Resident questions unfunded strategic‑planning RFP as consultants present; board moves to closed session on contract terms

Mark Spajos, a Cottage Grove resident and candidate for trustee, told the Village Board that staff issued a request for proposals for a strategic plan after the board unanimously removed a $40,000 strategic‑planning line from the 2025 capital budget. Spajos said he found an RFP dated Nov. 12 and a staff memo from Jan. 28 stating that staff were directed to seek proposals despite the budget action and that, if approved, the planning process would begin after the spring election. He called the situation inconsistent with fiscal transparency and said consultants prepared for presentations for an unfunded RFP.

Two firms presented proposals at the meeting: Allison (Lisonbee Burnett Consulting) and Corey Poursplash (CP2 Consulting). Allison described a four‑phase process emphasizing “listening loudly,” confidential one‑on‑one interviews with elected officials and department heads, a Bryson‑method SWOT and planning sequence, and an implementation package that includes leadership coaching and EOS‑style implementation training. She said she offers a low‑cost “skinny strategic plan” product for smaller communities and that her full proposal for Cottage Grove ranged from $28,060 to about $32,000, with optional community survey and photography add‑ons. Corey Poursplash described a community engagement and implementation approach focused on attainable goals and strong community outreach, and recommended surveys plus selected focus groups to reach underrepresented populations.

After the presentations and questions, the board voted to go into closed session to deliberate and negotiate contract terms for potential strategic‑planning consulting services, citing Wisconsin Statute 19.85(1)(e) for competitive bargaining reasons. The roll call recorded ayes and the board entered closed session.

Why it matters: The sequence described by the resident — removal of a budget allocation followed by staff solicitation of proposals — prompted public concern about transparency and fiscal discipline. The board’s choice to deliberate contract terms in closed session means further negotiation will occur out of public view; the board cited the statute authorizing closed deliberations when competitive bargaining or negotiation is involved.

Meeting context and next steps: Staff referenced memos dated Nov. 12 (RFP) and Jan. 28 (direction to seek proposals); the proposals presented tonight are in the $28,000–$32,000 range (staff included optional add‑ons). The consultant presentations and the closed‑session negotiation are the immediate next steps; any contract award or public action would be reported in a future meeting once the board reconvenes in open session.