Caledonia residents praise Microsoft withdrawal, demand transparency in land-use committee picks

Dozens of Caledonia residents told the village board at a packed meeting that they welcomed Microsoft’s decision to withdraw a proposed data center and want the village to improve transparency in its land‑use process. Public commentators over the evening urged the board to ensure the special comprehensive plan review committee represents diverse viewpoints and to keep residents informed earlier in the process.

Resident Paula Pintar said she and other neighbors formed a network to hold officials accountable after concerns raised during the planning review. “We therefore are committed to requiring sustained government accountability,” Pintar said, urging oversight of the village board, planning commission and the special committee.

John Pintar, who said he lives on Botting Road, told trustees that residents’ questions about groundwater, traffic and tax benefits had gone unanswered and warned that communities with large data centers often receive far less revenue than promised. “If you would not want this in your own backyard, I ask you to encourage them to please look elsewhere,” he said.

Several speakers pressed the board over how the special comprehensive plan review committee was formed. Jill Buckman criticized committee members’ conduct and urged resignations for officials she said had acted unprofessionally. “This pattern of attacking constituents and exhibiting a lack of basic civility is simply not a good look for someone working to shape the future of our community,” Buckman said.

Marcia Buehler told the board residents had learned a “wake-up” lesson from the episode and said she believed some leadership had lost the public’s confidence. The board president responded that the special committee is an ad hoc advisory body with no authority to make plan changes; its role is to develop surveys and bring recommendations back through the planning commission and the full board.

Other residents echoed concerns about process and timing. Chris Atkinson said many residents felt excluded from decisions and asked the board for a clear timeline and better communications. Jerilyn Bartville urged the board to consider environmental and human‑health costs, not only profitability, before advancing major proposals.

Trustees and planning staff repeatedly stressed that the comprehensive‑plan update is a multistep, two‑year process: staff and the consultant plan online surveys, pop‑up events (farmer’s market, beer garden) and QR‑code dissemination, and the planning commission will review the survey before it is distributed. Planning director Pete Wagner said pop‑up events are intended to solicit SWOT feedback where people gather and that the online survey has not been released pending plan‑commission review.

The meeting underscored a sharp appetite among residents for clearer, earlier outreach and more transparent committee appointments even as the board and staff said formal plan changes must pass through multiple review steps before adoption.