
[1:01:59] Chris. So, do you have an example of
[1:02:02] another municipality in Dane County
[1:02:04] that's implemented this?
[1:02:05] >> Fitchburg.
[1:02:08] >> And it was it recent?
[1:02:09] >> 2025, I think.
[1:02:11] >> So, do we have any sort of feedback or
[1:02:14] data that can be shared in terms of how
[1:02:16] that's gone?
[1:02:17] >> I don't have it on me. I'm sure we could
[1:02:19] ask. I mean, at at this point, it's
[1:02:21] probably 2025, and what there might not
[1:02:23] be enough data to be worth anything, but
[1:02:26] >> Yeah. I I was just kind of doing some
[1:02:28] checking. Like, Sun Prairie, Waunakee,
[1:02:30] DeForest, Madison all have those minimum
[1:02:32] requirements, and so I just kind of
[1:02:33] wanted to kind of get more information
[1:02:36] about that. Um
[1:02:38] >> I hear a lot that we don't want to be
[1:02:39] Sun Prairie, so.
[1:02:41] >> Um
[1:02:42] So, the other question is perhaps we put
[1:02:44] this in the comp plan survey. You know,
[1:02:47] I know you're talking about modernizing
[1:02:49] different things with code before we get
[1:02:51] to the comp plan, but I think
[1:02:53] personally, I think the the feedback
[1:02:55] from the public should inform our code
[1:02:57] decision-making and such. So, maybe if
[1:02:59] we put it in the comp plan survey and
[1:03:02] get some feedback on it, that would also
[1:03:04] help us.
[1:03:07] » My thought is we got feedback in April.
[1:03:11] » Not on this particular issue.
[1:03:14] >> We had three people elected in April.
[1:03:16] >> On this issue? I don't remember ever
[1:03:18] hearing about this issue.
[1:03:19] >> talked about it, but that's what the
[1:03:21] trustee model of
[1:03:24] representation is that they trust you to
[1:03:26] represent them.
[1:03:27] >> No, and I get that. I'm just saying
[1:03:29] we're having a comp plan and we're doing
[1:03:31] a survey to the public and hopefully we
[1:03:35] get oversight on that survey in terms of
[1:03:37] a governing body.
[1:03:39] Um and it, you know, I think that's an
[1:03:41] opportunity. I guess I have some
[1:03:43] concerns about this. Um you know, I
[1:03:45] think if there's spillover into
[1:03:47] neighborhoods, um the problem is that a
[1:03:50] future correction could be costly or it
[1:03:53] might not even be possible. I think that
[1:03:56] um
[1:03:57] we don't have mass transit. So, if I
[1:03:59] look at a municipality that has mass
[1:04:02] transit, this makes a lot more sense,
[1:04:04] right? That we could reduce parking lot
[1:04:06] sizes and such, but you even said
[1:04:09] Cottage Grove is car heavy. So, that's a
[1:04:11] concern of mine.
[1:04:13] Um you know, the different land uses
[1:04:15] have different needs, so we kind of take
[1:04:16] that piece out of it. Um and again, I
[1:04:19] think we should be getting feedback um
[1:04:21] from the community through the comp plan
[1:04:23] process before we make code changes is
[1:04:25] my opinion.
[1:04:26] >> I mean, there is a public hearing
[1:04:28] requirement for code changes, so that's
[1:04:31] part of it. Um and like like I said,
[1:04:34] excuse me.
[1:04:36] Cottage Grove is car heavy and I think
[1:04:37] developers understand that and they're
[1:04:39] not going to just
[1:04:40] skirt any parking. So, I think they take
[1:04:42] that into account when they
[1:04:44] develop here.
[1:04:46] >> Do you think the next steps are
[1:04:49] having staff direct language by having a
[1:04:52] conversation at plan commission? We're
[1:04:53] not going to be able to get this on
[1:04:55] with documents on the agenda for plan
[1:04:57] commission next week, but if we could
[1:04:59] have the first discussion at plan
[1:05:01] commission just as a discuss,
[1:05:04] um and then if there was draft language
[1:05:06] to take a look at at a future meeting.
[1:05:09] Um I know there has to be a public
[1:05:10] hearing at plan commission and then it
[1:05:11] would would come back to the board.
[1:05:13] >> Yeah.
[1:05:13] >> kind of the path that you have here?
[1:05:15] >> Yeah, that's kind of what I was hoping
[1:05:17] for.
[1:05:17] >> Okay.
[1:05:18] Casey.
[1:05:19] >> Um I would just add on to that. I mean
[1:05:22] um I've you know done a lot of research
[1:05:24] on this as well. You know looking at
[1:05:26] like the U W annex and then other
[1:05:28] municipal white papers and things like
[1:05:30] that. Um but I imagine that I would hope
[1:05:33] that we could uh include as part of the
[1:05:35] staff direction to have some of that
[1:05:36] research take a look at you know where
[1:05:38] this has been done, what the results
[1:05:40] have been. You know JP you alluded to
[1:05:42] some of this and we could have that at
[1:05:44] Plan Commission and then in turn back to
[1:05:46] the board. Um
[1:05:49] I don't know if that would be part of
[1:05:50] whatever motion we'd be putting on now,
[1:05:51] but that's my suggestion.
[1:05:54] >> If there's no more discussion on the
[1:05:56] item, we could move on to the consider
[1:05:58] staff direction on the parking minimum
[1:05:59] mandates.
[1:06:01] I'm seeing nodding heads.
[1:06:03] Okay.
[1:06:04] So I'd entertain a motion.
[1:06:14] » Um um make the motion to direct staff to
[1:06:18] do the research draft potential
[1:06:20] languages to kind of take those next
[1:06:22] steps um regarding removing the minimum
[1:06:25] parking requirements in village code and
[1:06:28] place it as a discussion item at an
[1:06:31] uh
[1:06:32] upcoming plan commission agenda.
[1:06:37] » I'll second.
[1:06:38] >> Motion by JP seconded by Erlandson.
[1:06:42] First off, is that clear to staff?
[1:06:45] >> Yeah, I mean we can have it on the
[1:06:46] agenda next week if we can just use your
[1:06:48] memo.
[1:06:50] >> Yeah, that's fine. It just they might if if you're able to get any research on
[1:06:55] Yeah. Other municipalities well then
[1:06:57] yeah.
[1:06:58] >> Okay.
[1:07:02] All right, any other debate on the
[1:07:03] motion?
[1:07:05] Otherwise, all those in favor?
[1:07:07] Aye.
[1:07:08] >> Opposed? Nay. Abstain?
[1:07:13] Motion carries.
[1:07:15] Did you get all votes?
[1:07:16] >> I didn't hear the
[1:07:18] nays.
[1:07:19] >> Yes.
[1:07:20] >> Thank you.
[1:07:21] >> All right.
[1:07:23] So, we'll see you that item on plan
[1:07:25] commission for the next for the next
[1:07:27] agenda which is next Wednesday.
[1:07:29] All right. We have
[1:07:31] moving on to 7D discuss direction to
[1:07:34] draft emergency services building
[1:07:36] service dog policy. I wrote a memo
[1:07:38] that's in the agenda.
[1:07:41] Basically, we have a collaborative draft
[1:07:44] from May
[1:07:45] that our HR and some staff have looked
[1:07:48] at. We have not run
[1:07:50] this draft past legal. So, I think the
[1:07:54] direction that I'm looking forward
[1:07:56] tonight is to
[1:07:58] um
[1:07:58] take the current draft but then allow
[1:08:01] employment law to kind of finalize a
[1:08:04] professional
[1:08:05] emergency services building policy for a
[1:08:07] service dog and then bring that back to
[1:08:09] the board for discussion and
[1:08:10] consideration at a future meeting.
[1:08:16] » Can you clarify for me what draft you're
[1:08:18] talking about cuz I know there's a
[1:08:19] couple floating out there.
[1:08:20] >> Sure. So, there was
[1:08:22] a draft from May that
[1:08:25] both
[1:08:26] chiefs had sat down with but also had
[1:08:28] worked with our um
[1:08:30] >> [clears throat]
[1:08:31] >> um HR with Inga and some staff. Um that
[1:08:34] was um
[1:08:36] >> [clears throat]
[1:08:36] >> edited I think through fire commission
[1:08:38] which is on a separate is another agenda
[1:08:40] item tonight. Um and we can give
[1:08:43] [snorts]
[1:08:44] all three drafts to our labor attorney
[1:08:47] but it needs to go through a labor
[1:08:49] attorney in order to write um a
[1:08:53] village uh policy.
[1:08:56] >> So, is Okay. So, this is not the ESB
[1:09:00] policy. This is a village policy?
[1:09:02] >> This is a ESB policy building policy,
[1:09:04] but it's written with the village in
[1:09:07] mind since that's our entity. And I can
[1:09:10] let Rick um weigh in on that as well.
[1:09:14] » Yeah, so
[1:09:16] basically the the ESB, right? And I'm
[1:09:19] not
[1:09:20] qualified to review review the policy to
[1:09:22] sort of go to labor person, but the ESB is jointly owned by the village
[1:09:28] and town.
[1:09:29] Um I guess we have
[1:09:31] two tenants, right? Which would be the fire district or the fire uh
[1:09:35] department and the EMS.
[1:09:37] So, basically if we were to come up with
[1:09:40] a policy that would apply to the ESB
[1:09:42] building, it would need to be approved
[1:09:43] by the village and town. So,
[1:09:47] each entity can have its own policy that
[1:09:48] it wants, right? I mean, EMS could have
[1:09:51] its own policy that applies just for
[1:09:53] EMS, fire department could have its own
[1:09:54] that just applies to fire department,
[1:09:56] but I guess the goal would be to have uh
[1:09:58] a policy that would be, you know,
[1:10:02] agreeable for the town and all parties
[1:10:04] involved. It just has sort of like a
[1:10:06] collaborative policy that
[1:10:08] um
[1:10:08] governs the whole building.
[1:10:11] >> And CSIA made aware of this.
[1:10:14] » So, um the the fire department's
[1:10:18] attorney took that original draft from
[1:10:19] me and kind of beefed it up quite a bit
[1:10:23] in terms of including, you know, ADA
[1:10:25] process, written accommodation requests,
[1:10:27] um that sort of thing. So, it feels like
[1:10:30] he's done a lot of that work already for
[1:10:32] us
[1:10:34] um
[1:10:34] at the fire department's expense, right?
[1:10:37] So, I
[1:10:39] is he is our labor attorney just going
[1:10:40] to kind of look that over and go yes or
[1:10:42] no, or is this something different, or
[1:10:45] do we not agree with those
[1:10:49] recommendations from the fire attorney?
[1:10:52] >> Uh I don't know how like
[1:10:54] how the a attorney would look at it,
[1:10:56] right? I mean, it's
[1:10:58] not a contract, but it you know, there
[1:11:00] could be differing opinions on best ways
[1:11:02] to handle it or you know, they're
[1:11:03] looking at it through the lens of the
[1:11:04] village as the owner of the building,
[1:11:06] right? So, who knows what the labor
[1:11:08] attorney might view
[1:11:10] as important for the policy to have or
[1:11:12] things that may or may not be included,
[1:11:14] but you know, I can't speak to that.
[1:11:15] That's sort of outside my wheelhouse.
[1:11:18] >> And is the idea that whatever policy is
[1:11:20] instituted for this also is for all
[1:11:23] village buildings then as well? Like
[1:11:24] every
[1:11:26] Is this
[1:11:27] got implications beyond just ESB, I
[1:11:29] guess?
[1:11:34] » Uh so, I guess the agenda item tonight
[1:11:35] would just be for ESB. I
[1:11:38] don't know if the village already has a
[1:11:39] policy in place regarding service
[1:11:41] animals, but um just given the unique
[1:11:44] nature of this building that it's a
[1:11:45] joint jurisdictional building,
[1:11:48] um it may be you know, it may be that
[1:11:51] the policy that they've proposed is
[1:11:52] perfectly fine, uh but we don't know
[1:11:55] unless the village's labor attorney has
[1:11:57] looked at it.
[1:12:03] » Any other discussion on the drafting
[1:12:07] request to draft the service dog policy
[1:12:09] for ESB?
[1:12:10] >> I I feel [clears throat] like we spent a
[1:12:12] lot of time on this at JFC. I know that
[1:12:16] um
[1:12:16] their attorney tried to um
[1:12:20] connect at that meeting,
[1:12:22] um but
[1:12:24] to add to what Paula said, I I their
[1:12:27] attorney did put a great deal of thought
[1:12:29] and consideration
[1:12:31] into this, which is
[1:12:33] um
[1:12:34] really following the ADA
[1:12:37] guidelines, which had a large component.
[1:12:40] So, um
[1:12:42] I have
[1:12:44] I'm interested in, you know, where where
[1:12:46] are we going to go if the
[1:12:48] >> [clears throat]
[1:12:49] >> labor attorney I I feel like we're all not on the same page.
[1:12:56] » Casey.
[1:12:57] >> Um
[1:12:59] I think that given that this is a very
[1:13:01] unique building that is jointly leased
[1:13:04] and
[1:13:05] sorry, jointly owned and then also in
[1:13:07] turn jointly leased by two further
[1:13:09] separate entities. Um I think it is very
[1:13:12] important that we have a a labor
[1:13:14] attorney and specifically, you know,
[1:13:16] someone who's familiar with with ADA
[1:13:17] case law and so on that that drafts this
[1:13:20] and reviews this. Um I
[1:13:23] uh
[1:13:25] I watched the you know, the the fire
[1:13:26] commission meeting. I appreciate that
[1:13:28] the
[1:13:29] uh fire department attorney, you know,
[1:13:31] um put forth their draft and and put uh
[1:13:33] a lot of work into it, but they are
[1:13:37] the there are many many different types
[1:13:39] of law and and labor law and ADA is
[1:13:41] what's relevant here.
[1:13:42] They're attorneys for a fire department.
[1:13:45] They have
[1:13:46] maybe some
[1:13:48] information in that, but it's not it's
[1:13:49] not their expertise. So, I think it's
[1:13:51] most appropriate to have this done by a
[1:13:53] labor attorney. So, in general I'm I'm
[1:13:56] in favor of this.
[1:13:57] >> Any other discussion?
[1:14:00] JP.
[1:14:03] » Irrespective of whatever policy kind of
[1:14:06] moves forward either way from a process
[1:14:08] standpoint, we are going to need a
[1:14:11] policy that is approved by the village
[1:14:13] board and can in conjunction with the
[1:14:14] town in order to be applicable to ESB.
[1:14:18] Um so, I feel like yes, I again I've
[1:14:21] said this in the joint fire commission.
[1:14:24] Um I really did appreciate um their
[1:14:26] labor in putting forth the draft. Um
[1:14:28] there are some questions I have about
[1:14:29] it. Just things that need to be
[1:14:31] clarified and I know further discussions
[1:14:32] happening there. Um but either way
[1:14:37] um
[1:14:37] we need to take the next step forward in
[1:14:40] having a policy brought forward that is
[1:14:41] approved by both the village and the
[1:14:43] town so that it can be enacted um
[1:14:46] for ESB's specifically to
[1:14:49] um um
[1:14:50] I think
[1:14:51] just in case there is any points of
[1:14:53] conflict between the two entities that
[1:14:56] are currently occupy the building,
[1:14:58] having a process laid out so that
[1:15:00] everyone agrees a policy that over kind
[1:15:02] of helps oversee that um is fair across
[1:15:05] the board that follows ADA um is
[1:15:08] absolutely needed.
[1:15:11] » Heidi.
[1:15:12] >> Yeah, I would just add on that I think
[1:15:15] ESB policies and procedures, this uh
[1:15:18] would definitely be one of those to to
[1:15:21] document.
[1:15:22] Like JP was saying, you know, if there's
[1:15:25] um how to handle those kind of
[1:15:27] interdepartmental. And so, there may be
[1:15:29] some additional policies or procedures
[1:15:31] that each entity within might feel is
[1:15:34] also applicable like just within their
[1:15:37] entity and then kind of bringing those
[1:15:39] together. So, it they all may be, you
[1:15:41] know, the same or similar, but there
[1:15:43] might be additional considerations as
[1:15:45] building owner versus employer. So, I
[1:15:47] think the best course is to have our
[1:15:50] labor attorney
[1:15:51] um
[1:15:52] work on this with specialty in ADA and
[1:15:56] um
[1:15:57] and then
[1:15:59] if we can distribute that to all the the
[1:16:01] stakeholders in the facility um
[1:16:05] you know, draft so we can get
[1:16:08] any um
[1:16:10] concerns addressed um throughout the
[1:16:12] process.
[1:16:15] » Since you mentioned Steve Anders knows
[1:16:16] about this, is the town board also going
[1:16:19] to be doing
[1:16:21] running this by their legal counsel?
[1:16:23] >> He didn't respond.
[1:16:24] Okay. Because I'm
[1:16:26] thinking, I mean, ideally we we also
[1:16:28] need to have something that the town's
[1:16:29] going to agree to. Is it better to try
[1:16:32] to do this as a joint effort rather than
[1:16:34] us running it through, paying the full
[1:16:36] cost, and then them basically saying
[1:16:39] up or down
[1:16:41] um
[1:16:43] I would think this would be a joint
[1:16:45] venture and a joint cost.
[1:16:49] I I hate for us to Basically, we have a
[1:16:51] document that kind of does a lot of
[1:16:53] this. They could certainly take that
[1:16:55] July 27th draft from the fire department
[1:16:57] as as a
[1:16:59] beginning a point, right, for the labor
[1:17:02] attorney.
[1:17:03] Um
[1:17:04] but at the end of the day, if the town
[1:17:06] doesn't agree, have we just
[1:17:10] thrown money away?
[1:17:13] » I mean, I think that protecting our
[1:17:15] village employees with service animals
[1:17:17] and there's public spaces there.
[1:17:20] Um
[1:17:20] there's EOC that can occur there.
[1:17:22] There's you know, other entities that
[1:17:24] are coming in there making sure at least
[1:17:25] from a village perspective that we have,
[1:17:28] you know, our bases covered is is
[1:17:30] important. Um this has also been going
[1:17:32] on for
[1:17:34] like 5 months.
[1:17:35] And it needs to be wrapped up and we
[1:17:37] need to uh you know,
[1:17:39] move this forward and the way we can
[1:17:41] move this forward is by having our labor
[1:17:43] attorney
[1:17:45] take a look at, you know, take all three
[1:17:47] drafts and the information and work for
[1:17:50] us to make, you know, an actual policy.
[1:17:57] Any other discussion?
[1:17:59] >> Is it Correct me I'm asking for um
[1:18:03] legal parameters, but the fire district,
[1:18:05] they also deal with ADA
[1:18:07] concerns regarding fire district. So,
[1:18:10] I kind of feel like maybe it is a
[1:18:12] duplication of services, but
[1:18:16] I I don't know.
[1:18:18] Is Rick, can you answer that?
[1:18:22] >> I I think basically it comes down to the
[1:18:24] village's comfort level of relying
[1:18:26] another attorney that doesn't represent
[1:18:28] you to draft something on your behalf,
[1:18:30] right? So,
[1:18:32] um if you want to have your own attorney
[1:18:34] review it to see that it is in the
[1:18:36] village's best interest, you know,
[1:18:38] that's what I'm always going to
[1:18:39] recommend, but that's just because I'm
[1:18:41] attorney probably. But um
[1:18:44] that's basically the comfort level of
[1:18:46] the village board though, if they want
[1:18:47] to rely on the work of another lawyer
[1:18:50] that represents a different entity.
[1:18:53] >> I I kind of feel like we're asking that
[1:18:56] of
[1:18:57] the town, but you haven't had a
[1:18:58] conversation with Steve, so I kind of
[1:19:00] feel like we're almost at an impasse
[1:19:02] here. I mean
[1:19:04] I I I agree, this has gone on for a long
[1:19:06] time and this does need to be resolved,
[1:19:09] but it feels like there's a lot of back
[1:19:11] and forth and I'm wondering how we can
[1:19:14] bring it together and work together. I
[1:19:16] know that the fire chief and the EMS
[1:19:18] chief have worked
[1:19:20] put a lot of time and effort into
[1:19:22] working together to resolve this.
[1:19:27] » Any other discussion on the item?
[1:19:30] Otherwise, we can move on to consider
[1:19:32] direction to draft emergency services
[1:19:34] building dog service dog policy.
[1:19:39] » I'd make the motion to send the
[1:19:41] emergency services building uh facility
[1:19:45] service dog policy to
[1:19:49] attorney specializing in
[1:19:52] labor and ADA
[1:19:55] um
[1:19:56] sending the
[1:19:58] all previous drafts of the policy
[1:20:03] along in the package to the attorney.
[1:20:09] » You have that?
[1:20:12] » I'll second.
[1:20:12] >> All right, motion by Murphy, second by
[1:20:13] Arlington. Any debate on the discussion
[1:20:15] or on the motion?
[1:20:18] Otherwise, I'll
[1:20:19] Oh, I was just going to say, could we
[1:20:22] maybe either in part of the motion or
[1:20:23] the direction utilize the July 27th,
[1:20:27] which is the most comprehensive version
[1:20:29] as the starting point for that person to
[1:20:31] review?
[1:20:33] >> I think it's important context to have
[1:20:36] the other versions that were worked on,
[1:20:37] too. So, I think the whole package of
[1:20:40] all versions should be sent, and they
[1:20:41] could see that, you know, they're dated
[1:20:43] the most recent, I guess,
[1:20:45] is the
[1:20:46] >> I'm just trying to
[1:20:48] reduce the legal bill, right, and work
[1:20:51] more efficiently. So, working off of one
[1:20:53] of the drafts, but
[1:20:55] Yeah. Any other discussion?
[1:20:57] >> Yeah, that's a good point. It's becoming
[1:20:59] like a I don't know, $20,000 dog.
[1:21:07] » All right, all those in favor?
[1:21:08] >> So, sorry, Cindy, you you mentioned
[1:21:10] three drafts. Um
[1:21:12] >> So, I think there's the um
[1:21:14] already [clears throat] approved EMS
[1:21:16] Commission draft. There's this draft
[1:21:18] that um is from the Joint Fire
[1:21:20] Commission from the last meeting. And
[1:21:22] then there's the one that our um staff
[1:21:24] worked on that had some of the um
[1:21:27] important village-related
[1:21:30] language in there.
[1:21:31] >> Yeah.
[1:21:31] >> We want to make sure that all all three
[1:21:33] of those go
[1:21:35] to Troy.
[1:21:36] >> Got it.
[1:21:36] >> All right.
[1:21:37] All those in favor?
[1:21:39] >> I.
[1:21:40] >> Opposed?
[1:21:41] >> Nay.
[1:21:42] >> Abstain?
[1:21:43] Motion carries. All right, so we're
[1:21:45] going to move on to uh
[1:21:47] I scribbled all over my paper. Discuss
[1:21:49] 2026 WEC election security subgrant.
[1:21:52] Lisa.
[1:21:54] >> Thank you.
[1:21:55] There's a memo in the packet
[1:21:58] that explains um a little bit of what
[1:22:01] the grant is. Um we have had the
[1:22:03] opportunity of applying for this um two
[1:22:05] other times and have benefited from it.
[1:22:08] Um again, this they have funds that they
[1:22:11] are opening up to municipalities, so
[1:22:13] we're asking for permission to apply for
[1:22:16] this grant.
[1:22:18] >> All right, any dis-
[1:22:19] Any discussion on the grant or questions
[1:22:21] for Lisa?
[1:22:25] All right, seeing none, we'll move on to
[1:22:26] the the 2026 um security sub grant.
[1:22:32] » Make a motion to approve the 2026 WEC
[1:22:35] election security sub grant as
[1:22:38] presented.
[1:22:41] >> I'll second.
[1:22:42] >> Motion by Murphy, second by JP.
[1:22:44] Any uh
[1:22:46] debate on the motion?
[1:22:49] All right.
[1:22:50] All those in favor?
[1:22:51] >> Aye.
[1:22:53] >> Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries.
[1:22:56] Uh number eight, reports from villages,
[1:22:58] boards, commissions, and committees. We
[1:22:59] have the emergency management committee.
[1:23:02] JP, you want me to do that one?
[1:23:05] >> Yeah, I will.
[1:23:06] Um okay, so the emergency management
[1:23:07] committee met on Thursday, July 23rd at
[1:23:10] 2:00 p.m. here at Village Hall.
[1:23:12] Uh we had um this is the first time this
[1:23:15] committee uh makeup has met and with our
[1:23:17] new name and our new website and our new
[1:23:21] plan and all the things that we approved
[1:23:23] um earlier this year.
[1:23:24] Um we didn't have any public
[1:23:25] appearances. Um we they appointed me as
[1:23:28] chair and Paula as vice chair.
[1:23:30] Um we just um approved the minutes from
[1:23:32] the old committee and then um we uh
[1:23:36] you know, talked to Lieutenant Wagner
[1:23:38] and gave him some direction on community committee expectations and
[1:23:43] some objectives. Um and you know, a
[1:23:45] couple of those that came out were um
[1:23:47] you know, making sure he has dedicated
[1:23:49] time to work on his to become a
[1:23:50] certified emergency manager
[1:23:53] um and continue with um trainings and
[1:23:56] come up with you know, budget requests
[1:23:58] um etc. Um
[1:24:00] as far as
[1:24:01] um
[1:24:02] you know, emergency management in the
[1:24:03] village goes. Um we talked about um
[1:24:07] priorities for planning and coordination
[1:24:09] of training exercises um and kind of
[1:24:13] landed on that we would do some
[1:24:16] um at our next meeting, which is most
[1:24:17] likely going to be quarterly. Um
[1:24:19] do a little you know, exercise training
[1:24:21] with the committee after each of those
[1:24:23] meetings um and working up towards live
[1:24:26] exercises and additional tabletops um
[1:24:28] throughout maybe 2027
[1:24:31] um
[1:24:32] as as we can.
[1:24:34] Um we talked about
[1:24:37] I mean, you know, Lieutenant Wagner gave
[1:24:38] an update on the natural hazard
[1:24:40] mitigation plan and our participation,
[1:24:42] which opens us up to new grant funding
[1:24:44] um and also training opportunities.
[1:24:47] Uh we discussed um recommendations for
[1:24:50] the emergency management website and
[1:24:51] what we'd like to see um up there and we
[1:24:54] gave that direction to staff.
[1:24:56] Uh we talked about um budget and capital
[1:24:58] needs for emergency management within
[1:25:00] the village and if we continue to do um
[1:25:03] you know, additional exercises and um
[1:25:06] trainings that most likely this board
[1:25:08] will see um increased um budgets um
[1:25:11] coming forward for the next year.
[1:25:14] Um
[1:25:15] we talked about our tornado sirens,
[1:25:17] where their placement. Um we have three
[1:25:19] of them in the village now that are all
[1:25:20] operational um and you know, eventually
[1:25:23] looking forward to an additional um in
[1:25:25] future budgets, you know, that could be
[1:25:27] another potential um capital request.
[1:25:33] And we scheduled the next date uh
[1:25:35] meeting date for October 29th um at 3:00
[1:25:38] p.m.
[1:25:41] Anything to add?
[1:25:44] Okay. Any questions about emergency
[1:25:46] management committee?
[1:25:48] Right. Parks and Rec Committee, Heidi.
[1:25:51] >> Yep, thank you. Uh we met on Thursday,
[1:25:53] July 23rd. We had a relatively brief
[1:25:56] meeting this month. Um
[1:25:59] Sean's still working on gathering
[1:26:00] information about uh
[1:26:02] cottonwood tree ordinances that um any
[1:26:06] surrounding communities may have or any
[1:26:08] feedback for the committee to talk about
[1:26:11] as that came um
[1:26:13] through the committee from a resident.
[1:26:16] Um we also talked about the Shady Grove
[1:26:19] Park update because they were finishing
[1:26:22] up the
[1:26:23] uh, shelter and kind of the final
[1:26:25] checklist at Shady Grove Park.
[1:26:28] We talked about the Juniper Fields
[1:26:30] Parkland update and uh, just updated the
[1:26:33] committee that the board approved to go
[1:26:35] ahead with the master planning process.
[1:26:37] Uh, so we're going to start that uh, in
[1:26:40] August and then went through Shawn's
[1:26:42] report of all the
[1:26:45] excellent activities, um,
[1:26:48] the recreation department's putting on
[1:26:50] and uh, happenings in the park. Uh, we
[1:26:52] did have um, report of um, some
[1:26:56] vandalism at the Lions shelter. Some of
[1:26:58] the um,
[1:27:01] facilities had been smashed inside. Um,
[1:27:04] so those I'm not sure if they're
[1:27:07] repaired yet. They were working on
[1:27:09] repairs. Um,
[1:27:11] and
[1:27:13] you know, Shawn's consideration um, from
[1:27:16] the committee was to perhaps close that
[1:27:19] shelter a little bit earlier since we
[1:27:20] don't have cameras um, at that facility.
[1:27:25] Um, future agenda items, uh, working on
[1:27:28] the Juniper Fields Parkland and then the
[1:27:30] cottonwood trees update um, ordinance
[1:27:34] um,
[1:27:35] update. It's kind of like if you would
[1:27:37] treat
[1:27:38] require treatment of cottonwood trees or
[1:27:41] uh, just policies like we wouldn't plant
[1:27:43] them on
[1:27:44] um, municipal property.
[1:27:47] Um, and our next meeting is moved uh, to
[1:27:50] Wednesday the 26th, the day before our
[1:27:53] usual meeting
[1:27:54] um, due to I believe the 27th is the
[1:27:57] Rock 'n' Roll Back In. Um, so our
[1:27:59] meeting is at 5:00 on the 26th.
[1:28:03] And that about wraps it up unless Shawn
[1:28:05] had anything to add
[1:28:06] or if there's questions.
[1:28:09] >> Open it up to questions.
[1:28:12] All right. Hearing none, we can move on
[1:28:14] to Landfill.
[1:28:16] Heidi.
[1:28:17] >> Yep.
[1:28:18] >> Landfill met on Monday, July 27th.
[1:28:21] And
[1:28:23] we approved the bills. There were new no
[1:28:26] new monitoring results. We talked about
[1:28:30] the committee meeting frequency.
[1:28:34] And so the town had come we were three member
[1:28:38] committee that evening because Steve had
[1:28:41] an unexpected
[1:28:43] event that he was late to the meeting.
[1:28:45] So but the
[1:28:47] they did bring forward that the town
[1:28:49] agreed to reduce frequency to an annual
[1:28:52] meeting
[1:28:53] where we would go over annual testing
[1:28:55] results and the the budget for the next
[1:28:58] year.
[1:28:59] And
[1:29:02] a special meeting would be called if
[1:29:03] anything
[1:29:05] came up that needed urgent
[1:29:08] addressing from the committee. And which
[1:29:11] is kind of how it would work now anyway.
[1:29:13] We generally wouldn't wait two months to
[1:29:15] meet if there was something urgent that
[1:29:17] came up. So
[1:29:20] that's kind of the direction. It sounds
[1:29:22] like we would need some kind of
[1:29:23] adjustment in the agreement. So that's
[1:29:25] still
[1:29:26] pending if
[1:29:28] you know that agreement does get
[1:29:29] changed.
[1:29:31] >> Any questions about Landfill?
[1:29:36] All right.
[1:29:37] Um Cottage Grove Fire District
[1:29:39] Commission.
[1:29:40] Heidi.
[1:29:41] >> Yep. So after
[1:29:43] >> invite Chief up to the front or unless
[1:29:45] you want to stay sitting there?
[1:29:50] » So right after that big Landfill joint
[1:29:52] fire
[1:29:54] commission met,
[1:29:56] we had the chief's report which was
[1:29:59] attached in the packet if you're
[1:30:00] interested in the stats for the year.
[1:30:03] Um
[1:30:05] And up a little bit there's
[1:30:07] um statistics about the types of calls
[1:30:11] that responded to, times of day,
[1:30:13] information about vehicles, um and uh
[1:30:16] staffing. We then talked about the roof
[1:30:20] vent prop um MOU, which um
[1:30:25] the
[1:30:26] department and uh the commission
[1:30:30] approved using Pleasant Springs funds to
[1:30:32] jointly purchase a uh kind of training
[1:30:36] prop. It's a trailer that has um
[1:30:41] the ability to have training uh events
[1:30:45] built on it using a various pitch of a
[1:30:48] roof line, so you can practice different
[1:30:50] training um scenarios um on it. So, uh
[1:30:54] back in March, the
[1:30:57] um the commission approved um
[1:31:00] using Pleasant Springs funds to fund
[1:31:03] half of that, and then um
[1:31:06] the Cottage Grove Volunteer Firefighters
[1:31:08] um
[1:31:08] paid for the other half.
[1:31:10] And um looking so the
[1:31:14] volunteer fire department is looking to
[1:31:18] enter into an agreement about the use
[1:31:22] and ownership of the roof vent prop. So,
[1:31:25] I wrote a memo. Um I'm going to go
[1:31:27] through the rest of the agenda um and
[1:31:29] then we can come back to that. Um so, we
[1:31:32] discussed that at length. Um we also
[1:31:34] talked about the service animal policy.
[1:31:37] Um and then we talked about a plumbing
[1:31:40] maintenance item approved um the use of
[1:31:44] uh funds to do a plumbing repair uh kind
[1:31:48] of a rooter-rooter
[1:31:50] um
[1:31:51] situation. We talked about the length of
[1:31:53] service awards, which uh the village
[1:31:55] board had been in favor of. Uh there's a
[1:31:58] state um matching for um
[1:32:02] length of service uh that would go into
[1:32:04] a retirement type account for
[1:32:05] firefighters
[1:32:07] um and
[1:32:08] through feedback from the department
[1:32:12] um
[1:32:13] and the the town hasn't always been as
[1:32:16] supportive of moving forward with the
[1:32:18] LOSAP, we decided to not include that in
[1:32:22] next year's budget. So, um
[1:32:24] we also talked about the paper call and
[1:32:26] how that's affecting responses. Um we
[1:32:30] decided that maybe we'll collect more
[1:32:32] data and see um how the
[1:32:35] how effective the paper call is at
[1:32:39] increasing turnout. Um
[1:32:44] we're going to keep meeting at Town Hall
[1:32:46] because ESB has um
[1:32:49] EMS training on the fourth Monday.
[1:32:53] And we did move uh a couple of meeting
[1:32:55] dates in September and October uh due to
[1:32:58] a few conflicts.
[1:33:01] So, that sums up the meeting.
[1:33:02] Um and then we can go back to the rough
[1:33:05] vent prop um
[1:33:07] ownership, which I did include a memo
[1:33:10] that kind of summarized that history of
[1:33:13] the
[1:33:15] equipment, which um as discussed at
[1:33:18] joint fire um is the ownership of
[1:33:20] miscellaneous equipment and personal
[1:33:22] property not described above shall be
[1:33:24] determined by the district, um which is
[1:33:26] in the agreement from the volunteer fire
[1:33:28] department Inc. Um so,
[1:33:31] you know, that's kind of where this MOU
[1:33:33] started um
[1:33:36] under the understanding of that portion
[1:33:39] of the agreement. But, I would welcome
[1:33:41] Rick's um input on that.
[1:33:47] » Uh so, I I
[1:33:48] believe that's correct. So, the fire
[1:33:50] department agreement So, the agreement
[1:33:52] basically between the municipalities and
[1:33:54] the volunteer fire department cuz the
[1:33:56] volunteer fire department is a non-stock
[1:33:58] corporation. um Um
[1:34:01] so that agreement says and sort of lays
[1:34:04] out these different scenarios of how
[1:34:05] ownership of the equipment is
[1:34:06] determined. So basically everything is
[1:34:09] supposed to be based on our funding
[1:34:11] formula for like major equipment purpose
[1:34:13] purchases.
[1:34:14] Specialized equipment for the town is
[1:34:15] owned by the town. Specialized equipment
[1:34:17] for the village is owned by the village.
[1:34:19] Then there's sort of this sort of
[1:34:20] catch-all phrase that says any other
[1:34:23] equipment
[1:34:24] um
[1:34:25] will be determined by the district. So
[1:34:27] if this was strictly a purchase by the
[1:34:29] volunteer fire department, I would say
[1:34:31] ownership is clearly volunteer fire
[1:34:33] department. Um here because you have
[1:34:35] sort of like blending of funds, I think
[1:34:39] best interpretation of it is that it's
[1:34:42] set by the district. So I guess the
[1:34:44] village could provide direction to say
[1:34:46] look, we're just going to treat this as
[1:34:47] a volunteer fire department asset or it
[1:34:50] could say we want to treat it as a
[1:34:52] um district asset.
[1:34:55] If it wants to go that route, I'd
[1:34:56] probably just want to make a couple
[1:34:57] changes to the MOU. I haven't spent a
[1:34:59] whole lot of time
[1:35:01] looking at it, but I think just
[1:35:02] clarifying the ownership
[1:35:05] um
[1:35:06] in the MOU of how that would work out uh
[1:35:08] for the entities involved
[1:35:10] would make sense. But basically it's
[1:35:13] just a policy call for the village to
[1:35:16] well, technically it says district, but
[1:35:18] the village can sort of
[1:35:19] make its opinion known about how it
[1:35:21] views the ownership of the asset um and
[1:35:25] working with
[1:35:26] the volunteer fire department on how to
[1:35:28] either structure the MOU or just
[1:35:30] basically say no, it's yours regardless
[1:35:32] of we just treat it as a donation.
[1:35:35] >> And that is
[1:35:36] I'm
[1:35:37] that is something that I was going to
[1:35:39] point out earlier. That was something
[1:35:40] that uh we talked about at the
[1:35:43] commission as well that the perhaps we
[1:35:46] other option exactly that that we could
[1:35:48] consider just um the owner is you know,
[1:35:52] the department.
[1:35:54] >> Did we contribute funds?
[1:35:58] » The Pleasant Springs funds were half.
[1:36:01] >> But those aren't our funds. The Those
[1:36:03] are coming from fees from the town of
[1:36:05] Pleasant Springs. Those aren't coming
[1:36:07] from our taxpayers, right?
[1:36:10] >> Um, so the way that basically the
[1:36:12] agreements all work together, it
[1:36:16] believe it would still fall under the
[1:36:18] general ownership structure for the
[1:36:20] district. So, even though it's a
[1:36:22] Pleasant Springs
[1:36:24] um, funds, they are contributed to
[1:36:26] district capital. So, the capital
[1:36:29] equipment that's purchased by the
[1:36:30] district is,
[1:36:32] um,
[1:36:33] the ownership percentage is based on
[1:36:34] the, um,
[1:36:36] like the budget apportionment.
[1:36:42] » My understanding of the Pleasant Springs agreement, um, that was
[1:36:46] signed in 2014 by Diane Weinan back and
[1:36:48] Chris Hampton, is that it allows for the
[1:36:51] department
[1:36:52] to make the determination where to spend those funds.
[1:36:57] Um,
[1:36:58] so I guess my my inclination is just
[1:37:01] to say let the fire department own it. I
[1:37:04] mean, they're already providing the
[1:37:05] insurance and all of the things that has
[1:37:08] to do with it.
[1:37:10] It's it's a specialized piece of
[1:37:11] equipment. Like, I don't think the
[1:37:13] police are going to train on vent
[1:37:16] prop, right? I mean,
[1:37:19] >> Actually, the fire
[1:37:20] uh, fire department offered for us to be
[1:37:22] able to utilize it as a training aid.
[1:37:24] >> Well, that's nice. Good. Yes.
[1:37:27] >> [laughter]
[1:37:27] >> Um, but I mean, from a village
[1:37:28] perspective, this is really a
[1:37:30] firefighter piece of equipment. I I
[1:37:32] guess
[1:37:33] let and given the fact that it came from
[1:37:36] Pleasant Springs funds, which comes from
[1:37:38] their user fees, we didn't put any money
[1:37:41] towards this. I don't think we should be
[1:37:42] taking any ownership of it. That's just
[1:37:44] my opinion.
[1:37:48] » I think it came before
[1:37:50] um the commission and then to the boards
[1:37:52] because that is kind of a gray area that
[1:37:55] in the
[1:37:57] that we're able to determine
[1:37:59] the ownership
[1:38:00] through the agreements that that that we
[1:38:02] can determine that. So, I think that's
[1:38:03] why we're
[1:38:06] talking about it.
[1:38:07] >> Um
[1:38:09] So, in looking at the Pleasant Springs
[1:38:10] funding, it's that remaining fees should
[1:38:13] be applied towards capital expenses, but
[1:38:15] is the training prop So, it's a
[1:38:17] miscellaneous
[1:38:20] equi- Is that not considered capital?
[1:38:24] And should those fees actually not be
[1:38:26] used for this
[1:38:28] purpose?
[1:38:31] I know what legally.
[1:38:36] » Right. So, it's basically the
[1:38:38] Pleasant Springs funds go first to the
[1:38:40] operational expenses of actually
[1:38:41] providing the the service. And then
[1:38:43] after that, it would go towards capital
[1:38:45] expenses.
[1:38:47] But the capital expenses
[1:38:49] I mean, basically the capital expenses
[1:38:51] are equipment owned by the the dist- or
[1:38:54] by the village and town based on the
[1:38:56] agreement, the fire district agreement
[1:38:58] itself.
[1:39:03] » And then there's a capital plan
[1:39:05] that was presented last year that has
[1:39:08] the capital purchases that are upcoming
[1:39:10] for the next
[1:39:12] 10 years.
[1:39:14] I'm making that up.
[1:39:22] But this wasn't This wasn't on the list. Chris.
[1:39:26] >> Um
[1:39:28] What's the lifespan of it and how much
[1:39:30] did it did it cost?
[1:39:34] » 92,800.
[1:39:36] And I believe it's a metal structure.
[1:39:38] So, I mean, outside of the boards being
[1:39:41] replaced,
[1:39:42] I would do like 40 years.
[1:39:47] » There's no I haven't found any data that
[1:39:49] says how long they're lasting because
[1:39:50] they're pretty new. So, I mean
[1:39:53] depends on how well it's maintained. It
[1:39:54] could be up to 40 years. It could be 20.
[1:39:57] Depends on how bad it's used.
[1:40:00] >> Yeah, I I think So, I think the with the fire district here is that
[1:40:04] you know, the volunteer fire had
[1:40:06] donation donated funds. So, what they
[1:40:09] don't want to have happen and I know
[1:40:10] they're sitting behind me is they don't
[1:40:12] want us to make a decision that we're
[1:40:14] going to sell this asset and they're out
[1:40:16] the 40-some thousand of their
[1:40:18] contribution.
[1:40:19] Um so, you know, when looking at an MOU,
[1:40:22] I think spelling out that any basis that
[1:40:25] would get
[1:40:27] from a sale would go directly back to
[1:40:29] them. I think that makes complete sense.
[1:40:31] I think as far as an asset ownership
[1:40:32] perspective, um
[1:40:36] it doesn't really
[1:40:38] matter. I mean, I I would say the fire
[1:40:40] district is serving the Cottage Grove
[1:40:43] and Pleasant Springs community. So, that
[1:40:47] asset and that was way those assets were
[1:40:49] fundraised for, that was the purpose of
[1:40:52] those funds.
[1:40:54] Um so, I think when we're looking kind
[1:40:55] of at this and other examples, I think
[1:40:58] we're going to want to be consistent in
[1:40:59] the treatment of assets like this.
[1:41:01] Um furthermore, um in any budget
[1:41:04] request, I I do think the uh village
[1:41:07] board and town board should be aware of
[1:41:08] all purchases being made regardless of
[1:41:11] funding source because I think, you
[1:41:13] know, in this case, um
[1:41:15] preserving the fundraising funds for
[1:41:18] other maybe more operational purposes
[1:41:20] that enhance their service levels where
[1:41:22] this is something the town and village
[1:41:24] could have came together and contributed
[1:41:26] the entirety amount. And so, having
[1:41:28] those conversations during budget cycle,
[1:41:30] especially going on, I think is is going
[1:41:32] to be very important. Um so, if we do
[1:41:36] keep it as
[1:41:38] uh and I'm going to use different terms
[1:41:39] here, a fiscal agent asset, which is a
[1:41:41] town and village asset, I think there
[1:41:43] definitely should be an MOU in place on
[1:41:45] what happens if at disposal of the
[1:41:48] asset.
[1:41:49] >> [snorts]
[1:41:50] >> If it's gone goes as a volunteer um equipment, I would say
[1:41:58] we would also want similar protections
[1:42:00] that if it was get if the fire district
[1:42:02] got rid of it, we would want our port
[1:42:05] proportionate share of the basis back.
[1:42:07] Um so, kind of in consideration, just
[1:42:09] something to consider.
[1:42:14] » Other questions? Casey.
[1:42:16] >> Um
[1:42:17] Rick, I'll put you on the spot and if
[1:42:18] the answer is I don't know, I haven't
[1:42:20] had time to read it, that's fine. Um
[1:42:23] with the MOU, so it lists
[1:42:26] uh
[1:42:27] you know, the the purchase option and
[1:42:30] basically giving the fire department
[1:42:31] like right of first refusal that if it
[1:42:33] were to be sold and sorry, if the MOU's
[1:42:36] in place, first of all, and then if it
[1:42:37] were to be sold, they get right to
[1:42:39] purchase it, but then also
[1:42:41] mentions earlier uh
[1:42:44] under no one approved transfer that it
[1:42:46] shall not be sold without the
[1:42:49] uh
[1:42:50] written and unanimous consent of the
[1:42:52] village, town, and the fire department.
[1:42:55] Does that kind of preclude the right of
[1:42:58] first refusal if the fire department
[1:42:59] have to has to sign off on it first?
[1:43:02] Doesn't that make it not get to that
[1:43:05] point?
[1:43:07] » Um theoretically, I mean, maybe there's
[1:43:10] scenarios where
[1:43:12] I mean
[1:43:13] basically, you
[1:43:15] want to make sure that it's not sold
[1:43:16] without their consent, right? So, they
[1:43:18] may this at least gives them a legal
[1:43:20] right and like an additional legal
[1:43:22] right, so I don't see anything wrong
[1:43:24] with including both.
[1:43:25] >> Okay, I wasn't sure if it was redundant
[1:43:28] or one of them nullified the other in
[1:43:30] some way, so that makes sense. And then
[1:43:33] uh
[1:43:34] well, I guess I'll sort of echo what uh
[1:43:37] Cameron and what you said and what was
[1:43:39] sort of said at the fire commission.
[1:43:41] I don't know if we could put anything in
[1:43:42] writing for this, but yeah, we should
[1:43:43] not do this going forward, this way of
[1:43:45] purchasing and funding things cuz
[1:43:48] if there's any way to make that more
[1:43:51] forceful or some sort of memo or
[1:43:53] recommendation, I think maybe that's
[1:43:54] worth considering so we don't do this
[1:43:56] again cuz yeah, this is a mess.
[1:44:00] >> It was definitely talked about at
[1:44:01] commission that um
[1:44:04] this kind of arrangement is not
[1:44:06] probably wouldn't um
[1:44:09] go about that again.
[1:44:10] And then I wanted to give Chief
[1:44:11] Archibald, I know you've been waiting a
[1:44:13] little bit, a chance. Did I miss
[1:44:14] anything from the
[1:44:16] um
[1:44:17] from the discussion there that you
[1:44:18] wanted to touch on?
[1:44:19] >> No, I mean you summed it up pretty well.
[1:44:21] It's just if the agreement is decided that the
[1:44:26] fire department has to give up their
[1:44:28] ownership of it, we just want
[1:44:29] protections that
[1:44:31] one, it's not sold without our
[1:44:32] permission and two, like
[1:44:35] the use of it just because we put a lot
[1:44:37] of money into it. So, like
[1:44:40] if somebody just decides next week that
[1:44:42] we're going to sell it, like the fire
[1:44:43] department doesn't want to be out all
[1:44:44] that money without any kind of
[1:44:46] repercussions. So, that's really all it
[1:44:48] was about.
[1:44:49] Um and to your point, Casey, uh yeah,
[1:44:52] we've already discussed we're not going
[1:44:54] to do anything like this again. We're
[1:44:55] either going to buy it outright
[1:44:56] ourselves or we'll put it in a budget
[1:44:59] item for the municipalities to buy it.
[1:45:03] >> And I think Nick, to that point, you
[1:45:05] know, as we talked about, um it would be
[1:45:06] helpful for the village and town to know
[1:45:09] what all the purchases are because we
[1:45:11] wouldn't expect the the fire
[1:45:14] department to come up with $92,000
[1:45:17] of of equipment. Um we you know, we want
[1:45:20] obviously those to be enhancements of
[1:45:21] funds. The intent is never to have your
[1:45:23] association fund raise for everything.
[1:45:26] Um
[1:45:26] so, that was another part of this is
[1:45:29] kind of getting better visualization in
[1:45:31] what those requests are.
[1:45:32] >> Sure.
[1:45:35] » Ricky, you mentioned that um, if we went
[1:45:37] ahead with the MOU, you would want to
[1:45:39] make some changes. What would those be?
[1:45:42] >> Uh, so, I haven't spent a whole lot of
[1:45:43] time looking at it. The first thing I
[1:45:46] know is just it doesn't spell out who
[1:45:47] actually owns the equipment. So, just
[1:45:50] specifying
[1:45:51] who owns it is the biggest thing that
[1:45:52] jumped out to me.
[1:45:54] >> I I guess I my recommendation was
[1:45:56] simplification. Just
[1:45:59] asset ownership is X. If the asset is
[1:46:02] sold at the sole discretion of the fire
[1:46:04] department Inc., the village and town
[1:46:06] would
[1:46:07] receive or return the proportionate
[1:46:09] share of proceeds. Just a two-liner.
[1:46:12] Something very simple. I think we start
[1:46:14] talking about tax treatment and other things and I
[1:46:18] think that as we start to get into an
[1:46:20] agreement that's much more complicated
[1:46:22] as opposed to just saying
[1:46:24] it's up to them. They have the first use
[1:46:27] of the equipment. They are the sole
[1:46:30] deciders on if the equipment gets sold.
[1:46:33] And if they it does get sold, they get
[1:46:35] their funds back.
[1:46:38] >> Can you and this is maybe where a
[1:46:39] disconnect is happening to me, where
[1:46:41] you're saying that if they sold the
[1:46:44] piece of proper- the piece of equipment
[1:46:46] that the village would get their share
[1:46:47] back, but we didn't put any money into
[1:46:49] it. Like I that's where the disconnect
[1:46:51] is.
[1:46:52] >> Yeah, so so, Kim calculated by year the
[1:46:55] Pleasant Springs funds that were
[1:46:57] calculated and calculated what
[1:46:58] technically is the village's and what's
[1:47:00] technically the town.
[1:47:02] I don't like the Pleasant Springs funds
[1:47:04] how they're treated. I think they should
[1:47:06] offset operating costs and then we don't
[1:47:10] these funds that are being held
[1:47:13] by the town are creating these
[1:47:15] additional conversations that frankly I
[1:47:18] think you could these can just come in
[1:47:19] budget requests. So, my my personal
[1:47:22] opinion is if you have an operating
[1:47:23] budget of $350,000 from the fire
[1:47:26] department, we should just be taking all the funds that are getting received
[1:47:30] by Pleasant Springs, and that's what our
[1:47:32] community should be levied, and then we
[1:47:34] just levy for or capital requests as
[1:47:38] they come in. Because right now, what's
[1:47:40] happening is this pool of money is being
[1:47:42] held, and both communities have to
[1:47:43] approve how it's being spent, and it's
[1:47:45] creating an extra layer of
[1:47:47] organizational administrative work.
[1:47:50] And where that further gets complicated
[1:47:53] is now that we're transitioning sort of
[1:47:56] from the
[1:47:57] volunteer model, there's the operating
[1:47:59] costs are going to be starting to
[1:48:00] increase incrementally.
[1:48:02] And so, that model of having that
[1:48:05] Pleasant Springs bucket just build up
[1:48:07] doesn't, in my opinion, doesn't make
[1:48:08] sense anymore. I don't think I don't
[1:48:10] think it makes sense to have something
[1:48:12] just sit be sitting in an account.
[1:48:15] Um especially because, you know, we've talked about the the intent or the
[1:48:19] spirit of those funds are for equipment
[1:48:20] that should be responding to Pleasant
[1:48:22] Springs, and so when we start tying more
[1:48:24] and more of administrative strings to
[1:48:27] funding, it just
[1:48:28] it's makes it harder to manage those
[1:48:30] funds. And, you know, if you have
[1:48:31] turnover at municipalities, remembering
[1:48:33] what those all of those little functions
[1:48:35] are.
[1:48:37] If that makes sense.
[1:48:39] >> It does. I guess I I I see this as um
[1:48:42] when we're talking about pouring it back
[1:48:44] into the vehicles or whatever capital
[1:48:47] servicing Pleasant Springs. Like, I
[1:48:48] think about this as a sinking fund
[1:48:51] where, you know, we know that our
[1:48:53] engine, you know, we have an engine
[1:48:54] coming up I think in the next couple
[1:48:56] years, um
[1:48:57] where we we basically take these funds,
[1:49:00] set them aside, and that replaces the
[1:49:02] engine, and there's a direct
[1:49:04] benefit to Pleasant Springs. So, I think
[1:49:07] that's a bigger conversation, obviously,
[1:49:09] than this one, you know, piece of it,
[1:49:11] but
[1:49:13] I
[1:49:13] >> 100% agree, and I think um
[1:49:18] when we're when we kind of talk about
[1:49:19] that, each individual
[1:49:21] I think that's something we could even
[1:49:22] do from a mechanic perspective. So, we
[1:49:25] can hold like those funds don't
[1:49:26] necessarily be have to be held by the
[1:49:28] fiscal agent if we want to be dumping it
[1:49:30] into a sinking fund because as you'll
[1:49:32] see on the monthly reports that Kim
[1:49:34] provides, it does she does calculate it
[1:49:36] a village portion and a and a town
[1:49:38] portion of that asset. Um but we
[1:49:41] obviously have no control. Like I can't
[1:49:43] say Kim cut a check for $230
[1:49:46] $239,000. I want to use it for the
[1:49:48] ladder truck even though you guys want
[1:49:50] to wait and use it on a squad or X. So,
[1:49:53] I think
[1:49:54] opening up that flexibility, whatever it
[1:49:56] is, something I think should be
[1:49:59] considered.
[1:49:59] >> Heidi.
[1:50:01] Um Pleasant Springs uses 2% dues to help
[1:50:03] pay their contracts. Does that factor
[1:50:06] into how it can be used or like 2% dues
[1:50:09] can only be used in capital? Is that my
[1:50:12] correct understanding?
[1:50:13] >> in the room. Capital, inspections,
[1:50:16] um certain training,
[1:50:18] apparatus.
[1:50:20] I always ask April cuz she's the one who
[1:50:21] knows the most on it. I mean, I think to
[1:50:24] that point though, you you talk about
[1:50:25] insp- things that are inspection and
[1:50:28] um there's enough costs. I think they're
[1:50:31] What is it? 50,000 a year is the
[1:50:34] Yeah, contract.
[1:50:36] >> 20, but then they're splitting that up
[1:50:37] between two municipalities.
[1:50:39] >> Yeah.
[1:50:40] >> We have to really work with Pleasant
[1:50:41] Springs to identify what's going on
[1:50:43] there and I think that
[1:50:45] is real critical.
[1:50:46] >> Yeah.
[1:50:50] So, good good good comment.
[1:50:51] >> Thank you.
[1:50:52] Okay. Any other
[1:50:53] >> But I definitely think it's worthwhile
[1:50:56] when we have a joint meeting to talk
[1:50:57] have a good a discussion about the
[1:50:59] future of this.
[1:51:03] » Should we move on to consider ownership
[1:51:05] of the roof vent prop?
[1:51:09] I would make the motion that we allow
[1:51:12] the
[1:51:13] um Keg Grove Volunteer Fire Department
[1:51:15] to be the owner of this vent prop
[1:51:18] equipment.
[1:51:20] >> I'll second the motion.
[1:51:22] >> Motion by Sieverson, second by Wenzel.
[1:51:25] Uh debate on the motion.
[1:51:29] » I guess I would just ask that maybe we
[1:51:31] consider having
[1:51:33] a similar type of agreement to have
[1:51:36] funds go back in the Pleasant Springs
[1:51:39] account if
[1:51:40] it's sold or you know, like a similar
[1:51:43] kind of agreement. Or yeah,
[1:51:46] proportionally.
[1:51:47] >> I would amend my motion to um include
[1:51:50] that if the fire department were to sell
[1:51:52] the asset that the Pleasant Springs
[1:51:55] portion be returned to the Pleasant
[1:51:57] Springs fund.
[1:51:59] >> In full or with it? Is there a
[1:52:01] depreciation that happens?
[1:52:02] >> 50% cuz if the asset was split 50/50, so
[1:52:05] 50% of the proceeds be returned to the
[1:52:08] Pleasant Springs fund.
[1:52:09] >> you.
[1:52:10] >> Yes.
[1:52:13] » I would agree.
[1:52:15] Do you have that, Lisa?
[1:52:17] >> And then my follow-up question is that
[1:52:20] something that we need to
[1:52:22] draft something on to be signed or
[1:52:28] » I hate overcomplicating things.
[1:52:30] Um
[1:52:34] Yes. I mean, for something to be like
[1:52:37] that legally enforceable, um Yes. I
[1:52:40] mean, like we don't control the asset,
[1:52:42] right? They own it. Um
[1:52:45] From a logistical standpoint, you know,
[1:52:47] it probably
[1:52:49] comes out through the budget process. Um
[1:52:54] So, we could put something together if
[1:52:55] the if that's the direction the Village
[1:52:56] Board wants. Um
[1:52:59] otherwise we're just sort of doing a
[1:53:00] handshake agreement that that's the way
[1:53:02] it'll be done.
[1:53:07] » Is the town board about this this
[1:53:09] evening?
[1:53:10] >> Maybe as part of their report. It wasn't
[1:53:12] a certain agenda item.
[1:53:15] » Mhm.
[1:53:17] >> I feel like to prevent any
[1:53:21] interpretation, especially looking at
[1:53:23] our agreement with um the fire
[1:53:25] department, um we should have an MOU
[1:53:30] that states that we are officially
[1:53:32] giving it to them so that there's no
[1:53:35] It's all cut and dry. I know one of the
[1:53:37] biggest concerns too was registration of
[1:53:40] it. Um that's how this all came up is in
[1:53:42] order for the department of They went to
[1:53:44] go to register and they
[1:53:46] really couldn't because of all this gray
[1:53:47] area. So, like it needs to be explicitly
[1:53:50] clear for all elements in there that we
[1:53:54] are giving them of the ownership.
[1:53:57] And at the same time we're asking for
[1:53:59] the similar protections in there.
[1:54:02] So, I just ask.
[1:54:03] >> So, I'll amend my motion my motion to
[1:54:06] >> [laughter]
[1:54:07] >> to give them asset ownership um to um
[1:54:12] have the ability to return 50% of the
[1:54:13] proceeds to Pleasant Springs fund in the
[1:54:16] event it's sold, and um
[1:54:20] And yeah,
[1:54:21] institute an a memorandum of
[1:54:23] understanding that outlines the two
[1:54:26] measures.
[1:54:28] >> I agree.
[1:54:31] Does anyone need that
[1:54:33] read back to them or does everyone in
[1:54:34] understanding what they're voting on?
[1:54:38] All those in favor?
[1:54:39] >> Aye.
[1:54:40] >> Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. All
[1:54:43] right, law enforcement committee, Chris.
[1:54:49] » We met
[1:54:51] on Oh, I closed it. One second. We met
[1:54:53] on
[1:54:54] July 28th at Village Hall at 5:30.
[1:54:57] Um
[1:54:58] we approved the minutes.
[1:55:00] We got a police station construction
[1:55:02] update.
[1:55:04] We approved a new
[1:55:06] sex offender appeal board form.
[1:55:09] We went over the year-to-date budget
[1:55:13] status and how much of that has been
[1:55:16] used.
[1:55:17] Talked about community night out August
[1:55:19] 19th from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
[1:55:21] Got the chief's reports.
[1:55:24] And we adjourned.
[1:55:27] >> Questions for Chris on law enforcement.
[1:55:29] >> I don't necessarily have a Well, I don't
[1:55:32] know if you can answer this, Chris, but
[1:55:34] I'm just reading through and and maybe
[1:55:36] this is more of a Chief Gary I'm looking
[1:55:39] through the rolling summary numbers
[1:55:43] and the check property is really high in
[1:55:46] comparison to the other numbers. Is that
[1:55:48] an accumulation of
[1:55:52] I guess can you explain exactly what
[1:55:54] check property is?
[1:55:57] >> Simple terms, proactive policing.
[1:55:59] >> Okay, can you explain what that means?
[1:56:02] >> Checking properties throughout the
[1:56:03] village.
[1:56:04] >> Is that like
[1:56:06] people
[1:56:06] >> Residences, residences, businesses,
[1:56:09] whether people are calling village
[1:56:10] property.
[1:56:12] >> So people are people are calling in and
[1:56:14] asking for property checks?
[1:56:16] >> There's vacation checks, there's
[1:56:18] business checks.
[1:56:20] So yes.
[1:56:22] >> Okay. [clears throat]
[1:56:25] And if anyone's watching online, there's
[1:56:27] actually you can go on their website and
[1:56:28] you can fill out a form and then they
[1:56:29] come and look at your property and you
[1:56:32] they appear on your ring camera.
[1:56:36] » And I will say that I appreciate it when
[1:56:38] they stop by the banks proactively
[1:56:42] and credit unions.
[1:56:43] >> [laughter]
[1:56:44] >> With the police update, there is on the
[1:56:47] village's Cottage Grove transparency
[1:56:50] portal
[1:56:51] project page dedicated to the police
[1:56:53] station that we're updating monthly from
[1:56:56] a financial update. So we have all
[1:56:58] update pictures on there. So, to kind of
[1:57:00] supplement Chief Gary's monthly report
[1:57:02] at LEC, we're updating on a monthly
[1:57:04] basis the financials.
[1:57:06] Um and I was going to try to share my
[1:57:07] screen, but I'm not going to make it.
[1:57:09] So, we don't have to wait for me. We can
[1:57:11] move on to the next item.
[1:57:13] >> Which is reports from village officers,
[1:57:14] and we'll start with Rick.
[1:57:17] In [clears throat] the hot seat, right
[1:57:18] next to me.
[1:57:19] >> Uh I have nothing for tonight.
[1:57:21] Hopefully, I can have the uh federal
[1:57:24] housing bill update um for the next
[1:57:26] meeting.
[1:57:27] Um it's
[1:57:29] fairly comprehensive, so I'm just going
[1:57:30] to do sort of like a high-level
[1:57:32] overview. Um
[1:57:34] and if there are like further direction
[1:57:35] to look at the things after that, we can
[1:57:37] explore them.
[1:57:38] >> Okay.
[1:57:42] Um village administrator, Matt.
[1:57:46] » Thanks. Um
[1:57:47] couple things from the uh projects
[1:57:50] tracker, Juniper Fields
[1:57:52] um
[1:57:53] construction is planned to start this
[1:57:55] month, potentially in a couple weeks. Um
[1:57:58] our 2026 uh streets and pedestrian
[1:58:01] projects are on track to be
[1:58:04] substantially complete by the end of the
[1:58:06] month.
[1:58:07] Um and by and large, all of our uh
[1:58:10] capital projects, as I as sent to you
[1:58:13] guys, uh happy reporter coming in at and
[1:58:16] many times uh well under budget.
[1:58:19] Um and then highlighting um
[1:58:22] staff years of service um
[1:58:25] for the month of August, Forester uh
[1:58:27] James Rathman is um in his 27th year
[1:58:30] with the village.
[1:58:31] >> 27?
[1:58:32] >> Yes.
[1:58:35] » Any questions or comments for Matt?
[1:58:38] >> Hello.
[1:58:39] >> Yeah, I have two questions. On your
[1:58:40] monthly briefing um that you emailed
[1:58:42] out, you mentioned that a draft survey
[1:58:45] um for the comp plan is being reviewed
[1:58:47] by staff, and then that group intends to
[1:58:49] put that public. But, are we going to
[1:58:50] get the opportunity to comment on that
[1:58:54] survey cuz they're only doing one,
[1:58:56] right?
[1:58:58] >> Yeah, I believe it's one survey. Um
[1:59:00] Aaron's going to be sending this week um
[1:59:03] to planning commission and the board to
[1:59:06] um for you guys to submit any kind of
[1:59:08] comments that you have and we'll
[1:59:10] certainly incorporate, you know, themes
[1:59:12] of responses.
[1:59:13] >> Okay.
[1:59:14] >> Yeah.
[1:59:14] cuz we did that with the housing
[1:59:15] chapter update as our committee kind of
[1:59:17] worked on that survey, so it'd be nice
[1:59:19] to have that opportunity. And then the
[1:59:21] second question I had was on the
[1:59:23] development projects. Um
[1:59:26] you said the water main looping project
[1:59:28] was completed on July 16th. So, I know
[1:59:31] that more of East Gaston was paved than
[1:59:34] just the looping area.
[1:59:36] Um and I know that was a bid alternative
[1:59:38] from the utility commission, but I know
[1:59:40] we never got a developer's agreement to
[1:59:43] get them to pay for that. So, now that
[1:59:46] 172,000 that we spent on that paving,
[1:59:49] who who's going to be paying for that?
[1:59:53] » Um I believe that's the utility for the
[1:59:57] short term and I don't know if Rick or
[1:59:59] Cameron can jump in, but we can
[2:00:01] potentially recover that through
[2:00:04] um
[2:00:05] you know, any upcoming
[2:00:07] development that comes in the area cuz
[2:00:09] there's there's likely
[2:00:11] um
[2:00:12] depending on the type of development,
[2:00:15] since it's going to be probably more
[2:00:16] intensive use, so probably be be more
[2:00:18] substantial roadway improvements out
[2:00:20] there.
[2:00:22] >> And I guess I don't remember the extent
[2:00:23] of the
[2:00:24] um paving out there on Gaston, but the
[2:00:27] pre-annexation agreement still has those
[2:00:30] requirements that run with the property.
[2:00:32] So, any future development is still on
[2:00:34] the hook for any improvements that were
[2:00:37] placed
[2:00:39] I remember the specifics, but basically
[2:00:40] they involve Gaston Road and um like
[2:00:44] future water main looping through that
[2:00:45] property. So, those are all requirements
[2:00:47] that run with the property.
[2:00:49] >> So, just kind of a little bit of a
[2:00:51] history, um it's really good that our
[2:00:53] water and sewer department works really
[2:00:55] well with public works. It's kind of a
[2:00:56] joke because it's one person, and that's
[2:00:58] why I would never recommend separating
[2:01:00] it. In many communities, unfortunately,
[2:01:03] if water and sewer are separate,
[2:01:05] sometimes you have projects done where
[2:01:07] the utilities are done, but the road's
[2:01:08] not planned, and unfortunately, it's
[2:01:11] essentially the utility if it's a
[2:01:13] utility-only project, the utility ends
[2:01:15] up paying for the cost of the road.
[2:01:17] Um
[2:01:18] in this case, we do have an option, as
[2:01:20] Rick mentioned, to eventually recover a
[2:01:22] proportionate share of that that cost.
[2:01:25] So, I'm working on keeping track of
[2:01:26] that. I do know as part of that, some of
[2:01:29] the backfilling of that um of that
[2:01:32] change order was a little bit higher
[2:01:34] than
[2:01:35] the road cost was a little bit less, but
[2:01:36] the backfill and the granular fill was
[2:01:39] more to stabilize the um actual looping,
[2:01:43] and Kyla knows way more than I do.
[2:01:45] Um but I think she's dropped off by now.
[2:01:47] So, um we'll get a we'll get an update.
[2:01:51] » Any other questions on the village
[2:01:53] administrator report?
[2:01:57] >> So, I'm trying to mentally catch up. Um
[2:02:01] was this originally part of what was to
[2:02:03] be the Creed? Is that part of what he
[2:02:06] the developer was agreeing to pay for?
[2:02:10] >> This project was always going to be done
[2:02:13] regardless if it was just like perfect
[2:02:15] timing that if that project happened, we
[2:02:17] could get them to pay for something that
[2:02:18] we already knew we were going to pay
[2:02:20] for.
[2:02:21] Um so, it was kind of like a benefit of
[2:02:22] just working in the same area.
[2:02:25] There's going to be additional work that
[2:02:26] needs to be done out there anyways, um
[2:02:28] eventually. Um but this helps create
[2:02:30] that kind of a looping in that
[2:02:31] infrastructure in that area, some a
[2:02:33] little bit of a redundancy.
[2:02:36] But when this project was originally
[2:02:39] proposed, Creed wasn't even in the
[2:02:41] picture. I guess to put people's minds
[2:02:44] at ease, this this was not um the
[2:02:47] looping portion of the project that we
[2:02:50] would have done or the additional
[2:02:52] looping that we would have done we
[2:02:54] didn't do to service the project because
[2:02:56] the project didn't move forward. Does
[2:02:58] that make sense? We didn't extend the
[2:02:59] utilities as part of this project as if
[2:03:02] we would have had to if the Creed
[2:03:03] development would have happened.
[2:03:06] >> Okay. I'm I'm confused because I just
[2:03:09] remember having that conversation
[2:03:12] when
[2:03:13] before Creed
[2:03:15] when we were having
[2:03:17] before the development agreement um
[2:03:20] and the board
[2:03:22] I don't recall approving that specific
[2:03:27] at that I don't I don't know that the
[2:03:29] board ever approved that.
[2:03:31] >> The the utility did.
[2:03:32] It's a utility project.
[2:03:35] >> [snorts]
[2:03:35] >> So when the utility
[2:03:38] ne tears up a road to
[2:03:40] put the utilities in they're responsible
[2:03:42] for
[2:03:43] fixing the road. This was an opportunity
[2:03:45] to lessen that cost because the timing
[2:03:47] of development going in the same time.
[2:03:50] >> I guess I should have clarified. Not the
[2:03:51] water looping, I know about that. I'm
[2:03:53] talking about the extra paving that went
[2:03:55] up and around beyond the water looping.
[2:03:57] As as
[2:03:58] >> Yeah, and that's still an obligation of the property.
[2:04:01] >> Okay.
[2:04:01] >> Yeah.
[2:04:03] >> All right.
[2:04:04] Can we move on to uh the assistant
[2:04:06] administrator finance director
[2:04:09] presentation of 2026 Q2 budget to actual
[2:04:11] reports?
[2:04:14] » Okay. In the packet um you'll see the
[2:04:17] quarter two interim reports. Um the
[2:04:20] first half of the year is going well in
[2:04:22] comparison to the budget. Um
[2:04:25] in August we'll get our final tax
[2:04:28] payment from the county of about 3.2
[2:04:30] million. Um as Matt said, most projects
[2:04:33] are coming in favor favorably.
[2:04:36] And um just a couple of days the
[2:04:38] stormwater management plan is with the
[2:04:40] DNR for review once it's approved then
[2:04:43] we'll request funds for the grant and
[2:04:46] then
[2:04:47] the DNR Streetlight project hasn't
[2:04:50] started yet but it's actively being
[2:04:51] worked on so that'll start soon.
[2:04:55] Is there any questions that you guys
[2:04:57] had?
[2:04:59] >> Yeah and
[2:05:00] so the DNR
[2:05:02] Trailhead Grant
[2:05:05] there's just some things that with some
[2:05:06] of the decorative lighting it takes a
[2:05:08] little bit so we ordered those waiting
[2:05:10] on it a line is actually running that
[2:05:12] whole project for
[2:05:14] so we'll get invoiced approximately
[2:05:15] 49,000 and then we have a sign MOU with
[2:05:18] DNR to return
[2:05:20] the remaining 30,000.
[2:05:22] Um.
[2:05:23] I'm really proud of all of our staff for
[2:05:26] managing the really turbulent first and
[2:05:29] most of second quarter with increasing
[2:05:31] in price like major increasing in prices
[2:05:34] and proactively managing
[2:05:37] those costs really the only thing we saw
[2:05:38] was a little bit of fuel surcharging
[2:05:40] coming from garbage and recycling and a
[2:05:42] little bit of fuel cost which you know
[2:05:46] we're we're able to to eat here so
[2:05:48] really happy
[2:05:49] about everybody's kind of group
[2:05:51] mentality for for improvement there.
[2:05:54] Um.
[2:05:56] While um.
[2:05:58] As we kind of mentioned with the capital
[2:05:59] projects really we we schedule a lot of
[2:06:02] our projects to finish up with
[2:06:04] substantial completion in August so
[2:06:06] typically what we see is a first
[2:06:07] financial management plan that doesn't
[2:06:09] include a lot of unspent bond proceeds
[2:06:12] or debt proceeds to offset future costs
[2:06:14] and then in September
[2:06:16] kind of when I feel a little bit more
[2:06:17] comfortable about presenting a number
[2:06:19] that that gets added in to reduce the
[2:06:21] tax impact
[2:06:23] very we're on pace for to
[2:06:27] significantly beat
[2:06:29] you know what our budgeted numbers are
[2:06:31] especially especially in vehicles.
[2:06:33] Um
[2:06:35] So, excited about that. Um
[2:06:37] obviously, um
[2:06:39] kind of we can kind of loop the kind of
[2:06:42] the budget cycle
[2:06:44] the the next kind of agenda point under
[2:06:45] my item cuz they kind of go hand in
[2:06:47] hand. Um
[2:06:49] So, you know, we had about 369
[2:06:52] .8 million dollars of net new
[2:06:54] construction. Obviously, a vast majority
[2:06:56] of that's attributed to the Amazon
[2:06:58] warehouse facility. Um 23.924%
[2:07:02] net new construction. Um if you don't
[2:07:05] include Cottage Grove, the Dane County
[2:07:07] average is 1.7%.
[2:07:09] Um what is kind of a a better statistic
[2:07:12] that I like to look at is our
[2:07:13] residential equalized value
[2:07:16] um in 2025 was roughly 72% of our um
[2:07:21] makeup as a village, and that has now
[2:07:23] been reduced to 58.33%.
[2:07:27] While I understand the Amazon facility
[2:07:28] is not hitting the tax roll for the
[2:07:30] general tax roll next year, this will
[2:07:32] really provide relief, and this is a
[2:07:34] much more sustainable percentage than
[2:07:38] 85%, 87% just 10-15 years ago. Um so,
[2:07:43] making sure that we kind of have that
[2:07:45] diverse tax base to to spread out the
[2:07:47] cost.
[2:07:48] Um kind of if we're looking at our next
[2:07:51] budget meetings, um
[2:07:54] with the budget update, um the financial
[2:07:56] management plan will be presented um to
[2:07:58] budget review committee on August 18th.
[2:08:01] Um
[2:08:02] >> [clears throat]
[2:08:03] >> And then come here to Village Board on
[2:08:05] September 8th. Um so, right now that net
[2:08:08] new construction is being factored in.
[2:08:11] Um so, what what we'll end up doing, um
[2:08:14] you know, is bringing forward a a plan
[2:08:16] that's consistent with the
[2:08:18] capital prioritization plan.
[2:08:20] Um And again, start it starting off with
[2:08:23] being conservative on the unspent debt
[2:08:26] proceeds, but knowing that that will
[2:08:27] likely get added back in Um
[2:08:30] probably closer to that September 8th
[2:08:32] just with the way deadlines are due
[2:08:34] but make sure that we're describing that
[2:08:36] process.
[2:08:39] Any other questions I'll I'll kind of
[2:08:41] loop those both in with the quarterly
[2:08:43] report or
[2:08:45] budget process update cuz we're going to
[2:08:47] meet every day in September and October.
[2:08:52] » Questions for Cameron.
[2:08:57] Paula.
[2:08:58] >> Um so
[2:09:00] do you expect any departments to kind of
[2:09:03] run over budget year-end and
[2:09:07] you know do we need to like are we going
[2:09:09] to get more budget amendments?
[2:09:12] I know it's forecasting so
[2:09:14] >> So you'll get So I anticipate a larger
[2:09:17] So the next budget amendment that will
[2:09:19] be coming forward is primarily TID
[2:09:21] based. So it will chew up kind of all
[2:09:23] the final TID related activity.
[2:09:26] I do anticipate there being a budget
[2:09:30] amendment for recommendation of
[2:09:33] essentially unrestricted reserves.
[2:09:36] So once we kind of have a clarified area
[2:09:39] of where the general fund's going to end
[2:09:41] up there might be a budget amendment
[2:09:42] recommending either a transfer to debt
[2:09:44] service or capital project fund. There
[2:09:48] could be
[2:09:50] um
[2:09:54] Right now everything else is tracking
[2:09:57] but interest income is one that is
[2:09:58] likely going to be end up more favorable
[2:10:01] than than anticipated. I think
[2:10:05] we avoided a lot of the capital project
[2:10:08] change orders. So I'm not really worried
[2:10:10] about diving in there. We're sitting
[2:10:12] really good in our building maintenance
[2:10:14] fund.
[2:10:16] Um
[2:10:19] Yeah.
[2:10:20] So doing doing really well right now.
[2:10:23] >> And I know our legal fees are kind of
[2:10:24] trending over budget. Is that mostly
[2:10:27] court driven or
[2:10:29] >> So, yeah, um municipal courts I got is
[2:10:32] always one that
[2:10:35] it's a little bit easier because there's
[2:10:37] typically corresponding revenue that
[2:10:39] offsets the municipal court cost. Um
[2:10:43] the cost for municipal court is trending
[2:10:46] a little high compared to where it is
[2:10:48] mostly because of a relatively large
[2:10:50] January invoice. Um the general legal
[2:10:53] line that's sitting in the under
[2:10:55] financial and professional services is
[2:10:57] actually sitting because it's aggregated
[2:10:59] with a whole bunch of other professional
[2:11:01] services. There's things that have come
[2:11:03] significantly less than budgeted. So,
[2:11:05] that line should be okay um
[2:11:08] just depending on the the rest of the
[2:11:10] year if there's any major issues. Um
[2:11:13] definitely something I I put some
[2:11:15] thought from a budget perspective like
[2:11:18] should we be beefing up like ordinances
[2:11:21] or you know, trying to pull things out
[2:11:23] so like kind of the board has a better
[2:11:25] feel of what funds are available for
[2:11:26] certain initiatives
[2:11:28] um and kind of proactively planning as
[2:11:30] part of that budget process. But, yeah,
[2:11:32] um
[2:11:33] we should be okay on the professional
[2:11:35] services.
[2:11:38] » I can just give a little comment on the
[2:11:40] prosecution as well because
[2:11:43] the January [clears throat] invoice like Cameron mentioned was higher, but
[2:11:47] that was because we had sort of a
[2:11:50] rare event where we had to go do a
[2:11:51] circuit court trial.
[2:11:53] Um so, there's just added expense with
[2:11:56] having to go to circuit court. So,
[2:11:59] that was
[2:12:01] in the five years that we've represented
[2:12:03] the village, I don't know if we we've
[2:12:04] maybe had one other one. So, they're a
[2:12:06] rare event, but
[2:12:09] they do happen if we're not able to
[2:12:10] resolve it. And like Aaron mentioned,
[2:12:13] it's kind of hard to tell. I mean, if
[2:12:15] a lot of tickets are written and they um
[2:12:18] we have a lot of people contesting them.
[2:12:20] I mean I just
[2:12:21] it's hard to really judge how the the
[2:12:23] municipal court
[2:12:25] how that will go year over year.
[2:12:28] >> And I'll say this a million times, no
[2:12:29] one ever makes money on municipal court,
[2:12:31] no matter how many tickets, how many
[2:12:33] parking tickets, it's not a revenue
[2:12:34] generator.
[2:12:37] We're lucky to break even on municipal
[2:12:39] court. You
[2:12:42] know, Rick and I talked to about some
[2:12:44] efficiencies and in municipal court, you
[2:12:47] know, possibly if there's another avenue
[2:12:49] that is more prosecutor focused,
[2:12:53] something that could be explored as
[2:12:55] well. And I appreciate that that
[2:12:56] recommendation, Rick.
[2:12:59] >> Any other comments for Cameron?
[2:13:03] All right.
[2:13:04] Communication and miscellaneous
[2:13:05] business, discuss approval of vouchers,
[2:13:07] bills list in the agenda.
[2:13:10] Any discussion on the bills list?
[2:13:15] Otherwise, we'll move on to 10 A 1,
[2:13:18] consider approval of vouchers.
[2:13:21] >> Move approval of vouchers as presented.
[2:13:25] >> Second.
[2:13:25] >> Motion by Murphy, second by Severson.
[2:13:27] Any debate on the motion?
[2:13:30] All those in favor?
[2:13:32] Aye.
[2:13:33] Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries.
[2:13:37] Correspondence.
[2:13:39] Anyone have anything?
[2:13:40] >> You betcha. We held a public information
[2:13:43] session on the storm water utility.
[2:13:46] I have seen a fair amount of questions
[2:13:48] kind of come up. We're planning on
[2:13:49] putting Q&A together. We'll add that to
[2:13:52] the board. Didn't want to be too far
[2:13:54] ahead of it cuz obviously the board
[2:13:55] hasn't heard the any presentations on
[2:13:57] this yet, but we'll work on getting some
[2:13:59] Q&A
[2:14:00] frequently
[2:14:01] questions and answers added to the
[2:14:02] website.
[2:14:04] Certainly forward any questions that you
[2:14:06] have have to us as as I they come.
[2:14:12] » Anyone else have anything for
[2:14:13] correspondence?
[2:14:16] Upcoming community events.
[2:14:21] » Community night out,
[2:14:23] August 19th,
[2:14:24] 5:00 to 8:00. Come on out and see your
[2:14:27] neighbors.
[2:14:30] » Rockin' at Bacon is August 27th from
[2:14:34] food carts at 5:30, uh music from 6:00
[2:14:38] to 8:00.
[2:14:41] » And then the library board's final music
[2:14:43] in the grove with Angela Porta uh is
[2:14:46] happening on
[2:14:48] uh Thursday, August 20th at 6:00 p.m. in
[2:14:50] Dublin Park.
[2:14:53] And then lastly, we established this
[2:14:55] past week um October 1st will be the
[2:14:59] budget listening session. We have one
[2:15:01] morning session from
[2:15:03] um 11:30 to 1:00 and then an evening
[2:15:06] session from 5:30 to 7:00. Again, that's
[2:15:08] October 1st. Um and then we have the
[2:15:11] budget feedback form already available
[2:15:13] on the website um for suggestions. So,
[2:15:15] please if you you know, you're talking
[2:15:17] to residents, have them fill out fill
[2:15:19] that out because that really helps.
[2:15:24] » Okay.
[2:15:25] Future agenda items. Uh we'll have
[2:15:28] Rick's going to be busy cuz we have the
[2:15:31] uh landfill amendments,
[2:15:33] um the minimum parking requirement
[2:15:35] language, the ESB policy for service
[2:15:37] animals, and the MOU for the prop.
[2:15:40] >> And the housing bill presentation.
[2:15:42] >> Oh, and housing bill presentation.
[2:15:44] >> Just so you didn't forget about that,
[2:15:45] right?
[2:15:45] >> Yep. And then we also have the edited
[2:15:47] handbook coming back for approval um at
[2:15:49] a future meeting. Other future agenda
[2:15:51] items.
[2:15:53] >> Um as a follow-up to the Civic, I'd like
[2:15:55] to um discuss like the deductible um
[2:16:00] the thousand versus 2500.
[2:16:03] >> Uh we can put like a little presentation
[2:16:05] together next. Just a it's not going to
[2:16:07] be a super It's just going to be a
[2:16:09] here's the options at different premium
[2:16:11] levels at different deductible levels
[2:16:13] for the next more meeting.
[2:16:14] >> Can you put that under your finance
[2:16:15] director
[2:16:16] agenda?
[2:16:17] >> We can put it under our HR
[2:16:20] communication manager update. I'm going
[2:16:23] to I'm going to delegate.
[2:16:25] >> All right.
[2:16:27] Otherwise, we can move on to number 11.
[2:16:30] Motion to adjourn.
[2:16:33] » Second.
[2:16:34] >> Mark and JP, non-debatable. All those in
[2:16:36] favor?
[2:16:37] >> Aye.
[2:16:38] >> Thanks, everyone.