[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.

08/03/2026 Village Board of Trustees

Transcript