An in depth look at the Village Board candidates in Mount Horeb

Six candidates are running for two seats on the Mount Horeb Village Board in one of the most competative local elections in years. Incumbents Ben Jones and Jason Fendrick are both running for re-election, along with four new candidates: Stephen Sopcak, Michelle Kelley, James Brager and Tamiko Clary. 

The Primary Election will take place Tuesday, February 17 and will eliminate the bottom two vote-getters, whittling the field down to four. The four remaining candidates will face off again in the Spring Election on April 7. 

Voters will select their top two candidates in the Primary. Village Trustees serve three-years terms. 

Who voters choose when they fill out their ballots will have a significant impact on Mount Horeb’s future. 

Here is an in depth look at where the candidates stand on everything from transparency and development to Tax Increment Financing and civility in government. 

 

What are your top three priorities if elected to the board?

 

Brager: The board needs to slow down and be more thoughtful about growth.  We should not be in the business of facilitating economic development, it should be market driven; Find ways to keep our property taxes in check.  As an HVAC business owner, I am in multiple homes every day, and property tax is the number one thing villagers have talked about with me; We should try and limit, to the best of our ability, the building of large multi-family apartment complexes. Most of them are an eyesore and bring population density that most villagers don’t want or see the need for. I would like to see Mt. Horeb remain a small, charming community.

 

Jones: Encourage and guide economic development that supports growth while protecting Mount Horeb’s strengths and unique character; Place village finances on a solid long-term footing through effective prioristization, community outreach, and thoughtful long-term planning; Strengthening cross-organization and community collaboration. We have a lot of shared interests with our neighboring communities, and the Mount Horeb Area School District and local organizations. There are gains to be had in increased collaboration, including ensuring top-of-the-line public safety services and promoting regional development and tourism.

 

Fendrick: Ensure that the Village continues to smartly use tax dollars collected from property owners, facilitate smart, reasoned and targeted economic growth to diversify the tax base and reduce the burden on homeowners while keeping the high quality of desired services and amenities, and complete the development of the Mount Horeb Recreation Complex. 

 

Kelley: Protecting our downtown – keeping it historic and “small town”; Increasing transparency of the village government; Promoting affordability – housing and other.

 

Sopcak: Initiate focus groups with Mount Horeb residents and businesses so the information collected can be used to make informative decisions for Mount Horeb future; Improve administration transparency by collecting and publishing information about all the departments, services and functions related to our Mount Horeb community, which includes a process to answers people’s questions during meetings and other communications to the village; Improve the process during meetings, where both sides of an issue have adequate time to express and provide information so the best decision can be implemented.

 

Clary: If I am honored to be elected to the board, my foremost responsibility will be to ensure that the Village of Mt. Horeb manages its spending wisely and transparently. It’s important to me that every dollar spent truly serves the needs of our community and isn’t simply money going to wants or conveniences that may not be necessary. One measure I strongly believe in is reinstating the requirement that any purchase above $1.5 million must be put before the residents as a referendum. This kind of direct involvement allows people to have a voice in important decisions that affect their property taxes and the future of the village.

The purchase of the Lukken Property was a real eye-opener for many residents. It demonstrated how decisions with significant financial impact can be made without direct voter input, which understandably caused frustration since it contributed to rising property taxes. As a community member myself, I understand how alarming it can be to learn that decisions of this scale may have been made without the collective voice of those most affected. Bringing back referenda for big purchases is about respecting and empowering residents to be active participants in shaping their hometown.

Another top priority is protecting and enhancing our downtown area, which is the heart and soul of Mt Horeb. Our unique small-town culture — from the charming architecture to the iconic troll carvings — is a major reason tourists visit us and why local businesses thrive. I’ve talked with visitors who tell me they love that Mt Horeb feels like a place where small-town values and character are lovingly preserved. They want to experience something real and unhurried, something their own cities may have lost. At the same time, I fully respect the residents whose homes border the downtown district; growth and development should never come at the expense of their peace or privacy. Our challenge is to support our downtown’s appeal by encouraging quirky, interesting buildings and attractions without overwhelming or changing the character of residential neighborhoods. It’s a delicate balance but one we must thoughtfully maintain.

Finally, the village is experiencing multiple development projects and growth initiatives happening simultaneously, and I believe these need to be viewed in the aggregate rather than in isolation. Each project’s impact compounds and can affect residents’ quality of life in ways that aren’t always obvious when examined separately. We need a clear, comprehensive growth plan that outlines how we measure success and ensures projects benefit the entire community. Good intentions aren’t enough; we must have clarity on what we want our future to look like and how we get there.

 

Are you well versed in open government laws and Robert’s Rules of Order? What other steps would you take to ensure transparency in local government?

 

Brager: I worked for the Wisconsin State Senate for 2 years, so I am experienced with both open government and the rules of order.  Requiring a 2^nd or perhaps even 3^rd reading of legislation would help slow down local government and allow for more public input.  While multiple readings of proposals could be dispensed for very popular issues, it would make an issue be heard by the board multiple times before it could be enacted.

 

Jones: Yes. I am well versed in open government laws and parliamentary procedure through my service on the Village Board and my professional experience as a lawyer for government agencies. I am committed to transparency, which is why I authored the Board’s current public comment policy. I believe it is among the most open in the region and reflects my belief that residents should have meaningful access to their local government and a government that is responsive to their concerns. The Village can improve at being more proactive than reactive in its communication with residents, and this is something I am committed to working on. 

 

Fendrick: I have reviewed the Attorney General’s guidance on Open Meetings many times over the past few months. I have studied and followed guidance on meeting conduct from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities while chairing and participating in Village meetings. All Village meetings are available for viewing on the Village’s website either live or are published for on-demand viewing. Residents are encouraged to sign up for email notifications of agendas for upcoming meetings. The Village of Mount Horeb is transparent in how business is conducted. All decisions are made at meetings as required by the Open Meetings law.

 

Kelley: I am familiar with open government laws and Robert’s Rules of Order. I took numerous US Government courses and learned about Robert’s Rules of Order as an undergrad, when I was studying International Relations. We would use Robert’s Rules of Order during governmental and diplomatic scenario-based exercises. As a registrar in higher education, Robert’s Rules of Order was used regularly in decision-making forums, such as Faculty Senate meetings and Annual Business meetings for the Wisconsin Professional Organization of College & University Registrars.   

Our current village leadership has proven that it is possible to meet the minimum of what the laws require in terms of open government laws and still not function as a transparent government. We deserve better.  

I would work towards ensuring enhanced transparency of our local government by changing the obstructionist practices of the current village leadership, as it has shown itself to be anti-community involvement and pro-big development. A few of the ideas that I have to ensure greater transparency are: 

Implement an online account managed by local government that would allow people to sign up for push notifications on certain topics, and then when something is happening with that topic, the constituent would get an email notifying them of the development. The receiver of the message can ignore or act, but they would have been informed. 

Find an online tool where local government officials and constituents could have a Q&A forum. There would of course need to be strict rules on how such a site would function, but it could be possible. And I would argue beneficial, as it would build trust. I use such tools in my professional career regularly; they can be powerful and make you feel like a member of a community.

Expand the flexibility of the Public Comments agenda item at public meetings. For example, allow people to sign up for their “three minutes of public comments” for an upcoming meeting ahead of time; if more than x number of sign ups, add a separate meeting where a back-and-forth conversation could occur. 

Change the practices of when and how projects are introduced to the public. Proposers currently have much of the power in determining what to share and when to share it with the public. These practices are endorsed by government leadership. Waiting until the 11^th hour and bringing proposals that obviously have hundreds of hours put into them (and one can only imagine how many dollars) is a disservice to the constituents and the proposers. There should be a set number of days from the village’s first notification of a potential proposal to have that proposal be introduced to the public. And proposers should be required to conduct community Q & A’s for their proposals.  

 

 

Sopcak: I have a working knowledge of Roberts Rules of Order, and I am currently reading the newest version of Roberts Rules of Order, the Mount Horeb ordinances & codes, and reviewing past department & board meetings.

 

Clary: I respect the importance of open government laws and Robert’s Rules of Order, and I am confident that with commitment and diligence, anyone can learn and apply these frameworks effectively while serving on the board. But beyond simply following rules, my focus will be on enhancing transparency through consistent and meaningful communication with residents.

Encouraging residents to be involved is something I feel strongly about because Mount Horeb is more than just a collection of policies or projects — it’s a community of people who care deeply about where they live. I want to help create even more opportunities for residents to stay informed and voice their ideas, concerns, and feedback, whether that’s through monthly meetings, newsletters, or other communication tools. When people feel connected and heard, trust in local government grows and decisions better reflect what the community wants and needs.

 

What is village government currently doing right?

 

Brager: The Village is doing a great job by having all meetings available to watch online, as well as posting meeting agendas on their website. This allows for villagers to be well informed on issues important to them. 

 

Jones: Fundamentally, Mount Horeb is a well-run community.  Mount Horeb is a safe community with strong public safety services, some high-quality amenities such as an excellent library, and the government is a strong partner with our many vibrant local businesses. 

 

Fendrick: The current Village Board works well together. Our members work in many different occupations and have experience working with Village government prior to serving as Trustees. We all bring our personal experiences and ideas to the meetings, and calmly and rationally discuss items as mundane as hiring a new appraiser or as potentially contentious as the recent Langhus development proposal with its vocal opposition.

The Village Board is fortunate that village staff are exceptionally good at the work they do. Village Administrator Nic Owen has a dedicated, stable staff to work with as he manages the day-to-day business of the village. He and his staff are receptive to citizen inquiries and concerns. He informs the board weekly about the events of the past week and upcoming items. Our village departments provide an exceptional level of service. Without its exceptional staff, the Village would not be able to provide its high level of service to residents.

 

Kelley: I’m sure the village government is doing many things very well. Beyond knowing that the staff has always been responsive to any question I may have, I have not had the opportunity to learn the specifics of the great work they’re doing. 

 

Sopcak: The village police and fire departments has contributed to a low crime rate and a safe place to live. Also other village infrastructure departments has resulted in clean water, air and reliable energy and maintained the streets throughout the village. The support of our school system has resulted in providing students with an education that allows them to be successful in life, which has resulted in a high rate of student extracurricular activity participation, and in community involvement. Mount Horeb has consistently earned “Tree city USA” status since 1997.

 

Clary: Mount Horeb is fortunate to offer a broad range of valued services that enrich the lives of families, seniors, and all residents. Services such as brush and leaf pickup help keep the village clean and pleasant year-round, while activities for children and seniors support community engagement and quality of life. These programs show a strong commitment to meeting the diverse needs of residents and maintaining a welcoming environment.

Additionally, the current efforts to rewrite zoning codes and develop a comprehensive plan for our future are strong steps forward. These initiatives provide a “road map” that can guide the village’s growth in a way that encourages creativity, especially in housing. This could open doors for new homebuyers and help more people find a place within Mount Horeb—something we certainly want to see happen.

 

 

What could it do better?

 

Brager: The board should rehaul how public comments are done at all board and committee meetings.  The comments should come after an issue is presented, so the public can hear what the proposal is before making comments.  It would also be better if meeting agendas are posted much earlier than they currently are.  The public needs more time to know what items will be coming up at a meeting.   

Village staff should not be offering opinions at village board meetings.  They should only offer comments on how legislation enacted by the board will be implemented by them. 

The Village also needs to have a referendum triggered for any land purchased or annexed by the village, over a certain size.  For example, buying the Lukken farm for $5.5 million (not to mention the costs to develop it), without the explicit permission from the villagers is not good government, and it isn’t helping our property tax bills.  We shouldn’t be in the real estate business.

 

Jones: Mount Horeb can do better by being more proactive and disciplined in long-term planning, particularly around growth, infrastructure, housing, and village finances. As the community grows, clear priorities, stronger coordination across services, and earlier public engagement will be essential. Improving how the Village communicates trade-offs and long-term impacts can help ensure growth remains affordable, sustainable, and aligned with community values.

 

Fendrick: The Village Board has become a bit more insular on how it conducts some business. This is partly due to the nature of the matters before it. The Langhus project required that we not decide or discuss it openly prior to it being presented to the Board for consideration, due to its nature as a quasi-judicial rather than political proceeding. I would have liked to have seen something said publicly to that effect but understand that it could have created more questions than answers.

The public comment discussions also created confusion. Wisconsin municipal meetings are not intended to be New England-style town hall meetings with wide-open debate and discussion. Rather, citizens elect the Village Board members to represent them in making inquiries, fact-finding, and deciding matters. The public comment policy we adopted has a good balance and formally adopts our prior stance on public comments during meetings.  We allow the public the chance to comment on every item on the agenda.

There will be times when residents find they need more time to discuss their thoughts with the board. I explored holding an informational meeting after joining the Village Board to receive input from the public on the matters which were important. However, due to all the contention surrounding the Langhus project and its associated legal concerns, I was advised against holding it. I’d love to hold meetings like that with the residents, if we can all agree to be civil and respectful, and understand that even if we don’t agree fully on every idea, we are there to discuss what we believe is in the best interests of the Village.  

 

Kelley: Move away from their belief that “big development” is best and needed in our downtown. There is an entire village beyond the downtown for those appropriate goals.

Respect the constituents of this community. Stop devaluing us, considering us a nuisance. It’s offensive – and unacceptable.

Stop approaching development proposals from a “let’s do everything we can to make this happen” to a “let’s look at this objectively about how this will affect the people of the community”. 

Start adhering to the pieces of the Comprehensive Plan that focus on our village character and aesthetic look and feel. For example, the Vision Statement of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan reads in part:  “A vibrant downtown featuring the community’s historic past and bright future acts as the community’s center piece for cultural, recreational, business, shopping, and tourism activities.” 

And the Comprehensive Plan continues to explain that “While difficult to define, the character of a community has much to do with why people move to, stay in, and value the place they call home. Below are terms residents of the Village use to describe their “community character”: Attractive and aesthetically unique, not a suburban feel; Small-town feel with cultural connection and sense of place; Walkable; Historic and active downtown.”

 

Sopcak: Increase the housing variety to increase the diversity of housing types that would accommodate a wider demographic of residents that could have the potential to support Mount Horeb businesses so they wouldn’t have to fully rely on high school students. Increase investments in infrastructure to manage traffic and parking around the main street corridor and other traffic bottleneck. This should include the removal of 90 percent of assigned parking from the downtown area because all parking spaces should be available on a first come basis. Also, improve the balance of commercial & housing development in the various districts that revitalize the area, encouraging sustainable development growth that coincides with the village values, architecture, proportions of existing structures, heritage, etc.

The charming walkable downtown area is a major asset which is key to the small town Mount Horeb Scandinavian theme cultural identity which needs to be expanded and maintain along with the entire village (for example we should have a 25 foot trolls located one on the corner of Highway S and 78 and one on top of the Trollhøvel (or Troll Mountain) near Highway 18/151).

Currently residents are only allowed to speak for three minutes, whereas presenters have far greater time which doesn’t allow a true discussion of issues and facts between those who have concerns or questions about what someone is presenting during the meeting.

 

Clary: Amid these positive steps, I do hear a growing concern among residents that Mount Horeb’s core identity—the values and character that make it unique—are becoming less clear in the midst of planning and zoning changes. The comprehensive plan and zoning updates are important tools, but they must be developed and implemented in a way that reflects what residents truly want.

Right now, there seems to be a feeling that decisions are sometimes made without enough input or alignment with the community’s vision. It’s important to recognize that while it may not be possible to satisfy everyone, the village must make a stronger effort to engage residents and build a sense that the majority agrees with the direction we’re headed. I want to work toward healing any divide so that we move forward united, with shared understanding and goals.

 

Do you believe Mount Horeb is on the right track in terms of economic development? What benchmarks should the village use to gauge its progress in this area?

 

Brager: No. I think the village board has a thirst for economic development that doesn’t match the size of our town.  Business growth needs to be organic and market driven, whereby businesses open in our village because there is a market for the business they have, not because the village offers incentives or helps cultivate opportunities.  For example, we should not have an Economic Development Consultant in our employ, who is trying to start a ‘business improvement district.’

 

Jones: Yes. Mount Horeb is on the right track with economic development and has attracted new investment in recent years. That development has been positive for the Village, and when done thoughtfully, I expect it will continue to strengthen our tax base while supporting community needs.

I would caution against setting rigid numeric targets or thresholds for economic development. When governments chase specific metrics, there is a risk of prioritizing numbers over the merits of individual projects or long-term impacts.

That said, data should guide decision-making. The Village should closely track population trends, housing unit growth, assessed property values, Tax Increment District performance, and service demands to evaluate whether development is contributing to the Village’s long-term financial and community health. This is a all data that I follow and consider.

 

Fendrick: Mount Horeb is heading in the right direction on economic development, but there are more opportunities and areas for growth. Village staff have been working on the development of a business park so that the Village can have a shovel-ready location in the Village for new or expanding businesses and/or industry.

We are currently lagging in residential opportunities. The Village’s recent housing assessment shows that the Village has pent-up demand for 215 residential units today and should construct 435 to 935 housing units to meet that and the expected demand over the next few years. Rental units at reasonable prices are in short supply, and houses commonly sell shortly after hitting the market. We need more housing of many types – affordable and market-rate, a variety of apartments and townhomes, and single-family owner-occupied homes throughout the community – to fill that gap and allow for measured, reasonable growth. The development of a portion of the Lukken Farm property into residential housing will help close this gap, and the revised zoning code will aid in addressing housing affordability concerns.

The best benchmark to use for economic development is the taxable value of the village, adjusted for inflation, over time. That value is the basis of our tax levy.

 

Kelley: I believe the current village government leadership is misguided with its goal to suburbanize our historic, small-town Main Street with generic big-block apartment buildings. They believe that for Mount Horeb to survive and thrive economically, we need to bring apartments downtown; that this has been proven by other local communities. I vehemently disagree. I believe that bringing large, suburban type mixed-use apartment buildings with retail on the first floor and apartments above would KILL our small town feel and DESTROY our heritage tourism economy downtown. 

There are those who argue that housing is such a critical need in our community that these totally out-of-place apartments need to be built on Main Street. I do not agree. We need many types of housing in Mount Horeb, and I’m pretty sure that these market-rate apartments with studios, one-bedroom, and a few two-bedroom units on Main Street aren’t the answer to bring people to our community who want to make it their long-term home.  

Mount Horeb has long been a destination for tourists because of our historic downtown, our unique shops, and our restaurants and bars for dining. I would put us with the likes of New Glarus, Stoughton, and Galena as “someplace unique to go check out” (and these places do not have suburbanized big-box apartments in the Main Street business districts).  We are at a tipping point where we need to decide whether we capitalize on our history and culture and further expand our heritage tourism, or if we throw it away. The prevailing argument I hear is that financially speaking, the only way we can go is with adding suburbanized big-box apartments downtown. I cannot concede to that. There has to be ways to bring economic development to our downtown that stays true to the vision of our history, culture, and our Comprehensive Plan.

I do agree that there’s a place for these suburbanized big-box apartments outside the downtown area. Some examples include: The Landsby (west side of town), the apartments going up by Miller’s, and almost 90 units in the process of approval at the old Karakahl site. These are positive examples of growth and much needed housing, and I generally support more like them (outside the downtown area). Affordability is a concern though; we need a varied approach in terms of cost for the renters when it comes to approving projects. 

Regarding the second part of the question, I need to learn more to identify benchmarks of success in terms of economic development for the village. 

 

Sopcak: I don’t know if Mount Horeb economic development is on the right track at this time because we are lacking Mount Horeb residence goals, objectives, business growth, etc. for the Mount Horeb village various business districts. We need to use a mix of economic, social, quality of life, and government benchmarks, focusing on employment rates, business growth, resident surveys & focus groups, health metrics, infrastructure quality, and public safety, etc.. All of this information needs to be correlated, analyzed, and presented to Mount Horeb residents and business owners to determine if we are on the right economic development track. Note some of this information has been collected by the village.

 

Clary: Mount Horeb is experiencing exciting economic growth, which brings new opportunities for jobs, housing, and business vitality. However, growth is never without challenges. We must carefully balance progress with preserving the unique character and environment that make our village special.

Thoughtful infill development—building within our existing footprint—can help strengthen our tax base and encourage walkable, connected neighborhoods. It also helps protect the beautiful rural lands and natural habitats surrounding us. At the same time, we need to be mindful of potential downsides like increased traffic, parking strains, and the risk of losing the small-town charm that attracts both residents and visitors.

Given our proximity to Madison and limited available land, Mt Horeb faces constraints in attracting large employers and expanding business zones. Additionally, many local jobs don’t currently offer livable wages unless one is a business owner. This economic reality means growth must be strategic, focusing on sustainable development that respects the community’s values and quality of life.

Ultimately, my goal is to support smart, steady growth that creates opportunities without overwhelming residents or compromising the village’s identity. By engaging residents in honest conversations about what kind of growth we want, and measuring success by both economic and community well-being, we can chart a path forward that benefits everyone.

 

Growth is always a thorny issue for any community. Any type of growth can cause problems. Infill development is demonstrably better for the environment and can bolster the tax base and create walkable communities. But it can also detract from a community’s “small town” charm and create aesthetic, traffic and parking issues. The alternative is often urban sprawl, which protects the downtown but destroys the agrarian beauty of the Driftless region, harms the environment, eliminates vital habitat for myriad species, and promotes “car culture” and “bedroom communities.” But growth, no matter where it occurs, can create jobs and housing, can add to the tax base and is seen by many Americans as the most palpable evidence of progress. How would you grapple with the complex issue of growth in Mount Horeb?

 

Brager: Growth in Mt. Horeb should not be a priority for the board, and any growth should come organically, without government incentives.  Mt. Horeb is not able to solve the housing crisis, so that shouldn’t be one of our objectives.  Housing should come naturally, as market demand makes it feasible.  Business growth should also come naturally, much as it should with housing.  Infill growth should not be denied outright but should absolutely conform to existing zoning codes.  

 

Jones: I support responsible development that strengthens Mount Horeb’s economy and provides housing options for families and individuals. All of the factors you mention are ones the Board and Village must carefully weigh. I have consistently supported both infill and suburban developments, especially when they provide opportunities for families to live and grow in our community. That doesn’t mean I support every project. I ended up opposing the  recent downtown rezoning request because I believed the proposed project did not strike the right strategic balance across the factors we consider, which were largely reflected in the relevant zoning criteria. 

My approach to growth is to build a solid framework in the Village which appropriately weighs the long-term community impacts and involve residents in the discussion. There are pros and cons to growth of every type. I am committed to encouraging growth which is family friendly and which promotes affordability, without abandoning our current character and preserving enough of our natural beauty. Within this framework, I will examine every proposal on its own merits.

 

Fendrick: Mount Horeb has grown from approximately 5,860 residents in the 2000 census to approximately 8,000 today. Dane County grew from 426,000 residents in 2000 to 611,000 residents in 2025 and is expected to see a population of 887,000 by 2050, according to projections from the Regional Housing Survey. 

Mount Horeb doesn’t need to double or triple in size over the next 25 years to stay vibrant. A growth to 11,000 residents over the course of the next 25 years is a good, measured, sustainable population growth rate that won’t stretch village services faster than we can increase the scale at which we provide those services, and correlates with growth in accordance with these projections.

Infill and redevelopment in the downtown and Main Street areas, at a high density, can help provide housing for those new residents, create a more walkable downtown and provide ready customers for downtown businesses while limiting long-term expensive sprawl over the undeveloped agricultural areas outside current Village boundaries. Infill and redevelopment can be done in a way that is sustainable and does not detract from the current historic downtown aesthetic. Additional retail space can attract more visitors to both our downtown area, as well as our newer business districts on the east side of the Village. 

 

Kelley: With our location near Madison and such wonderful natural resources all around us, I think growth is unavoidable, whether one agrees with it or not. So then it’s a question of how much, how fast, and how to approach it. I have a lot to learn in this area, but it seems to me that a combination of infill development and building new beyond what already exists is most logical. There is nothing that says infill developments have to ruin a small-town feel; if such developments are done with care and an appreciation for the location within which they will reside, such developments could have the benefits of increasing heritage tourism downtown and making the village more walkable. Expanding outward for growth definitely has its downsides, and every effort must be taken to minimize environmental harms at every step of the process. I would argue for mixed housing types in amongst each other to minimize the physical separation based on one’s income.

 

Sopcak: I would, as previously said initiate focus groups with residents and business owners to understand their requirements, goals, limitations, issues, etc. and during these meetings the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite (2025), the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF), and other Mount Horeb information will be provided to ensure everyone’s has a working knowledge of the village process and answers to their questions. We then need to publish all of the information gathered with conclusions so the people of Mount Horeb know this information will be used for future discussions and decisions going forward.

 

 

Clary: Mount Horeb is primarily a bedroom community, with many people commuting to Madison or elsewhere for work. Although we have a healthy local economy, many jobs here don’t pay enough to cover a comfortable living unless you own a business. This reality limits how much new business relocation we might expect, especially given our land constraints and regional competition.

Growth should happen at a pace residents can live with. Recently, some of the rapid development has felt overwhelming, with projects moving forward before full community impact studies or consensus. I advocate taking a step back to ensure that each phase of growth is supported by appropriate infrastructure and respects the wellbeing of current residents, especially those living near new developments.

 

Members of the village board don’t always see eye-to-eye, but their debates are (usually) respectful and fairly good-natured, at least compared with many other government bodies. (The recent Langhús on Main development proposal certainly led to some of the most tense meetings in recent years.) Explain how you would bring different ideas to the table, and even disagree, in a way that is productive, helpful, and does not detract from civil discourse:

 

Brager: Civil discourse has always been one of my ‘things’, and I’ve always been a bit of a contrarian.  I love good natured debate, where people with opposing views come together to argue their positions.  Opposing views help enlighten everyone to different ways of thinking.  I will certainly have different ideas than fellow trustees but will always be respectful and have an open mind.

 

Jones: This is an underappreciated part of the job. The Village Board is a collective institution, and to govern effectively they must both have diverse opinions and perspectives but also work together as a unit. Honestly this is an area where I bring a lot to the Board. In my day job as an administrative law judge who constantly holds hearings with adverse parties, I am used to encouraging an environment where people can bring forward their cases effectively before making an informed decision. On the Board I am not afraid to raise difficult issues or disagree (I was on the short side of a 6-1 vote recently), but I always do it in a respectful and helpful manner. 

 

Fendrick: During my times on the Village Board, our discussions at the board level have always been civil, even during the recent consideration of the Langhus project. I’ve engaged with fellow Trustees over the years in areas where we vehemently disagreed, but it was always respectful and we generally understood and appreciated the viewpoints brought to the discussion. I analyze the legal, economic, and/or social impacts of my position, prepare my remarks in advance, and bring facts with me to support my assertions. Other Trustees do the same. Preparation is the key to civility when discussing issues where there isn’t agreement.

 

Kelley: People of course see things differently – we are varied and passionate beings, after all! As long as there is respect for each other on all sides, all is fine. If respect is set aside by one or more parties, to me that personally means that I cannot let met myself behave in the same manner. I would bring different ideas to the table by asking questions, because I would truly have a lot of them, I know it. As I’ve written numerous times in these answers, I have a lot to learn. But I also have my personal beliefs about which I feel strongly sometimes, and I want the opportunity to share those respectfully and see where they fall with the topics that are under discussion.   

 

Sopcak: I would make motions that would allow both sides to have enough time to present their point of view during meetings (not limited to three minutes) when the topic requires more in-depth analysis, so the meeting members can then make informed decisions. I would suggest the following during these meetings; “using “I” statements to avoid blame”, “ask clarifying questions to understand perspective”, “take breaks if conversation becomes too heated”, etc… I agree with Roberts Rules of Order which outlines how productive discussions can be implemented whether your for or against a topic being discussed.

 

 

Clary: I believe that bringing different ideas to the table in a productive and respectful manner starts with active listening and genuine openness. Even when I disagree, I would first seek to fully understand the perspectives and concerns of others before sharing my own views. When presenting my ideas, I would focus on facts and the overall benefit to the community, rather than personal opinions or emotions. It’s important to separate the issue from the individual and avoid language that could be perceived as confrontational or dismissive.

During debates, I would aim to ask clarifying questions to foster understanding and encourage collaborative problem-solving. If disagreements arise, I would acknowledge valid points made by others and look for common ground or compromises that advance the community’s interests. Maintaining a calm and respectful tone helps keep discussions constructive and ensures that all voices are heard.

Ultimately, I believe that productive disagreement is essential for good governance. 

 

Some of the village board’s most interesting debates in recent years have not revolved merely around specific local issues, but also the very nature of policy governance itself. Some trustees feel that county, state and federal issues (like gun control, gerrymandering etc.) are outside the purview of municipal government, and the local board should keep its  focus on things happening here. Others feel local elected officials have an obligation to take a stand on these topics because larger issues could impact local citizens. Where do you draw the line between “local” and “non-local”?

 

Brager: The Villagers of Mt. Horeb are not a monolith.  The Village board should not be trying to speak for them on state and national issues.  Local issues are issues the Village Board has direct control over; non-local issues are where the board is simply stating their collective opinion, with no consequence.  It is a tremendous waste of time for the board to weigh in on non-local issues.  I will vote NO on any of these issues, whether I agree with them or not.  

 

Jones: I believe strongly that our village board should be non-partisan “in-spirit,” as well as by letter. I think part of being truly non-partisan requires us to keep to our lane. State and Federal policy is vitally important, and I strongly encourage citizens to speak out and vote in State and Federal elections, but it simply is not something the Village Board has control over. Having local elected officials argue and have the Village take official positions on these issues not only distracts the board from the issues that they can influence but fosters divisiveness for no clear purpose. Of course sometimes, the actual local issues will still have a State and Federal salience which we can and should tackle.  But even in those cases, we should strive to act non-partisanly and to lower rather than raise temperatures. 

 

Fendrick: I engaged in a spirited discussion on gerrymandering’s impacts on local Wisconsin government bodies with a former Trustee in the fall of 2021. We spent a lot of time discussing the issue, but the Village Board did nothing more than approve a resolution at the conclusion. 

After that discussion, I confirmed that the business of the Village Board is best conducted when focusing on local matters. The Village Board isn’t “red” or “blue,” and I’ve never thought of fellow Trustees with such generic labels. We’re elected to make sure our residents have reliable municipal services and the Village is a safe, welcoming place to live, visit, and/or grow. Each resident of Mount Horeb is also represented by multiple other elected officials in state and federal positions. We can reach out to those elected officials with our concerns in the areas that they represent us.

As an example, it’s reasonable for the Village to send a letter to the leaders of the state Assembly and Senate and our elected officials asking for a reconsideration of a state law that impacts the Village. The Village Board should not be taking policy positions or issuing resolutions on state or federal matters, however. 

 

Kelley: This question surprised me, frankly. I had not been aware of the debate. Our village cannot stay separated from the county, state and federal issues that are going on around us. On that point I am certain. But determining the degree to which our village government should become involved in “non-local” issues is something I cannot answer broadly; it would depend on the topic and the context of when and why it’s arising for me make such a determination.  

 

Sopcak: The local government can take a stand on issues beyond the local ones, but only if the board is sure it is totally representative of the majority of the residents.

 

 

Clary: I appreciate that village board members bring diverse perspectives and that thoughtful, respectful debate is a sign of healthy democracy. On some issues, especially those beyond strictly local matters—like gun control or state-wide policies—opinions differ about whether the village board should take a stance. My view is that the village government’s primary responsibility is to remain non-partisan and focused on issues we can directly influence within Mount Horeb.

By keeping our attention on local needs and concerns, we can better serve all residents and avoid divisiveness over larger political debates that may not be appropriate at the municipal level.

 

 

Mount Horeb has had some success using Tax Increment Financing in the past. It has also had some failures. How should village leaders use TIF in the future?

 

Brager: The Village should use TIF very sparingly or never.  Development should be organic and market based; it should not be derived from government run programs creating a false market.  TIF is also risky for the Village if the development fails to deliver on expectations, and also incentivizes over-development.  I would like to see Mt. Horeb remain a small community, and refraining from using TIF will help achieve that objective.

 

Jones: TIF financing is an important tool in our policy toolbox. We have used it effectively in the past to enable development with broad community benefits, and I expect we will do so again. However, TIF can be overused, and many communities have made that mistake.

I have two basic guidelines for its future use. First, the Village should use TIF only for projects that are strategically beneficial. Most developments should pay their own way, and there must be careful consideration of broader benefits beyond growth for growth’s sake. 

Second, the Board must be assertive and proactive in handling proposals. Municipal staff work hard to recruit developers and shepherd projects forward. But to some extent, this makes it difficult for them to be appropriately zealous about protecting the Villages interests when it comes to taxpayer incentives. That is why it is so crucial our elected officials serve that role effectively, and I will do continue to do so. 

 

Fendrick: TIF allows the Village to financially assist beneficial projects without using taxpayer money. TIF funds, including developer incentives – the money that developers receive when building projects in a TIF district (“TID”) – do not come from your property tax money. This is a common misconception. When a TID is formed, the taxing entities (the School District, the county, and MATC) agree to freeze the revenue they receive from the district to the then-current revenue for the duration of the TID; any increased taxes raised from the district (the “increment”) go into a separate fund. The increment doesn’t only benefit new development, however. The Village has been able to fund façade renovation grants for Main Street businesses and has also provided grants to homeowners to fund home renovations from the increased tax money generated by development in the TID. 

The Village did run into issues with large upfront expenditures in TID 3 by borrowing money to pay for infrastructure. That debt was barely covered by the increment created through improvements in the TID. Consequently, the pay-as-you-go (“PAYGO”) TIF model has worked well for the village in its current TIDs; the only way a developer gets an incentive in such a case is if the project results in increased taxes for the TID. This is the model that the Village used for the redevelopment of the Karakahl property, for example, and is how the Village should use TIF in the future when possible.

The downside to using TIF is that even though the property has been improved, the Village and the other taxing entities won’t receive the increased tax money for general use until the TID has expired. That can be over 20 years in some cases. The TID covering the east side of Mount Horeb, TID 3, will soon be closed, and the taxing entities will begin to receive the tax money generated by development in that area. Future generations will also reap the benefit of the added tax base in the Village – it’s a good gift for us to leave for them.

 

Kelley: It seems that TIF’s have been provided quite freely with several recent projects where it is unclear to me as to why the developers would not have had the resources themselves to complete the projects without the TIF’s being granted. It’s hard to know the answer to this because the decisions are made behind closed doors. It seems these developers argue that there needs to be high density and volume to make their projects ‘economically feasible’, yet that very density and volume would lead to more revenue for them over the decades. 

I need to learn more about TIF’s to have a confident answer as to how village leaders should make use of them in the future.

 

 

Sopcak: TIFs should be used for raising investments into areas that will be dramatically improved by the implementation of the TIF. The TIF isn’t meant to give a break to developers who could well have done this development effort without the TIF and we want the TIF to have the least amount of risk possible to the village.

 

Clary: TIF has been a tool used in Mount Horeb’s past with mixed results. I believe it can be very helpful when applied to specific cases like infrastructure improvements or encouraging development in blighted or underused areas. However, it shouldn’t be treated as a routine expectation for developers, who sometimes assume TIF is automatically granted. This can distort market dynamics and community priorities.

Village leaders should use TIF carefully and only when it clearly benefits the public and helps overcome barriers to development rather than as a standard incentive.

 

Another interesting debate recently among some in village government has been who, exactly, the village board is supposed to represent. Much of the past few years has been spent pushing for more housing development to bring more residents to the village. A higher population bolsters the tax base (which in theory spreads out the tax burden), but it also comes with costs (roads, law enforcement, fire and EMS, schools etc.) So, should Mount Horeb keep focusing on attracting new residents, or is there a point at which the village must stop growing or risk losing many of the things that make it such a good place to live?

 

Brager: I do not believe Village government should keep focusing on attracting new residents.  I think that whomever wants to move here should be more than welcome, but we don’t need to worry about getting large scale developments in order to grow our population.  Growth for growth’s sake is not a plan.  We are at a turning point right now. We can continue to be a small community with lots of personality, or grow into a larger, uninteresting exurb like some neighboring municipalities.  Now is the time to choose.

 

Jones: Fundamentally, I am in favor of growth in Mount Horeb. Mount Horeb is a great community, and there is a lot of demand for people to live here. In addition to allowing more people to enjoy this wonderful community, growth brings both workers and commercial spending. As a practical matter, it is also much easier and more efficient to provide good government services with a growing than a flat or falling population. That said, I believe most of these benefits can be had with a moderate level growth I believe most residents want, which will be naturally absorbed allow us to preserve the strengths of our community. I do not wish to see breakneck growth in the community, nor do I expect it to occur. 

 

Fendrick: Mount Horeb, or any municipality, cannot afford to stop growing altogether. Growth is not just about attracting new residents. It’s about creating new opportunities and affordability for current, returning, and new residents that want to live in our community and provide our businesses a local workforce. New residents and businesses bring a vibrancy and diversity to our community. Without growth, we risk losing the things that we value in our community. We will likely be forced to choose between higher property tax rates on our homes, or cut services provided to residents. 

 

Kelley: Given our location in Dane County, we need to grow. There’s no way around that. This is a wonderful community to raise a family; I would truly appreciate the opportunity to be involved in projects that create an environment that brings people here to share the joy (truly). 

That doesn’t mean we need to lose our identity as a community in doing so though. As I’ve stated clearly, I am adamant that such growth and expansion needs to happen outside of the current Main Street downtown district. 

 

Sopcak: To answer this question, we need to first obtain information from residents, business owners, the existing Mount Horeb Comprehensive Plan & other information sources, determine the services (utilities, parking, traffic, staffing,etc.) and department capacity and limitations, etc. So that we can determine what type of growth is needed in the various Mount Horeb districts. I think an increase of a diverse demographic of residents could have the potential to support the various businesses and village departments in Mount Horeb. We need to balancing between all of these factors and one solution isn’t the fix for all of the various districts in Mount Horeb.

 

 

Clary: Balancing growth with preserving Mount Horeb’s unique character is one of the most important and delicate challenges we face. Growth can bring needed vitality—new residents help support schools, local businesses, and community services. However, unchecked or rapid expansion risks altering the very qualities that make Mt Horeb special: our sense of community, the charm of our neighborhoods, and the peaceful atmosphere residents cherish daily.

Rather than asking whether we should stop growing altogether, I believe our focus should be on managing growth deliberately and thoughtfully. That means setting clear limits on the scale and pace of new developments so they integrate well with existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. It means prioritizing developments that respect the village’s architectural style and natural surroundings. And it requires meaningful conversations with neighbors who will be directly affected, ensuring their concerns shape the planning process from the start—not as an afterthought.

Growth should be an opportunity for us to reinforce what makes Mount Horeb a wonderful home, not a cause of frustration or division. Controlled growth allows us to maintain open spaces, reduce traffic congestion, and support public services that keep pace with population increases. This approach calls for patience, strategic planning, and a shared commitment to sustainability and quality of life.

In short, Mount Horeb does not have to choose between growth and its character—we can and must have both, but only if we approach development with care, transparency, and a strong focus on preserving the community fabric that residents value so deeply.

 

 

What is the biggest threat to current residents’ high quality of life?

 

Brager: The biggest threat to quality of life in the Village is creating more crowding of our downtown and Main Street.  There are times when it is not pleasant to drive through town or stop at downtown businesses, because there is just too much traffic and not enough parking.  Our current zoning code helps keep density down, as long as the Plan Commission and the Village Board follow it. 

I also think our village needs to proactively protect ourselves from any kind of data center that may set its sights on our village.

 

Jones: The biggest threat to Mount Horeb’s, like in many other communities, quality of life is the combination of rising costs and the gradual weakening of the social bonds that make our community strong. As housing, property taxes, and everyday expenses increase, it becomes harder for families, seniors, and long-time residents to remain in the community and fully participate in village life.

At the same time, more of our daily lives are happening online rather than in shared civic spaces. As informal gathering places decline and people spend less time connecting face-to-face, it becomes harder to build the relationships that turn a town into a community. It’s vital that the Village do what it can to preserve and expand community amenities and support our small businesses, which are crucial to community life, while also working to bring down costs.

 

Fendrick: The biggest threat is that economic development will grow stagnant, causing residents’ property taxes to skyrocket. If you want to preserve the quality of life we currently enjoy in Mount Horeb, measured, sustainable growth isn’t just a reality, it’s a necessity.

 

Kelley: Rising costs of everything. 

And for the residents who live on the north side of the village, misplaced large mixed-use apartment buildings going up in a geographic area that makes no sense. 

 

Sopcak: We need to find a method to communicate to our residents so they can have a say in how growth versus services affects them in our village which would help determine “high quality of life” of the village.

 

Clary: From my conversations with neighbors, the biggest concern affecting quality of life is rapid population growth through new housing and apartments that may not fit well with existing neighborhoods. Mount Horeb’s unique street layouts and village design mean that adding too much too fast can strain resources, increase traffic, and change the character residents treasure.

It’s essential to consider the voices of those living adjacent to new projects early in the planning process, rather than after decisions are made. Respecting neighbors helps maintain the trust and cohesion that our village depends on.

 

 

What are the village’s greatest opportunities moving forward?

 

Brager: Our greatest opportunity is striving to keep the small-town charm and character we have.  If we can manage to save and savor our charm, we will be a wonderful and happy place to live going forward.  A place that other villages and towns envy.

 

Jones: Mount Horeb has several significant opportunities moving forward. Thoughtful economic development can continue to strengthen the Village’s tax base, attract businesses, and provide housing options that meet the needs of families and individuals. Expanding mixed-use and commercial spaces, both in our downtown and at greenfield sites, offers a chance to bolster the local economy while maintaining our small-town character.

Another major opportunity lies in cross-community collaboration. Working with neighboring municipalities on shared priorities, like tourism promotion and regional public safety, can increase efficiency, reduce costs, and make Mount Horeb a stronger part of the broader region.

Finally, the Village can continue to invest in public spaces, amenities, and infrastructure that improve quality of life for residents of all ages. By combining proactive planning, thoughtful development, and community engagement, Mount Horeb can grow responsibly while preserving the character that makes it special.

 

Fendrick: The business park will provide shovel-ready locations for new and/or expanding businesses. The Village has lost economic growth opportunities in the past because of the lack of ready land. We also need to complete the development of the Mount Horeb Recreation Complex to give our residents additional recreational opportunities.

 

Kelley: Capitalizing on our heritage by expanding heritage tourism in the downtown. Instead of suburbanized mixed-use big-box buildings, let’s come up with ways to make our downtown an even greater destination than it is, like New Glarus, Stoughton, and Galena. This way we would have the benefits of a tourism economy while growing responsibly (outside the heritage zone) in one of the best counties in one of the most beautiful states in the United States. 

 

Sopcak: Strengthening the Scandinavian heritage and troll themed attractions that can be found in Mount Horeb, by adding trolls at the village main entry points (for cars and bicycles). Leveraging local cultures, art, music, festivals, museum, etc... to continue our tourism growth. The Lukken farm development project which has the potential to provide additional land for residential housing and providing park and recreation space.

 

Clary: We stand at a critical crossroads. Mount Horeb hasn’t lost control of its growth or economy, but we must act wisely now. By taking a step back, listening, and working collaboratively, we can guide our village toward a future that balances progress and preservation. Success will depend on a shared commitment from leaders, residents, and businesses alike to put Mount Horeb’s well-being first.

 

Local property taxes in Mount Horeb have risen significantly in recent years. Many homeowners are currently paying double what they paid in local taxes just a decade ago. The increases are driven primarily by the school district and other sources, but the village levy is rising too (and increased property assessments allow the tax levy to rise substantially without the tax rate appearing much higher). How can municipal government balance the need to pay its bills and provide vital services with the need to keep the village an affordable place to live for everyone who calls it home? 

 

Brager: We need to address property taxes.  This is the #1 issue people discuss with me about the village.  The last thing we want to do is price people out of their homes by continuing to have property taxes rise in the manner they have been.  We need to continue to provide the vital services that the village enjoys, but we should not be buying farms for development.  We need to be looking for ways to cut budgets where there is waste, and use the existing assets we have more efficiently.

 

Jones: I am firmly committed to keeping property taxes as low as possible in Mount Horeb. I see one of my primary roles as a Board member is to question costs whenever new ideas or projects are proposed and to ensure the Village is using resources efficiently. I am also interested in maximizing non-property tax sources of revenue, and while we’ve made some progress, I will continue to explore additional opportunities to help fund vital services without placing undue burden on homeowners.

 

Fendrick: The Village’s share of property taxes did rise this past year due to the Lukken farm purchase and debt used to finance many upcoming road projects. Our tax rate remains competitive in Dane County and roughly tracks with the rate of inflation over the past 20 years. 

The Village needs measured, sustainable economic growth to reduce the property tax burden on homeowners. This includes multiple options for new housing, new retail and commercial establishments to serve the needs of residents and visitors, and industrial / manufacturing opportunities to provide additional jobs. Otherwise, Village residents will either face rising property taxes as the cost of receiving desired services increases, or they will need to accept that those services may be cut to keep tax rates reasonable.

 

Kelley: I do not have an answer to this question. I will learn from others and come to my own conclusions for possible relief. 

 

Sopcak: Everyone has to understand per state statutes Chapter 61 (Villages) and Chapter 74 (Property Tax Collection) which allow village boards to manage finances, levy taxes, and impose fees to cover services, which the state strictly controls. Also remember your property tax bill also includes levies for school districts, county and technical college. Also, state funding for schools has decreased, which has led to referendums to cover the short falls. We need to engage the residents to discuss both village and school budgets to ensure understanding and oversight.

 

Clary: Property taxes have risen sharply in recent years, driven by schools and other factors, but the village levy has also increased. To keep Mt Horeb affordable, I believe we must carefully review all services and ask ourselves: which ones are essential, which are nice but optional? Growing up, I learned the difference between needs and wants, and I think that lesson applies here.

For example, street sweeping is a great service, but is it necessary on a routine basis? Our roads and infrastructure are generally in good shape, so are we optimizing how we design and maintain them? It’s frustrating and costly to build roads only to dig them up shortly after for repairs. We should ask tough questions and focus on efficiency without sacrificing quality.

 

What is your favorite thing about Mount Horeb?

 

Brager: I love that Mt. Horeb feels like, and is, as small town with character.  We are not cookie-cutter like some of the larger municipalities around us.  The villagers are ready to fight to protect that character.  Our public is engaged and informed, (now more than ever) and that makes the idea of reforming our village board so exciting!

 

Jones: I love the many ways our village fosters community. This includes our active churches, a very engaged Chamber of Commerce, our terrific annual festivals, and the omnipresent trolls (which my kids and I love!) displayed at so many businesses and non-profits. Mount Horeb truly stands out in the area for its clear identity and strong community engagement. 

 

Fendrick: Everyone in my family has made good friends during our time here – the kind of friends you keep for a lifetime. That comes from living in a friendly, open community.

 

Kelley: The historic downtown, the friendly people, and the safety of our community. 

 

Sopcak: The friendliness of the people of Mount Horeb, the small village charm and the driftless geology of this area.

 

Clary: What I love most about living here is the genuine small-town feel and our wonderfully unique downtown. It’s heartwarming to see tourists stopping to take pictures of the trolls, chatting with shop owners, and experiencing what makes Mount Horeb special. The friendliness of our people and the shared sense of community remind me that we don’t have to be big to be meaningful. Mount Horeb’s character is one of its greatest assets, and I’m committed to helping keep it that way.

 

Anything else? 

 

Brager: Our village board needs reform.  We need trustees who represent the villagers, rather than blind service to developers and extreme economic development. Mount Horeb needs to slow down. We need to protect our small-town life, charming downtown, and continue to be a place where families can live and enjoy the type of life that brought them to Mount Horeb in the first place.  I am running to protect the way of life we all love about Mount Horeb!

 

Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to serve Mount Horeb and would be honored to continue that service. I take the responsibility seriously and am committed to thoughtful decision-making, open government, and keeping Mount Horeb a great place to live for current and future residents.

 

Fendrick: Please visit my website, jasonfendrick.com for more information on my campaign and insights on my vision for Mount Horeb!

 

Kelley: The impetus for me to run for village trustee is to protect our downtown. But I love our whole village! I want to collaborate and be a part of solving solutions. The current village leadership is not, in my opinion, representing the wants and needs of our citizens because they don’t want to hear what those wants and needs are. And they are doing everything they can to push through what they think is best without citizen participation. I cannot change that from the outside, so I want to be elected to see what I can do from the inside. Thank you.

 

Sopcak: Also, I have lived in Mount Horeb since 1990s.

 

Clary: If elected, I look forward to serving with empathy, openness, and dedication to the values that make Mt. Horeb a wonderful place to call home.