Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cottage Grove utility staff recommends tabling $20k water-tower lighting proposal
Summary
Village staff presented a Musco lighting proposal for a second water tower, noted sticker shock at the estimated cost, and recommended tabling the project for possible inclusion in the 2026 budget or pursuing alternate funding sources including beautification or tourism funds and village board approval.
Utility staff presented a proposal from Musco to install lighting on the village's second water tower and recommended delaying the project for budget consideration rather than moving forward immediately.
The commission heard that Musco provided specifications and a preliminary design for lighting the tower so it would be visible to motorists arriving from Madison, similar to the existing installation on the side facing Milwaukee. "Musco does a lot of lighting in this type of realm," the staff member said, and added that the contractor supplied design and installation specifications.
Staff also raised cost concerns. "After we all get over sticker shock," the staff member said, explaining that incorporating the electrical installation increases the estimate. The staff member recommended tabling the item and "put[ting] it in for a recommendation if it's something that the utility commission is very adamant about for looking at for the 2026 budget." The commission did not take a formal vote to approve funding during the meeting.
Commission members discussed alternatives to paying from the utility operating budget. One commissioner said, "Cam mentioned to me that perhaps we couldn't do this as utility, that we needed to do it as a beautification." The staff member noted multiple possible funding sources: utility funds, beautification funds and checking whether tourism funds could cover any costs, but cautioned tourism funding "probably won't" be available because the installation "is not gonna generate overnight stays probably." The staff member added, "Either way, it would likely need village board approval."
Members also compared the quoted costs to prior numbers found in meeting materials; earlier figures in the record differed from the most recent Musco proposal. The staff member said they would locate the final historical quote for the side already lit and remove any outdated or inaccurate figures from the packet.
No formal motion to proceed, fund, or reject the lighting was recorded; the discussion ended with staff agreeing to investigate funding options and to supply corrected historical pricing and further information for future consideration.
The commission will consider whether to include the lighting work in the 2026 budget after staff returns with clarified costs and funding options.
