County Board - Regular Meeting

Supervisor Pasler, communicate with you. Can you hear me, please? Thank you. With that, I'm calling the county board meeting to order. If the clerk would please call the roll. Carvel. Here.

Carvel here. Peters. Peters here. Peterson. Peterson here. Here. Postler.

Postler here. Postler here. Ritt.

Rit here. Rit here. Rose.

Rose here.

Rose here. Rylander. I'm here. Rylander here. Smith.

Smith here.

Smith here. Udell?

Udell here.

Udell here. Valdrin. Valdrin. Wegleitner. Here. Wegleitner here. Wagon. Ericsson. Freeze. Freeze.

Freeze is freezing alcohol.

Yeah. I thought I saw him. Furman.

Furman here.

Furman here. Glazer. Glazer. Gray.

Gray here.

Gray here. Hussleman.

Hussleman here.

Hussleman here. Jackson. Jackson here. Camp. Camp here. Crowning. Crowning here. Crowning here. Larson. Larson. Absent. Maren. Maren here. Here. Miles.

Miles here.

We do have a quorum.

K. Quorum

being present. Laser. K. We'll move on to the inspirational this evening being provided by supervisor McCarville.

Tonight, I'm giving my last official inspirational message as a county board supervisor. We are living in some of the most difficult times that we have ever experienced in this country's county, state, and in this country. Some days, the world seems to have gone crazy. Lately, the president is attacking the pope. The pope.

And, of course, the president pretty much attacks anybody that gets in his light line of sight for too long. He's attacked other countries without being attacked first, and he always threatens to attack other countries besides the ones that he already has. And the drama goes on and on and on. And then there is ICE and homeland security, things folks folks should trust in, but now only fear. So it's a little hard to be inspired. But there are signs and there are good signs. Elections are shifting the balance of power as people go to the polls. Folks want change. The courts and the judges are standing their ground and doing their jobs. But the things that really inspire me more are everyday acts.

Recent storms with all the damage across the country and right in our backyards have brought out the best in people. Neighbors helping neighbors, strangers helping strangers. I heard from folks at a breakfast meeting this morning how the high school kids route all over the village, helping out where needed. Moving tree limbs and debris, they weren't told to do it. They just showed up ready to help.

That warms my heart. A community coming together. There is a beautiful picture of a rainbow that was sent to me by a friend after one of the storms, just natural beauty given by mother nature. Simple acts of kindness can turn one's one person's whole day around. Holding open a door, a simple good morning. The glass can be half empty or the glass can be half full or it can just be a half glass. You get to decide. So my wish list for all of you is to have courage and be kind. We don't know the struggles that others have. We can't tell just by looking at them.

So let's disagree without being disagreeable. Let's tackle the issues and not the person. Call your mom, call your dad, or call somebody else's mom and dad if yours are gone. It'll make their day. Loneliness is huge for older people. Take a moment to visit with a senior or a shut in and just a little time from you is such a big deal for them. You get a chance, hold a baby or play with a kid. They're a lot of fun and kids do teach us a lot. I know I have 30 great nieces and nephews. The oldest one just graduated high school and a new set of twins are about seven pounds each.

Someday when we are old and gray, those kids will be running the show. So let's teach them well. I'll leave you with a few great quotes. To accomplish great things, we must not only act but also dream. Not only plan but also believe. Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. And it's courage that continues. It is the courage to continue that counts. You believe in yourself, anything is possible.

So last and not least, life has no remote, so just get up and change it yourself. Please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, supervisor McCarville. K. We are now on to special matters and announcements. The first item before us this evening is item one twenty twenty five resolution four twenty nine, commemorating former Dane County Board Supervisor and Parks Commissioner William Bill George Lunny. Supervisor Aker is going to present.

You guys are welcome to come up here for this part if you would like. This is twenty twenty five resolution four twenty nine. Whereas William, Bill, George Lenny, born 09/24/1941, passed away on Saturday, 02/28/2026 at the age of 84 surrounded by his loving family. And whereas Bill served as a supervisor on the Dane County Board during two separate periods from 1969 to 1974 representing Districts 40 And 27, including the towns of Madison, Fitchburg, and Middleton, and from 1979 to 1986, representing District 20 in the city of Madison. And whereas during his tenure on the board, Bill served on numerous boards, commissions, and committees, including finance, public protection, judiciary, budget, developmental disabilities, park commission, and the regional planning commission.

And whereas his leadership and vision extended beyond committee service and contributed to structural improvements in the county government, including efforts that helped lead to the creation of the elected office of Dane County Executive. And whereas in 1987, Bill was appointed by county executive Jonathan Berry to the Dane County Park Commission, where he served for thirty years as the commission's chair. And whereas during his leadership on the Park Commission, Bill was instrumental in expanding Dane County's park system and natural resource areas from approximately three three thousand five hundred acres to more than 15,000 acres, preserving critical landscapes for future generations. And whereas Bill championed conservation, public access, and environmental stewardship, helping to guide the acquisition and protection of wetlands, prairies, and open spaces throughout Dane County. And whereas Bill, together with his wife, Judy Pfeiffer, cofounded the Foundation for Dane County Parks, where he served as president and helped build a permanent endowment to support the ongoing stewardship and enhancement of Dane County Parks.

And whereas through the dedication and partnership of Bill and Judy, countless residents and visitors are able to enjoy the beauty and accessibility of Dane County Parks, including the William g Lenny Lake Farm County Park, which stands as a lasting tribute to his legacy. And whereas Bill was especially committed to ensuring accessibility and inclusivity in parks, championing projects such as accessible fishing piers and kayak launches, and promoting opportunities for youth engagement, outdoor education, and volunteerism that support physical and mental well-being. And whereas in recent years, Bill resided in Sun Prairie and was recognized for his decades of conservation leadership with a tree planting and signage in Thoreau City Park, where he will be remembered as a passionate public servant, a tireless advocate for conservation, and a generous community leader whose legacy continues to enrich the lives of all who call Dane County home. Wherein and whereas Bill was a pillar of the Wisconsin and Dane County environmental movement for several decades, as evidenced by his many awards, including the Stewardship Award and Bulls Lifetime Achievement Award from Groundwell Groundswell Conservancy, Land Stewardship Award from the Town of Dunn, the Dordle Lifetime Achievement Award from Gathering Waters Conservancy, and most recently, his introduction to the Wisconsin Conservation Hall of Fame in 2026.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Dane County Board of Supervisors hereby honors the life and legacy of William Bill George Lenny expresses its deep gratitude for his many contributions to Dane County and its past, current, and future residents, and extends its heartfelt sympathy to his family, friends, and all who knew him. And be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be prevent presented to his wife, Judy Pfeiffer, and his family as a token of the Dane County Board's respect and appreciation. Moved by Eicher.

Moved by Eicher. Seconded by, Yiddell. All in favor of approval, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no. Motion carries. The resolution is adopted. Go ahead.

Awesome. Thank you, Lenny, for being here. I, when I was on put on park commission, Bill had actually been on park commission longer than I had been alive. And and we instantly found some commonalities with our love of women's soccer, which I came from, hence the outfit, and having both served multiple terms on the county board in from multiple districts. And I just I treasure the time that I was able to learn and work with Bill.

I also have some comments from Tom Thorson, who is the chair of our park commission, who served with, Bill for a long time that I wanted to share. So Dane County Parks are truly gems of our natural landscape. I need these back. That are important part of our community. It is especially appropriate that the county board recognize Bill Lennie, Judy Pfeiffer, and Lennie family for their over fifty years of dedicated service to Dane County and the people of Wisconsin.

Thank you. Bill was a huge advocate of building partnerships for our parks, and one of those partners is the Dane County Conservation League, whom is having their annual fundraising banquet tonight. So sorry I could not be downtown in person. He's joining via Zoom, thank you to me, for reading this note and for reading the meaningful resolution from the county board. We are so fortunate here in Dane County for so many reasons, some of which is a cooperative, vibrant community, dedicated elected officials, and strong partners working for the betterment of our lands and waters. This is a vision and legacy that Bill Lenny mentored us all in. Thank you, Bill, and thank you all from Tom Thorson.

You

guys would like to say anything, Judy?

I'm here with our sons, Mike and Dave, and our granddaughter, got to go to the next generation, Anne Marie. I wanna thank the county board, thank Patrick, and and Liz, wherever he went, for this great honor of this resolution. I want you to know how much the County Board experience of being a supervisor here for twelve years meant to Bill and to his success. He started his real conservation work in the nineteen sixties and seventies when he was on the county board. His constituents came to him about saving Duns Marsh.

He wrote a memoir about it years later stating that saving Duns Marsh and saving the Monona Wetlands when they widened the beltline the first time led to the whole movement in the state of saving wetlands. When Bill was appointed to the county board and then reelected, he began advocating for conservation and environment. What he learned as a county board supervisor for twelve years was vital to his success. Campaigning door to door, and I know you all know what that's like, sharpened his ability to communicate, but more importantly, instilled in him how important it is to listen. That ability allowed him over more than half a century to lead others, overcome obstacles, and achieve great things for conservation.

Last time our family was here was in 2019 when the board, all of your predecessors, and some of you were here to name the park after him, the the William G. Luni Lake Farm Park, and our family will be forever grateful for that. When Bill was county board or or when Bill was county parks commission chair for thirty years, he felt something was missing. What he wanted was a way to assure a public private partnership to breathe breathe life into parks and to help support parks and trails when government couldn't. So he worked with the commission and the park staff and Laura Hicklin, who was here, she did a lot of it, to create that endowment that was talked about in the resolution.

And in fact, now it has reached a million dollars which he envisioned twelve years ago. His last legacy, as you heard, was the creation of the foundation for Dane County Parks, which is now a self sustaining organization to support our Dane County Parks trails and natural areas, providing accessibility, training for children and youth, promoting parks as a place for physical and mental health, and parks as an essential part of our ecosystem. I would like to end with Bill's most well known quote. A park is not just a piece of land. It's a vibrant part of a community.

It is a source of pride and a place for people to reconnect with the natural beauty around us. Thank you again to the board and to Patrick and to Annalise and to all of you for this honor tonight of this resolution. Thank you very much. Oh my. Thank you, Patrick.

Thank you. Okay. Item two under special matters is 2025 resolution to 04/28, recognizing April 2026 as sexual assault awareness month and child abuse prevention month. Let's see. We have there

we are.

Was looking, okay, you're not on that side, you're over here. Supervisor Andre reading this resolution. Go ahead.

Thank you. And you'll note we are recognizing two different special matters this month, so I appreciate your patience as we call attention to both here. Whereas April is recognized nationally as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, SAM and the 2026 theme, '25 Looking Back, Moving Forward recognizes the history and growth of the movement while reaffirming a shared commitment to a safer future. Whereas this theme honors the survivors, advocates, and communities whose leadership and resilience have laid the foundation for progress while calling for renewed focus on prevention, healing, accountability, and collective action. And whereas the unique theme for the week of April this year, From Awareness to Action Prevention is a Shared Responsibility, emphasizes that preventing sexual violence requires engagement at every level, individual, community, organizational, and systemic, whereas this call to action reinforces that creating environments rooted in safety, respect, and accountability is a shared responsibility that requires sustained commitment from all sectors of society, and where sexual violence remains a pervasive public health and safety issue in Dane County, the state of Wisconsin, and across The US, with more than fifty three percent of women and over twenty nine percent of men reporting experiences of sexual violence in their lifetimes, And whereas in Wisconsin, one in five high school students report being forced into unwanted sexual activity, and an estimated forty three percent of LGBTQ plus youth report experiencing sexual assault

or

coercion, highlighting disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations, and whereas sexual violence remains significantly underreported with nearly eighty percent of sexual assaults in The U. S. Going unreported, reflecting the need to create safe, supportive, and accessible pathways for survivors to come forward. And whereas local organizations, such as the Dane County Multi Agency Center, Dane MAC, plays a vital role in supporting survivors by meeting them where they are, providing trauma informed care, and ensuring dignity and respect throughout the reporting and healing process, whereas April is also recognized as Child Abuse Prevention Month. And the 2026 theme Pinwheels of Possibility acknowledges families at the center with each turn representing the systems, programs, policies, and everyday acts of care that strengthen families and help them thrive.

Whereas in Dane County, child abuse and neglect remain critical concerns with thirteen twenty three Child Protective Services reports in 2024, 11.9 reports per 1,000 children, and one hundred and ninety six children identified as victims of substantiated maltreatment, highlighting the ongoing need to invest in prevention, strengthen families, and expand access to supportive services across the community. Whereas there are multiple local organizations and community led initiatives in Dane County that respond to the needs of children and families who have experienced trauma by providing a broad continuum of services, including prevention, early intervention, therapeutic support, family centered programming, all designed to strengthen parent child relationships, support mental and behavioral health, and promote resilience, overall contributing to the well-being and stability of our county's communities, whereas both sexual assault awareness month and child abuse prevention month serve opportunity to raise awareness, center survivor and family voices, promote education, and strengthen prevention strategies across Dane County. Whereas Dane County remains committed to advancing justice, equity, and public safety by supporting survivors, strengthening prevention efforts, partnering with local organizations, advocates, and service providers working to end sexual violence and child abuse and promote healing. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Dane County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Child Abuse Prevention Month in Dane County and honors the strength, resilience, and courage of survivors and their families.

Be it further resolved that the Dane County Board of Supervisors commits to advancing policies and supporting initiatives that prevent violence, strengthen families, promote accountability, and ensure accessible, culturally responsive, and trauma informed services for all survivors, be it finally resolved that the Dane County Board of Supervisors encourages residents, community organizations, and institutions to engage in education, advocacy, and prevention efforts, reflect on the impacts of violence, and work collectively toward a future rooted in safety, justice, healing, and dignity for all. Moved by Andre.

Alright. Moved by Andre, seconded by, Welsh.

Thank you. I'll just make one quick note and then we have speakers. Oh,

All very in favor of approval, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed, say no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. Go ahead.

Thank you, chair. For a year while I was in grad school, I, answered the overnight crisis line of the Rape Crisis Center, two nights a week sitting in Meritor Hospital just waiting for that phone to ring, not knowing what kind of a call you would get on the other end, whether it was someone literally experiencing trauma right then and there, you know, having woken up in a frat house or somewhere else on campus not knowing what had happened or someone who was processing grief from many years ago or just needed someone to listen to them. I still get a little anxious when I hear the sound of that ring on that phone, because it it woke me up in the middle of the night, and I knew that someone on the other line was having probably the worst day of their life. I just wanna appreciate the people that do that work every single day with survivors, with victims, with people and their families who also need support in those processes and often don't know how to handle it. It was a job I was interested in doing professionally but actually figured out I couldn't handle it.

So I have a great appreciation for the people that do that every day and no matter what role that looks like. And just want to emphasize what I learned in that process, which was about the resiliency of individuals. What support looks like can be very, very different, and how powerful it is just to listen and do that without judgment. So thank you for all the work that our community organizations, families, support do every single day. And I'm happy to invite up speakers from both Dane Mack as well as the Rainbow Project, whether you want to speak over here or over there.

Rachel Settler from Dane Mack.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, board of supervisors, community partners, and neighbors. On behalf of Dane Mac, thank you for this meaningful proclamation recognizing April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Your leadership sends a powerful message to survivors across Dane County, one that says you matter, your experiences matter, and most importantly, that this community is committed to your safety, health, and wellness. Sexual violence remains, as ever, a public health crisis with devastating lasting consequences deeply rooted, widely experienced, and far too often ignored.

The data reflected in this resolution reminds us that these harms affect all of us across the lifespan, across identities, across our community. The numbers reflect what survivors have always understood, that our historic systems of support have always failed to reduce the spread of this public health epidemic. So this year's theme, 25 Looking Back, Moving Forward, calls on us not only to honor progress, but to be honest about where we must do better. Moving from awareness to action means acknowledging that prevention requires sustained systemic commitment at every level of our community, a commitment to doing more, doing things differently, doing things better. Every day, survivors tell me that the experience of navigating post assault resources can be as traumatic as the assault that they experienced.

At DANE MAC, we're working hard to create solutions that make it easier for survivors to connect with the specialized help they choose whenever and wherever they want it. Access to post assault care is not just about availability, though. It's about choice, dignity, and control. Survivors need options that meet their diverse needs. Care that is trauma informed, culturally responsive, available whenever, wherever they choose on their terms.

That access empowers. When survivors can decide if, when, and how they receive care, they are better positioned to move through their trauma. And when our systems honor autonomy rather than impose barriers, they rebuild trust. So today, we at Dane Mack hope the powerful words of this proclamation serve as a catalyst for big transformational change. Invest in prevention.

Strengthen pathways to survivor centered care. Champion bold ideas and innovative solutions. Thank you to the county board for your partnership, your leadership, and your commitment to this type of action. Dane Mack is so honored to stand with you as we work together towards growing that community that we want rooted in safety, empathy, justice, healing, and dignity for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Rachel. And Cheryl Cato is going to address the board as well.

Good evening. My name is Cheryl Cato and I'm the executive director at the Rainbow Project. We're a child and family counseling and community resource clinic on our forty sixth year serving over 40,000 children who have from infancy through now middle school and high school experienced trauma. So we're really honored to be here. I am also the chair of the Child Abuse Coordinated Community Response and the Children, Youth, and Families Consortium that is under the Child Abuse CCR is under the Commission on Sensitive Crimes.

And for those of you who aren't aware, the Commission on Sensitive Crimes also is an umbrella for the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, CCR. There's also elder abuse. There is also, in addition, child abuse. But sensitive crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities. And in the sexual assault subcommittee, the human trafficking multidisciplinary team is under that as well.

And there is also the UW campus sensitive crimes that occurs. There has been a long history of the child abuse CCR, trying to coordinate all of us together in working across all of the needs from prevention, crisis, early intervention. And I think you've heard some of the things that we've talked about in the past. But three million children are witnessing shootings each year. And the CDC is also saying that there's a seventy four percent increase in deaths of children under the year as of '9 due to gun violence.

And so I think we need to be aware of that and not segregate the issues, but also look in terms of past trying to look past silos to look systemically at how we all can respond to these issues. If the serious impact of children and their suffering isn't enough, the CDC has also said that $188,000,000,000 in the state of Wisconsin alone is lost because of all of the issues that come from these kinds of traumas. At the Rainbow Project we're working with multiple, sometimes generations of human trafficking. Nationally, dollars 113,000,000,000,000 is impacted by the fact that these are happening. But I think stressing the issues means we have to look at them, and it isn't pleasant to look at.

But I think the solutions and the things that are happening every day in this community really have made that difference. And we've seen it done generationally as well. So I'm here to say as an older person who has been doing this a long time that it really does work. And the collaboration of all the communities working is really the solution to that. And so as decision makers, policy makers, we really hope that you will be able to be more trauma informed in making these kinds of supporting these kinds of solutions.

I just wanted to introduce Corinne Spencer, who is our star graduate intern, who has done a lot of the research on this too.

Okay. We are now on to announcements. And before, just to, make remind folks, this being the last meeting of the term, oftentimes people who are departing the board wanna say a few words, and we reserve that to other such business. So you're the end of the meeting, Just FYI. So any announcements? Supervisor Gray. Excuse me. Oh, you had okay. You're in the queue. So alright.

Anyone with an announcement? Supervisor Rose.

Yeah. I just want

to remind everybody, we're in the middle of the third annual Spring Roll Challenge, Great Madison MPO's round trip program, which celebrates Earth Month here in Dane County. The goal is to swap solo rides for other, more greener experiences. Dane County employees, congratulations. You're number seven on the leaderboard. We follow UW Madison, EPIC, and Wisconsin employees, well as Citizen and Madison employees. We can step it up. We have about two weeks to go. You can find information on the City of Madison site or our social media also posted about it. So thanks, Dylan, and your team for doing that. I also want to shout out to all public safety and utility workers for their safety efforts across the county in the last few days.

We're in the middle of a PPJ meeting, still hearing from Kerry at EMS about the important work that goes down. And she wrote me today that record numbers of severe weather warnings have happened so far this month. The UW climatology office has called it Wisconsin's most severe April in history, and we're only halfway through. So Kerry from EMS has said she will report more to the board in May during National EMS Week.

But thank you for your work. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other announcements? Okay. Not seeing anyone else in the queue. I just have a couple things. So next Tuesday will be our organizational meeting immediately preceding that. I think starting at 05:00, you all have an email from Cecily about this. We the we we need to put higher resolution, different sized photos of supervisors on the websites.

We're asking all supervisors, returning supervisors, and new supervisors to schedule a time that evening, I think starting at 05:00 down at City Channel to get new new photos for the the county board website. In addition, I asked the chief judge who will be swearing folks in that evening if she would arrive early, and she has agreed to do so. So she'll be here about fifteen minutes prior to the board meeting for anybody that would like a photo with the chief judge since the swearing in is sort of en masse. It gives you an opportunity to get a one on one chat with her. So I think that's all my announcements, and we shall move on to item c, is approval of payments.

We have before us bills over $10,000 referred to the county board. Is there a motion? Moved by Beldren, seconded by Peterson. Discussion, questions on the bills? Hearing none, all in favor of approval say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. With that, the motion carries and the bills are approved for payment. So we're on to e, approval of county board minutes. We have the minutes of March 19 before us as our motion.

Moved by Doolin, Seconded by Kemp. Discussion, questions, corrections to meeting minutes? K. Hearing none, all in favor of approval say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. The meeting minutes are approved. Onto the consent calendar. Here we have 18 items, and we do have registrants wishing to speak on items seventeen and eighteen. So I will separate those.

Are there are there any other requests for separation? Alright. Hearing no other requests. On the balance of items one through 16, what is before us are committee actions. So all in favor of those recommendations say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. And so those items are adopted. So we'll go on down to item 17. Let me just get to that on the agenda here.

Okay. So under 17, we have a couple registrants wishing to speak. First, we have Dan Fitch wishing wishing to speak in opposition. And this indicates that Dan is here in person, so here we are. Welcome, Dan. You have up to five minutes to address the board.

Howdy, folks. I'll keep it much shorter than that. Thanks for listening. If, you all remember, we spent about $12,000,000 planning the jail. And the I haven't done a full addition myself of adding up all the money we've spent repairing and fixing the plans and giving money to the builders.

But some folks have estimated it's over $4,200,000 after the original price tag. I'd like folks to think a little more carefully about this boondoggle of a project that we've been the community has been warning you about for a long time, and also bring up the fact that the sheriff hinted at a recent PP and J meeting that the completion of this jail may not lead to the closing of the existing jail facilities, which would make this no longer a jail consolidation project as it is currently being called. I would like us to, as a county, consider preventing the working to prevent the underlying causes of harm instead of punishing and destroying even more lives in our jail. And I'm concerned that we've just secretly, kind of behind the scenes, decided that we are expanding our jail even more by not closing the extant horrible cages upstairs. And I'd like people to follow-up with the sheriff about that.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker? Hearing none. Our next registrant is Erica Bach wishing to speak in opposition who is on Zoom. She okay. Welcome, Erica. You have up to five minutes to address the board.

Thank you so much, chair Miles and members of the body. I am registered in opposition to both this item and the following. I'll keep my comments very brief, specifically for the reason that mister Fitch just shared. We have heard for the sheriff comment recently that we might not be closing, CCB, which is one of the primary premises of undertaking years, over 10, in fact, a decade plus of building, quote, the new jail on the many reiterations that we have seen over the last ten plus years. Only to come to this point, we're promised a deadline finish date of fall two thousand twenty seven.

You all made your votes and asserted the public's money based on those premises. So as soon as that has been so much as uttered behind closed doors, I really call upon you to make that transparent to the public and not just lodged into your agenda this evening. You have a full course of action ahead of you. These are the types of decisions and dollar amounts that deserve so much more, including public transparency. So just by way of comparison, in November 2025, I spoke before you all against change order 172.

At that point, I pointed out that we were almost $1,000,000 in for every change order that this board had approved. We are now at numbers two hundred and eighteen and two hundred and nineteen. At this rate, in the last five months, this board is approving roughly nine to 10 change orders per month on this jail. If you plan to continue to approve nine to 10 change orders per month, it might be wise to halt any additional funding going forward on this project until we determine what in fact is the total lost cause sunken cost analysis that needs to take place. Dean County residents are now in for well over the $161,000,000 that was originally estimated.

We're now up to a 165,000 excuse me. A 165,000,000 plus, and that's before any interest, any debt service, any additional bonds. This is at this point, folks just feeling really irresponsible. It lacks transparency. Yes. You're approving, you know, 72,300 thousand here and there, but it's adding up, as mister Fitch said, for $4,200,000. So before we hit even more numbers, again, we're at $2.18 and $2.19. I'm gonna ask you all to hold off on approving any additional dollars. And the other part that I just need to highlight, please look at the resolution. Please excuse me.

I don't know if it's 02/18 or 02/19, but it says that the fittings for these grills only came about because a request was submitted and was determined to be out of compliance for DOC. Had that not been caught, all of that money would have been spent, and we would have had to redo that part of the project anyway. So, again, a much more cohesive look at what these dollars are getting spent on, and I'd like to ask this board either now before folks leave or with our new board being brought in soon to decide what what is the ultimate cost that this jail is going to cost, the taxpayers, and for all of you, your reputation. So I thank you very much. Please vote no on this item as well as the following.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for Erica? I'm hearing no questions. That is the final registrant on resolution four ten. What is before us is the Public Works and Transportation Committee recommendation for approval. Is there any discussion, questions on resolution four ten? Yeah. All in favor of the recommendation of approval, aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. That motion carries.

Resolution four ten is adopted. We're on to item eighteen twenty twenty five, resolution four eleven, contract change order number 219 for the jail consolidation project at 115 West Doty Street, Madison, Wisconsin. Contractor, Byron Construction. And we do have registrants on this one. A registrant. Again, Erica Bach. Erica, are you wishing to speak again, or did you say your piece under the last item?

Thank you, chair. No. I I have commented already. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. That. Okay. Alright. So what is before us on resolution four eleven is a public works and transportation committee recommendation for approval. So discussion or questions on the supervisor Wegleiter.

Sorry. This is f 18. Correct. Okay. Can I be recorded as voting no on '18 and f 17? Sorry. There's no objection.

Okay.

Alright. With there being no one else

in the queue, on the recommendation of approval, those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no. That motion carries, and the resolution is adopted. K. This takes us on to h, reports on zoning petitions. We have two items before us this evening. Is there any request to separate the two? Hearing none, what is before us is the zoning and land regulation recommendation for approval for those two items. Those are I have two on my copy. Okay. Oh, that's because those would have been the the meeting was canceled on Tuesday because of the storms.

So so there are two items before us with the recommendation approval. All in favor of approval, aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Those items are adopted. We're on to I, ordinances. We have one item here that is twenty twenty five o a 29 amending chapter 15 of the Dane County code of ordinances regarding the airport commission. The executive committee took action on this earlier this evening. Well, actually, yeah, with the recommendation of approval, but the first committee to act on it was Public Works and Transportation Committee with with a recommendation of approval.

So that is what is before us. Any discussion on OA 29? Supervisor Weglinger.

Thank you, chair Miles. I would say I'm generally supportive of the proposed amendment to add some City Of Madison representation through the alder representing the airport. I guess what I was wondering a bit about is if the language saying that if the alder who represents the airport district declines to serve, then an alder representing either the district east or west of the airport would have, I guess, the next option to serve. Do we know what those district district numbers numbers are? Are?

Is that immediately to the East or immediately to the West? We don't have that same qualifying language for supervisors on the airport commission. It could just be any supervisor within the city of Madison. So just wondering if maybe one of the authors could speak to that.

Supervisor Furman? Thank you. I'll do

my best. I I the goal was just to try to be as generic as possible because those districts obviously change every ten years. And this is gonna be, you know, an ordinance that we don't wanna necessarily have to change every ten years. I don't think there were any particular districts in mind other than I mean, I can go probably look at the map and try to figure out what it is currently. But really the idea is that, you know, every ten years those, the boundaries could change or, and even the numbers could change. And then we didn't wanna codify actual district numbers.

Thank you, Supervisor Furman. I guess it sounds like then the intent is to have sort of another, the closest next district? Is that the intent of OA? Okay. I mean, I'm supportive of that, I guess.

I'm just thinking seems like for consistency purposes, we should offer the same benefit to county board supervisors who represent, nearby districts, which is we used to have. We used to enumerate super you know, particular district numbers and then amended this ordinance to just say District 12 or, you know, or some other district representing the majority of a population in the city of Madison. So I guess that's what I'm toying with is whether we should have another amendment that that represents that same intent. So I don't know. If we wanna do committee work on the board floor, I'll think about it.

But a motion to re refer is another option to to have public works take that up.

Supervisor Fuhrman. Thank

you. I would strongly suggest that we we can certainly work on another version of this, but I think a lot of appointments are up now. And so the idea is starting in May, there would be new appointments. Our District 12 is still District 12, still comprises, you know, the airport. You know, I guess we'll run into an issue if the District 12, supervisor decides he doesn't wanna be on the aircom port commission, but I assume that's probably not the case.

There you go. He he is still interested. But I would strongly recommend, I mean, you wanna make amendments that we we do another version and try to pass this now so the committee can be set up in May, which will also, my understanding, include a joint committee meeting with public works, I believe, in May. So just timing wise, it's it's it's a good idea for us to try to get this passed now. And certainly, you can make up those backup changes, which I guess my point trying to be is don't don't apply now, but could apply in

the

future if district numbers change and we could be more specific. I I agree that it shouldn't just be any any supervisor if district if the district if the supervisor in 12 doesn't wanna do it, we should certainly have similar logic. And so I'd be happy to work with you on that.

Supervisor Weigleitner. Supervisor Weigleitner,

did you Yes.

Thank you. I I just have an amendment that I'd like to move. And I think I've put that in writing, so I'm writing it

down. Yep. Think we we need to add to our audio system some sort of background music, I guess.

All right, it's a little messy. So I'm going to move that at line 18, that we strike District 12 and replace with the district that encompasses the airport. And then at line 21 I'm sorry, line, yeah, 21. So it would be right after the word district. In line 20, it would say to the east or west of the district, which encompasses the airport.

I hope that is legible. But I need a second. Just need a second.

Okay. We have a motion by Wegleitner, second by Welsh to amend the language on lines eighteen and twenty as 21 as read. Anybody need it red again? Alright. Hearing no requests. The motion to amend is before us, supervise of Bureshuk and the Wegleitner amendment.

Sure. Just asking supervisor Wegleitner to explain and the intent Please. And direct

your question this morning.

I rise to request that supervisor Wegleitner explain in more plain language what she's aiming at with this amendment.

Okay. If if she so chooses, supervisor Wegleitner.

Thank you, chair Miles. I would love to speak briefly in support of the amendment. So the idea here is just consistency. So, you know, if the airport district supervisor declines or gets booted or whatever, then, the next option would be to have a supervisor to the East or the West, which would be consistent still comprising with the majority of City Of Madison residents, so to be consistent with the language related to city elders. I represent a district that's very close to the airport.

I've never been on the airport commission. We've had West side alders that have been on the airport commission under this current language. And I just think it's it's a better representation of the communities most impacted to give that spot potentially to the district closest if the airport district is not able to serve. Does that make sense? And then the language is just kind of cleaning up to take out the number 12 for the reasons that supervisor Furman identified, which is redistricting and renumbering.

Supervisor Fries.

Yeah. I was

just wondering if you could just read the

language one more time again. Okay.

So at line 18, the sentence would start, the district let me get back to here. Let's see. Line 18, replacing District 12 with the district that encompasses the airport. Line 21. Let's see here.

21. So it would read adding to the East or the West. So let's see here. If such supervisor declines to serve, resigns, or is removed from the commission while also serving as supervisor, another county board supervisor from a district to the East or the West

and so on and so forth. Okay.

Good. That's a supervisor District 12. So so we're talking what is presently District 12 and east or west of that. K. Supervisor Rylander.

Yeah. I just wanted to say that I'm in favor of this. It seems like with redistricting, the number 12 might not be the district number of the person most appropriate serving this committee in the future. So I think this is fine.

Supervisor Wegleitner for a second time on your.

Thank you, chair. Sorry. I just realized that I probably should have written Dane County Regional Airport. I don't know if that's something that can just be taken care of by corp council as a technical amendment or if I should move an amendment to well, the clerk. I just mean in if it's like an errata, a technical change that could be made, not substantive. But I will move an amendment to the amendment to substitute Dane County Regional Airport to the airport if the clerk thinks that's necessary.

We don't we don't need a motion for that. The clerk can just add that. So

okay.

Sorry. Supervisor Furman. Thank you.

I was actually, one thing. I was gonna stand up and say that it needed that I was gonna suggest that it's a Dane County Regional Airport, so thank you for fixing that. I am supportive of this, and I did want to if anybody is keeping track of numbers at home, the the thought was the current City Of Madison District 18 followed by District 17. But that's just an FYI. Thanks.

All right. And that apparently answered somebody else's comment. So the board is clear. Alright. So on the Weigleitner amendment, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. That motion carries. OA 29 is amended by the Weigleitner amendment. So that is now what is before us. Any further discussion on OA 29 as amended? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Aye.

With that, motion carries and the OA is adopted. We're on to k resolutions. We have two items here. The first one is twenty twenty five resolution three zero two accepting funds from state of Wisconsin Department of Children and Family families. Sorry. Let's see. And what oh, yeah.

That's not okay.

What is before us is the Health and Human Needs Committee recommendation of sub one. So discussion or questions on resolution three zero two, and I just I need I just remembered I need to check registrants, make sure we're okay. No registrants on that. Excuse me. So there being no discussion on the resolution, all in favor of the recommendation of approval of sub one, say aye.

Aye. Opposed, say no. K. And with that, the resolution three zero two is adopted. On to item two, twenty twenty five resolution three sixty seven, authorizing lease at 2429 Perry Street for Joining Forces for Families program. What is before us is a public works and transportation committee recommendation of approval. Is there and we do not have any registrants on that item. So any discussion? Questions? Hearing none.

All in favor of approval say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. That resolution three sixty seven is adopted. Moving on to item m, items requiring more than a simple majority. We have 14 items here and let's see which ones we have. I know we have let's see. We'll separate m 11 because there are registrants wishing to speak on that item, and does not look like there are any other registrants on other items. So

separate m

one. Thank you. Okay. We got m one. Routine. Supervisor Hassler would like to abstain on m six. Supervisor Welsh?

I'd like to

abstain on m six as well.

K. And okay. There being no further requests for separation, we have oh, okay. On sevens. Separating that one?

Separating on the seven. Yes. And then six gets separated?

No. It did not. We just have a couple people abstaining. You want six separated? I

like the.

So m seven is separated.

M seven is separated. No on m six. M six is not separated. We have Wug Leitner null on there and Postler and Waushup staining. Got it.

Alright. With that, on the balance of items two through six, eight through 13, I'd like to record those of as having passed with the necessary votes more than a simple majority if there's no objection. Hearing none will be so recorded, and those items are adopted. So we'll jump back to m one. Let me switch over here.

Resolution three thirty four authorizing new harm reduction specialist positions for public health, Madison Dane County, Substance Use Prevention And Harm Reduction Unit. What is before us is the personnel and finance committee recommendation of a sub to the resolution. Discussion on m one. Supervisor Rose.

Yeah. Thank you. I'm currently listed as the sponsor of this resolution, but I will be alerting the clerk's office that I'm removing myself as sponsor. So those that have also co sponsored, I hope you listen up to what I have to share. This is my final meeting, and that means I am no longer the subcommittee chair on the opioid settlement dollars.

I also want to thank the chair for your great support in the work we've done over time. And our HHN chair has worked with our subcommittee. I've shared in these rooms, I've shared in the subcommittee level that these dollars and I want you all to listen up on this, chair these dollars are not tax levy dollars. These are not dollars that go through the normal process we do on a continuing basis in these rooms. These are dollars that were fought and earned from a lawsuit for our constituents that we fought and applied for as a county to help them for their direct loss and pain caused by an opioid crisis.

Continually, over the time I have served and been privileged to serve and listen to the voice of those most impacted, we have faced challenges because they continue That it doesn't just happen here, folks. It happens across the country, where they fall into the normal government process. And although our govern our governor is telling all 70 counties that have filed to use these dollars, and while our state is using these dollars effectively and making action, we continue to sit on the recommendations from the subcommittee that continue to be blocked, that continue to be held back. And otherwise, this position, was created these three positions, which were, I would consider, a compromise with an acting county executive from original dollars that were to go to a harm reduction center that was asked to be created by the people who spoke on behalf of those most impacted. The compromise or discussion that came out of that room with Executive Koons was that we would create three harm reduction specialist positions to the tune of about $330,000 which this is asking for our approval tonight.

Well, this was conducted over seventeen months ago. What has happened most recently because we have an MOU, as you know, as a county and as a city with public health who was in administering and doing these positions we had to slowly move the dollars from where they live in HHN, because that's where the dollars for the settlement live, over to public health. That took a long, long time. Gratitude, certainly to Cecily and the staff and the chair and corp council for helping move that along. Chair Ritt was involved I mean, supervisor Ritt was involved in a lot of those conversations.

So we created these positions. Now we're sitting with an organization, namely Public Health, which is telling us constantly what to do with our dollars and our belief. This body of people that represent the people settled by this vote, by this lawsuit, have done incredible work to say, we want to move these dollars in this way. We want to take action in this way. And we have done great work. I want the public to understand that the city of Madison never filed for opioid settlement dollars. They have $0 to spend on that population. As you can see from my passion, I am happy to tell you this story. I personally know the attorney that settled all 70 of these lawsuits. He is a family attorney friend of mine.

The city of Madison has $0 to spend, yet they continue because of our MOU with city county public health to tell us we're misusing our dollars or not to use them this way or to block them this way. The attorneys of this city continue to threaten public health from continuing to issue safe supplies. So we're sitting with three positions that are called harm reduction positions when we don't have harm reduction supplies to give out anymore. Arielle Smith is on the call. She can speak to this.

I know personally, because I work in the harm reduction realm, people saying they can't get pipes, for instance, for safe smoking, right? We on this board decriminalized and voted for our county residents to only have $1 fine if they're caught with a straw from McDonald's, which is deemed by the sheriff's office as a or by the court system to be judged as paraphernalia. The sheriff's office, the DA, the county, yourselves through your vote, the chair, the subcommittee have worked hard on this work. And now we continue to see it hacked at on a city level, which ultimately, we're speaking for their people as half of our population that has zero game in the settlement dollars. That's all I have

to share.

So I am removing myself from this. And you can hear, thank you for allowing me be passionate in this room one more time. And I'm happy to talk to anybody further on this level or outside this level. But I really encourage people to vote no on this. Or I can make amendment to postpone it. But at this point, that's all I have to say, chair.

Thank you. Supervisor Butcher.

I would just like to ask corporate counsel or the chair. I'm not sure where this goes. But the second resolution states that the three positions are dependent on availability of sufficient funding from the fund. Does that mean if the fund runs out, those positions are automatically terminated? Or would we have to take another action?

Do you wanna can you let go ahead?

Those if the funding runs out, the positions would be eliminated. They're black project positions.

Supervisor Weigleitner.

Thank you, Chair Miles. I do understand Supervisor Rose's frustration and was in the meeting when it was suggested by the public health director that an immediate kind of short term step we could take to increase harm reduction services is to add these positions so we could fully staff our existing harm reduction services within county public health because those clinics had very limited hours. And that was under then county executive Kuhn almost two years ago. So I do have a question for, division director Smith, who's a subcommittee member, and I I believe she's on the Zoom. I have heard from, members of the community that the sort of programs that had been promoted by public health, that had been available, the safe smoking supplies, the needle exchange, the harm reduction services that we are seeking to bolster with this funding have been even further reduced, which is obviously quite concerning.

Can you please explain to us what the service level is like maybe compared to how it was when we first contemplated these positions and also provide some background explanation as to why if they have been reduced, they they have been reduced and and what that means for this resolution before us tonight?

Sure. So about three weeks ago, we had a conversation with the city attorney who represents us on the city side about the supplies that we offer through our Syringe Services Program, also known as SSP. And through their determinations, they had advised us that some of the supplies that we were offering, such as the smoking supplies, glassware, including glassware and some other, related supplies were, by their interpretation, not permissible under state statute paraphernalia laws, including some review of some case law. And so following that advice, we removed, those supplies being available within the program. And so I will say it's been three weeks as a result of that.

We have seen quite a decrease in uptake for our services. I don't have exact numbers in front of me, but I would be happy to provide those. But I can say it has been pretty significant.

Is the change just related to the glassware? Is that the primary program impacted? Probably I

would say it's a variety of our services. Again, I don't have the exact I don't have our line list of offerings that we had before then, so I apologize. But, I would say it it reduced our supplies that we were offering probably by about 70%. So it includes glassware. It does include, some ancillary supplies that we were offering as well.

Thank you. Do you can you address sort of the other aspect of the the question? I guess moving forward to allocate this funding given the significant change in the services offered, it certainly gives me pause at this time. As Supervisor Rose commented, does it also give you pause? Do you think it's worthwhile for the County Board to take some time, and have further deliberations on on these programs, on this legal opinion, and think about whether this is the best position, authority, or use of this funding at this time?

I think it's tough for

me to say. From a resource perspective around substance use prevention and harm reduction, we know that we being the county, we being the broader system of partners who do this work day in and day out, don't have enough resources. It's hard for me to say definitively if this is maybe the greatest need that needs to be addressed with this funding at this time, especially given that we've seen over the past three weeks a decline in the demand for our services. That being said, though, we've seen declines before. They're not always attributed necessarily to what supplies we offer and don't.

So, I'm not in a position at this point in time to say whether we think that decrease will remain sustainable or not. I will also mention that these positions per conversations with the settlement subcommittee and talking with other departments like Human Services and Emergency Management, we were planning for these positions to have a wider scope. I can't say definitively that we've really narrowed that down at this point, but kind of per what we've offered in the position descriptions, hopeful that they could help support other programs like supporting the vending machine program, as well as helping to support some navigation to services work. And so, again, I think it's a balance. Yes.

We're seeing a decline in our direct service for our syringe services program, but there's still a lot more work to be done.

Thank you, director Smith. I, am gonna move referral of Res, three thirty four to the Health and Human Needs Committee.

That's a referral to

Health and Well, is I it a think it's a referral. I can I I can do that? Right? Don't think it was ever did it ever even go to HHN?

No. It was referred to Board of Health and then Personnel and Finance, is the committee committee of oversight for Board of Health. So you would like it refer

Motion to refer to

HHS in by Wegleitner. Seconded by Blazewitz. Discussion on referral to Supervisor Weigleitner.

Thank you. Given the HHS kind of role and relationship with the Opioid Settlement Subcommittee of HHS, the fact that it hasn't discussed this, the fact that there's ongoing conversations with the Human Services Department and public health about what these positions might look like. I think it's appropriate for HHN to consider this and make a recommendation related to it.

There being no further discussion on referral of resolution three thirty four. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Alright. Motion carries. The item is referred. Let me just take care of that. Next item is m seven. Scrolling.

Alright. M seven twenty twenty five resolution three ninety, authorize acceptance of grant funding for the Dane County Sheriff's Office hazardous devices unit. What is before us is the Public Protection and Judiciary Committee recommendation for approval. Discussion on m seven. Supervisor Weigleitner.

Thank you, chair. I think this is a question for chief deputy sheriff Barrett, I'm sorry, or chief deputy if if the sheriff so desires. But, I was looking at the contract or the, requirements, and it talks about grantee policy is to protect privacy. These are cameras. And I was just wondering where I'm looking at Article 13, I think, in the contract on page 11 that says best practices for collection and use of personally identifiable information.

It talks about a publicly available privacy policy that describes standards on the usage and maintenance of the personally identifiable information. This is, you know, something that would be associated with a particular individual, through one or more identifiers. I couldn't find those policies, so I'm wondering if they've been drafted, where they might be located. I don't think they're attached to the registrar file here.

Sheriff?

I'll have to look at more of what specifically you're talking about. I'm gonna do the impression that I have of the cameras is for reviewing hazard devices. So I would have to look into this more and get back to you on it. Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I, chair, given that we don't have sufficient information on policies developed by the sheriff's office related to the protection of personally identifiable information, I would move re referral to public protection and judiciary.

I move motion by Wigleitner to re refer resolution three ninety to public protection and judiciary. Is there a second? Seconded by Kemp. Discussion on re referrals. Supervisor Wegleiter, you wish to speak to it?

Or

I think that we're at a time and we'll be talking about this probably next or soon where protection of information and privacy is of utmost importance and especially when we're talking about grant funding, with other government agencies. I really think we want to have, a good understanding of how information is going to be used and what provisions are in place to ensure, you know, appropriate protection and privacy. I just feel more comfortable acting after we get that information. Thank you.

Okay. Supervisor Andre.

Yeah. Thank you, chair. I I appreciate, supervisor Wegletters question. That is that particular question regarding policy is not something we discussed at PP and J. I'm just looking at the contract term. I imagine with this running from February to May 2026, We would still have time to take this up at PP and J in May and get it back to the full Board. But Sheriff or Chief Judge Nygard, I'm wondering if you could comment on that timeline of the contract to ensure we wouldn't be jeopardizing the funding with, action in May at the committee. Could you comment on that or any concerns on the timeline?

I'll let Chief Deputy Nygard answer that one.

Sorry about that.

Yeah. For that, I don't have in front of me a digital copy of it, but, I don't know about the for if we for three for it if we maintain the timeline. I can't remember the numbers on there, to me get that question. I was trying to look it up real quick for the for, supervisor Wigleitner's question. So, I I can't speak to the exact timing if we can make it still.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. The I'll just note that the contract term itself is 02/23/2026 to 06/30/2026, and we're already in the you know, obviously, midway in that process. If PP and J resolves these questions, then it would still come back to the board within that term. So unless you indicate otherwise, I would not have an objection with re referral relative to any concerns about jeopardizing the funding, because we're already in the mix of that timeline now. And unless you tell me otherwise, I wouldn't see that being an issue to still move it forward.

Based on that, I don't think there's an issue for us.

K. Supervisor Petra.

Thank you, chair. I'm looking at article four of the contract. It states that all payments have to be made within thirty days of the grant period end date. That means that by the time we approve this, we have to make the purchase and have it paid by the July. Would that be possible? I guess I'm asking the sheriff or the chief deputy.

I don't know where they're sourcing their equipment for this one and how long the turnaround time is.

I guess then my comment would be, I I understand the concern on privacy and the stuff with the flock cameras. Having done EOD for the military, these cameras aren't about taking pictures of somebody's driver's license. It's about usually a mobile camera coming in and zooming in on a suspicious package or some item within a building. It's not usually taking pictures of people or their personal belongings. So I I think we could probably pretty safely approve this without the worry of privacy because that's not the type of data it's collecting.

And these cameras are usually not connected to the Internet and are usually self contained with some device for viewing. I'd hate to risk not being able to purchase the camera just because we held up another month and a half, and then suddenly we can't source and get the camera purchased in time. So I would recommend we approve it. But then if you wanna get the information from the sheriff and we see a problem, we could always turn around next month and stop it. But if we don't get this moving, we might miss the opportunity.

Supervisor Trauma.

Thanks, Chair Miles. I mean, it clearly says that they're required to have a publicly available privacy policy. So I think it would be part of our due diligence here as a board to look at that privacy policy, make sure it exists, and to do everything that's part of our grant requirements. So I think Sheriff's Department has indicated they would have enough time to turn this So I think they could get the wheels in motion with the understanding that we would be getting this privacy policy. And once we get it and look at it, it everything should be able to be done within that time frame. But I think it is important if if it says something in the contract, we should do it. We should be able to review it. Thanks.

Alright. Anyone else wishing to speak on re referrals? So on the motion to re refer resolution three ninety to public protection and judiciary. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no. No. The motion carries it. It is re referred. That takes care of item seven and now the last remaining item actually, that requires no. No. That's a re referral, so

it's this require more than supplementary. So

the last separated item, which is item 14 pardon? Was item 11 separated? Yeah. We got item 11 separated. Oh, I missed that. Okay. Sorry. Oh, yeah. I sent that from the outside. That's not an m. That's an 11. Sorry. Can't read my own handwriting. Item 11 is the next item. So that is resolution four zero three, amending the 2026 operating budget for the Dane County Sheriff's Office to remove funding for the use of the FLAC automatic license plate reader system.

What is before us is public protection and judiciary committee recommendation for approval. So with that, we will turn to the registrants. Okay. Here we go. Alright. Registered wishing to speak. First on the list here, excuse me, is Dan Fitch wishing to speak in favor.

Howdy again, all. Thanks for listening. I think what we have here is a fairly good consensus that FLAC is an untrustworthy company. But I'd like to talk a little bit about the surveillance that we're doing just in a more general sense. And kind of we're talking about a spectrum of surveillance, from a whole lot of it that civilians have no oversight on to none.

And I think nobody is at either of the extremes, and we're trying to plot a point somewhere in the middle. But I would like to remind everyone that cameras do not, by themselves, equal safety. I think there's plenty of evidence that FLAC themselves as a company is untrustworthy. You can see the ACLU Wisconsin letter that's attached to the res for more information. This left PP and J four one.

So it feels like folks are all on board with that. So I'm going to skip ahead to talk to a few bits about the implementation of FLAC as it is currently being used. There's a transparency portal that FLAC makes available that the sheriff links on their site. And that portal makes some claims. It claims that no images of people are in the FLAC system, but we know that to be untrue from various security researchers and other people who, I believe it was in Georgia that somebody on one of these flock LPRs was charged with a traffic ticket for looking at their phone.

We know that these are normal cell phone cameras that take pictures of everything that's in front of them, including people. So for them to claim on the portal that there are no images of people is, I think, false and, at the very least, misleading. At that PP and J meeting, also, the sheriff did not know himself how these ALPR cameras are currently working and claimed that they only allow searching on license plate information only. That is untrue. These flock cameras are actually hooked up to a complex, some kind of AI system thing that they call it fingerprints vehicles.

And so vehicles can be fingerprinted by things like bumper stickers and dents. So it's much more than license plates. And also, FLAC has also filed patents for face recognition and other things. And at any point in time, they could decide to start using our data to train. And we just don't trust them. Anyway, the sheriff not knowing how the system works aside, I think the other problem with that portal is that there is zero information about all the external searches. There is a list of who we have shared to. And as of last month, that list included a county in Tennessee. When I asked about that at PP and J, they gave some kind of weird excuse about a murder investigation. But you'll notice that that county is no longer on that portal today, So they decided to trim that list.

I believe they also trimmed all the other out of state counties that we're sharing that were we were sharing too. But we also have no information on how many queries are happening from other places of our data. FLAC does not make that information public, and I think that is a serious oversight. FLAC has shared secretly to the federal immigration enforcement agencies in places like Colorado and Illinois against the laws there, and in Colorado lied multiple times that they and said they were not sharing when, in fact, they were. And, also, of these counties that portal shows us that the sheriff is sharing to currently, eight of those counties have two eighty seven g agreements with ICE.

And if we trust our sheriff to not be collaborating with ICE because we have, as a county, decided that, it's a little bit weird for our flock data to just be searchable by those counties and thus probably easily accessible by ICE. And the other thing I want to mention is that I really think we need external audits on any mass surveillance that we have in this county. We need to be really careful, and we need to be thinking about how audits happen. The ACLU recommends getting rid of the cameras, but if you can't do that, they recommend CCOPS, which is civilian control over all police surveillance. I'd like to read you the, FLAC, ALPR browsing audits portion of the policies that the sheriff has online in its entirety because it's very short.

Okay. Just you have about fifty seconds left. So

The captain of field services shall ensure an audit of the flock ALPR browsing inquiries is conducted at least once during each calendar year. The audit will include a sampling of the flock ALPR system utilization from the prior twelve month period to verify proper use in accordance with the above authorized users. The audit shall randomly select at least 10 browsing inquiries conducted by members during the preceding six month period and determine if each inquiry meets the requirements established in this policy. As I read this audit, it sounds to me like if I was somebody working at the sheriff's department who wanted to use these cameras to stalk someone, I would just know when the audit is happening and do it in the six months that are being ignored by this audit language. I'm pretty sure that they are auditing it more often than that than the required once a year, but 10 inquiries out of the many, many searches that are happening on these cameras is not enough.

Thank you. Alright.

Because we have a number of speakers, I'll wait until we've reached 10 speakers before asking if anybody has questions. Speakers. Alright. The next registrant is Tesla Phillipson. Not not available on alright. Well, perhaps come back and see. But the next is James Burling wishing to speak in favor. James is online to be followed by Scott Gordon.

Thank you. I'm up.

Yep. You're on. You have up to five minutes to address the board.

Thank you. I'm also here to ask each of you to defund the use of floccan. In the debate about PRs, these technologies, I think there's a tendency to view it as politically or ethically neutral, that it's about who uses it that So if I hand you a hammer, it's because I trust that you'll use it to build something and not hit me with it. I think flawed presents itself this way as a simple tool to be controlled by police and then that if we could trust our cop, we trust how they'll use the tool. You've already heard, some arguments against that.

I'm sure you've been hearing arguments from law enforcement here about, that are in favor of the system. And so I'll just say in advance what I'm sure each of you will say is that we trust our local law enforcement, and we believe that they will not intentionally misuse the flock system. But at the public safety committee meeting where this resolution was first considered, the sheriff offered support for the platform in a way that made me concerned that our law enforcement may have been deceived about the nature or function of network. Need to get into some more specifics about the function of ALPRs as just license plate readers. The fundamental misunderstanding of the system do just take photos, and if people are in the frame, their faces are captured.

And this is because the system is analyzing the photo or the plate number using image recognition software. The software registers the We know this for a fact because security practice in that hackers were very easily able to access individual number of these cameras, recover the photos from them. In the process, discover that these photos are retained longer than the thirty days specified in FLOC's contract. The pair also said that we, that is Dane County, control our data and decide where it goes. This is unfortunately false.

It's a corporate statement provided by Flock and not a accurate description of Flock to some functions. Does have keys to the database and physical access to the servers, so we do not. Important to understand that end to end encryption regardless of the technology used is a little more than a marketing phrase. When, to use the parlance of cybersecurity, there's a man in the middle. Is that man?

And they're not the only one. As has already been described, not only does Flock have access to the information in these any actor at any organization in the data sharing arrangement with us is that access well. And I think it's important to have an example here of how easily this can be. Recently in Florida, several cities shared their Flock now, efficient wildlife conservation commission. That innocuously named group turned right around and acted as a funnel for thousands of inquiries on his permission.

All it takes is one officer in another municipality to circumvent our own internal audits of use. They ask us to consider what might already be happening with our current agreements right We trust our cops, but can we trust every cop in every county or town bear with supervised staff most locations. It's important to acknowledge that FLOC isn't a tool, a simple it's a system that's expressed the politics, ethics, and values of those split and maintain it. FLOC has unfortunately been proved repeatedly to be a deeply untrustworthy and unethical Currently under investigation for operating since they've been repeatedly caught already been described. You giving unauthorized to ALPRs.

CEO refers to citizens who oppose the use of these systems as Recently, disturbingly, Flock employees have been caught abusing their own access privileges and camp isn't just used by cities. It's used by businesses, and some of the businesses are child care center in Atlanta. They recently discovered that many Flock employees logged watching their location cameras for hours on end. One employee paid particular attention to cameras at the gym. That's the company that we're currently giving our each of us to conclude by saying that at the public safety meeting, supervisor called evils.

Said that if it saves even one life this I think we could also save lives if we're in every home and on every a lot of AI is the footage for potential crimes. We could blanket the country in those cameras and along with companies like Ring are currently trying to do just that in our communities.

And I

think a few years ago, what I'm saying might have sounded like hyperbole. Right? Suggested something could be used against us in The United States.

James, bunch thirty seconds left.

Believe most of you in this meeting right now know based in the last few years that this isn't hyper who will ignore rights in order to use this as each of you here to protect us this resolution. We remain vigilant for the network.

Next up, we have Scott Gordon wishing to speak in support to be followed by Brenda Salvo. Scott is on line.

Hey. Thanks for having me. Can you hear me okay?

We can. You have up to five minutes to address the board.

Great. My name is Scott Gordon. I'm on the North Side Of Madison in District 18. I see a lot of parallels between this flock resolution and the jail communications contract that the county board rejected in 2025, which whether or not you agree with that outcome, think was a good moment of PP and J and supervisors really following through and doing their homework on oversight. First, at a certain point, the county and the public don't really have that much clarity or control over what happens with the data that this vendor gathers.

As previous speakers have pointed out, we can't take flock or even client agencies at their word about who does or doesn't have access to certain data. That's in part because of the many security flaws that different journalists and independent researchers have identified in FLAC's network and in the cameras themselves. For instance, last year, a cybersecurity researcher named Ben Jordan cracked open one of these cameras. He found that it was basically running an outdated version of Android software, which meant that it was several years behind on security updates. In other words, the cheapest smartphone in the meeting room right now is probably more secure than that flat camera that he got ahold of.

So think about what that means and what that says about the judgment of a company that would sell such a device as a tool for law enforcement. And as, I think Dan pointed out, the transparency portals that FLAC provides, don't really assuage our concerns. Government transparency should not be farmed out to the for profit private sector ever, and I'm sure that everyone on this board understands that. The whole point of contracts and elected oversight is that we don't just take a private contractor out their word, especially when we're talking about handling really sensitive and really important work. Second point, look at how this company behaves.

Back in November, the city of Verona right here in Dane County canceled its contract with FLAC. The company didn't take the cameras down, and we know this because the mayor of Verona, Luke Diaz, has spoken out about it. And this isn't the first place where this has happened. So thinking about the implications of working with a company that doesn't honor the wishes of a client when a contract comes to an end, I really don't envy the county, you know, being in a business relationship with FLAC. That sounds like a terrible, hairy position to be in.

Third, we've heard claims over and over again about how essential these technologies are for public safety, but the case for it adds up to lots of scattered anecdotes, lots of hypotheticals, lots of this, you know, if it even saves one life, hypothetically, kind of statements. Not a whole lot of data. Not the kind of good, like, solid serious case that we would need to really evaluate a public policy situation. Ultimately, this isn't just a local issue. It implicates us in a nationwide surveillance network.

We are not immune to its pitfalls even though I think we in Madison and Dane County like to think that we're immune to all kinds of pitfalls that, befall other other communities. I asked the county board to pass this resolution, and please make sure after that that the cameras are actually taken down because we can't count on flock to do it for us.

K.

You

next up, we have Brenda Salvo online wishing to speak in support to be followed by Garrig Abatista. Brenda, has Brenda been promoted?

Hi. Welcome. My name is Brenda Salva. Thanks for having me tonight. I'm a Dane County resident. I was born and raised here, raised out in Deerfield, and I've lived here for most of my life. Right now, I stay in the Springfield area. If you're arriving at this meeting tonight being unfamiliar with what Flock is or what's being done with the data they're collecting or why they're such a danger to our community, I invite you to listen deeply to my fellow community members and let them teach you tonight. Scott before me mentioned that there's the phrase that gets bandied about what if it saves just one life. And I'm here to talk to you today about what if it costs a life.

I urge you like my the speakers before me to support this proposal and remove all funding for these FLAC cameras. Our money should be spent on supporting county residents and not surveillance that makes us less safe. The problems with Flock and, frankly, other surveillance companies like it are well documented. These systems have been used to harass and prosecute women who leave their home states for basic life saving health care. Flock has given data to ICE to facilitate attacks on and abductions of our community members, and police officers themselves are known to have used these systems to stalk their exes.

When you think about flock, I want you to think about the people in your life who have experienced violence and harassment from their partners, from their exes, and from complete strangers who think that women and queer people owe them attention. Think about the women and queer folks you know who have had to change their phone numbers because he won't stop calling with the threats, who have had that awful conversation with their bosses and coworkers begging them to please not share that I'm working here today, who have had to leave in secret and then had to look over their shoulder worried that their ex would find them, who have swapped cars with a friend, who have changed what gym they go to, who have installed extra locks on the door, and who worry about what will happen to their pet dog if they have to move suddenly when he finds out where they live again. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know at least one woman or queer person with a story about stalking. Maybe you yourself have never experienced it, or maybe you haven't had to worry about that possibility, but I have.

And I'm guessing at least one of your fellow board members has too because it is so, so common. Companies like Flock allow both their employees and cops, cops being one of the groups who's statistically most likely to be abusive towards a partner, to track the movements of community members without our knowledge or consent. We know that FLAC and cops have done it before. What is stopping them from doing it here? I'd love it if Dane County was immune to this violence, but we are not.

FLAC and other surveillance companies, facilitate abuse, and I'm so grateful that many of you are committed to protecting us from this. Because in addition to this being an issue of privacy and budget and civil rights, FLAC funding is an issue of intimate partner violence. Each of you has the power tonight to make a tangible, to take a tangible step to make our community safer, so please do so. Please vote to revoke all FLAC funding and support this proposal. Thank you.

Next up, we have Abatista to be followed by Beth Tucker Long. Garrig is in person. Welcome.

Hello. My name is Gara Gebatista, and I'm a resident of Dane County in District 15. I'm here today to speak in support of Resolution four zero three. Like the others here, I am against the use of Flock AI surveillance cameras in our county. And I feel that their privacy violations and risk for abuse pose a greater threat to our public safety than their benefit.

I would like to speak in regards to some common counter arguments and push back on some ideas like, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Because really what I fear is the power that an AI surveillance network has and what it can do in the wrong hands. Warrants are not required to search the database. And even if the footage is called upon only for specific cases, the fact that it exists at all presents an opportunity for misuse by an ill intentioned actor. The data is still collected regardless of whether an individual has committed a crime, which I feel goes against our Fourth Amendment rights to privacy.

But really, I just don't like that a system exists at all where you could ask it to please show me the movements of a person with a bumper sticker for a politician that I don't like. And that is an answer that it is capable of giving you. I don't think it takes much imagination to think of scenarios of targeted abuse of both individuals and vulnerable communities. I would like to clarify that I don't believe anyone in the Dane County Police Department has done any misuse. But rather, the system itself presents inherent vulnerabilities and dangers that aren't being addressed and cannot be ignored.

I would also disagree with the idea of, well, you're being tracked everywhere you go anyway, so who cares? I'm not happy about that either. But the data from various private businesses are not aggregated together into a simple search engine that the police have access to by default. Flock cameras record everyone without their consent and without a reasonable way of opting out. But mostly I disagree with the notion that these cameras are necessary to keep us safe.

The system is designed so that all of this sensitive data is shared around with such little restriction or oversight that it's no surprise how often it winds up in the hands of an ill intentioned actor, such as the Milwaukee police officer who allegedly used the flock system 175 times to stalk the person that he was dating and her ex. Also nothing is unhackable. Data leaks have already happened and will inevitably happen again. So in my opinion, the safest measure is to never have this data be collected in the first place. This money could be better spent on crime reduction methods that actually work and help build the community that you're trying to protect.

Because when you treat everyone like a suspect, you have already lost the safety that you are trying to build. I'd like to thank the sponsors of this resolution for putting this forward and giving us a chance to voice our thoughts and urge everyone here to please vote yes on the resolution. Thank you.

Next up we have Beth Tucker Long in person wishing to speak in support to be followed by Adam Ruheenan. I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing your name. Go ahead.

Okay. My name is Beth Tucker Long, and I'm here as a resident of Dane County to tell you about my experience with Flock as an elected official on the Verona City Council. First off, I want to be clear that I do not think our sheriffs, detectives, and officers are doing anything inappropriate. I'm very proud of the team we have, and I know they conduct themselves with conduct themselves ethically and with honor and integrity. But Flock is a completely different story.

They've been caught sharing private data with federal agencies, outside organizations, and even with consulting companies in other countries without customer knowledge, consent, and in violation of the terms of their contracts with these customers. My adventures with FLoC began in October 2025 when a resident contacted me and asked if I knew that we had FLoC cameras surveilling Verona in multiple locations. I discovered that there were many ongoing cases involving abuse of the system by law enforcement agencies using it to stalk their exes, spouses, and coworkers. A department in Texas was caught using flock to track a woman for over a month whose boyfriend suspected that she might try to get an abortion. Other ongoing cases include illegally surveilling attendees of No Kings protests after the protests had ended and searching for, and I quote, gypsies in the area.

In addition to Flock in addition, Flock does not follow even the most basic of standard security practices. They transmit data on unsecured Wi Fi. They do not use HTTP HTTPS encryption, and they do not require two factor authentication for passwords. Researchers and journalists have been able to intercept video and photo feeds directly from the Flock cameras and access unsecured publicly available web portals to view live flock live flock camera feeds and even adjust the direction and angle of the cameras. Data banks on the dark web contain numerous leaked flock login credentials.

And months after being leaked, they remain active and unchanged. After finding this out, I then requested the last twelve months of the flock organizational and network audit logs, which record the searches that your data has been included in at the local level and the complete FLOC network level. What I discovered was shocking. In just those previous twelve months, our city of Verona local data had been searched by outside organizations 5739 times using what FLAC calls an other image search. This means that the search was not for a license plate number, but was rather using their AI search to search the full contents of the high resolution color images, which can include searching for things like the type of car, the color, damage on the car, or even a specific bumper sticker on the car.

There were an additional 1,628 searches by organizations self identifying as ICE. And it's important to note that this does not include organizations that did not disclose that the searches were for ICE. And, records show that police departments have been encouraged to be purposefully vague when recording the description of the search to hide how the data is being used and shared. FLAC was already under scrutiny after several of their customers discovered earlier in the year that FLAC was sharing their local data with federal agencies without notifying them or obtaining consent and in violation of their contracts. FLAC claimed that this had just been a trial program and that they discontinued all federal access to their customers' data by July 2025.

However, our logs showed that three months after that in October 2025, there were still nine seventy four searches of our local data tagged as federal searches. Our data was searched another ten ninety one times on behalf of outside assist, which just means that the information was shared with an outside organization with no information about who it was shared with. And to give you some scope of how our data has been used by FLAC, during that one year of data, our police department locally searched our data 3,268 times. In comparison, our data was searched by other organizations, 6,175,236 times. I discovered in early November that our contract was set to renew in mid December.

I brought the issue to our city council to vote. We had a large number of residents give public comments in support of canceling the contracts, including Adam Stevenson, a law professor at UW Madison, who sent me this quote to share with you. You have civil rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, and people have been filing civil suits that have survived initial legal challenges claiming that there's no cause of action. As a result, at a minimum, there could be significant litigation costs associated with maintaining the flock system. And it may violate the fourth amendment via continued pervasive inescapable surveillance.

Beth, I have just under thirty seconds.

It's what?

Just under thirty seconds. Okay.

We discontinued our FLAC camera, but FLAC would not come and remove the cameras. We had to, after our contract ended, we had to finally cover the cameras with plastic and duct tape to stop them from working. The system instantly registered that our cameras were not working and submitted a support ticket on our behalf to send a team out to fix the cameras. And we had to tell them to remove the equipment or we were going to remove it to finally get rid of them. Please discontinue this. Support this resolution.

Thank you. K. Next is Adam Ruhinan to be followed by Yasin Ahmed.

Ahead. ICE, Secret Service, and Navy all had access to Flock's nationwide network networks of cameras, four zero four media. FLAC can share driver driver surveillance data even when police departments opt out, ACLU. DEA agent used Illinois cops FLAC's license plate reader password for immigration enforcement searches. It's from a FOIA request by unraveled.com.

Illinois license plate cameras used illegally by out of state police. Illinois secretary of state says, license plate reader company, Flock, is building a massive people lookup tool. So this is exciting. Flock's new product called Nova will supplement license plate data with a wealth of personal information sourced from data brokers. That's from four zero four Media.

FLOC surveillance systems expose Washington state data to immigration enforcement. FLOC audits reveal a backdoor accessed by US border patrol that is from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights. This $4,000,000,000 car surveillance startup says it cuts crime, but it likely broke the law from Forbes. Drivers sue San Jose over 500 flock cameras. That's not good.

This flock camera leak is like Netflix for stalkers, Ben Jordan and four zero four media. That's a YouTube video. It's eleven minutes long. But if that's too long, he has an update. We hacked Flock safety cameras in under thirty seconds. Has 1,600,000 views on YouTube by Ben Jordan. Flock exposed its AI powered cameras to the Internet. We tracked ourselves. Flock left 60 of its cameras streaming and exposed to the Internet by four zero four media. The deal has been altered further.

Flock publishes new terms in December. They updated their terms. The scope of data available for product development expanded from a small fraction of images to the entire corpus of cup corpus of customer data, including metadata and time stamps and geospatial coordinates. That's from haveibeenflocked.com. We can do, Tulsa police's use of flock cameras to investigate protest activity.

They no kings, pro Palestinian protest at the state capital. No arrests were made. They're just looking at the cameras. Here we go. License plate surveillance logs reveal racist policing from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

According to a FOIA request between June 2024, October 2025, cops perform hundreds of searches for license plates using racial slurs. Here's a bulletin by a Houston DEA office that advises officers to to be as vague as possible when, doing, flock searches. Why are flock employees watching our children? According to a foyer request by one Jason Hunyar in Dunnywood, Georgia, which is right next to Flock's headquarters. Flock sales employees are logging into Dunywood's Flock network to spy on us in children's gymnastic centers, fitness studios, libraries, playground schools, and private pools.

Let's see. Flock safety in Texas sheriff claimed license plate search was for a missing person. It was an abortion investigation, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Police said they surveilled a woman who had an abortion for her safety. Court records show they considered charging her with a crime for four media. Ex Costa Mesa police officer accused of using flock cameras to track his mistress from CBS News. Kansas police chief used flock license plates cameras 164 times to track ex girlfriend, the Wichita Eagle. Joplin, Missouri police officer no longer employed after alleged misuse of license plate tracking system. Use of about

forty five seconds. Thank you.

One license plate was searched 395 times over a fourteen month period using 25% of the entire department's flock usage. Miami Herald, cop stalks girlfriend runs her license plates 70 times in seven months and her family's vehicles 100 times over those seven months. Georgia police chief charged with the United States Police Readers to stalk and harass people. Sandy Springs, Georgia officer terminated after this is great. I have ten seconds here. Using flock system for personal gain, you worked at signal eight systems and was transferring data to that private company charged with corporate espionage. I have a few more. Thank you.

Next up is Yaseem Ahmed to be followed by Amy Nylund. Yaseem's online. Oh,

no. Right here.

You're here. Okay.

Hi. Yaseem Ahmed. Hehim, Dane County resident. And, yeah, first off, we're I wanted to encourage you guys all to vote yes on this resolution. And I wanted to thank supervisors Kempen Wegletner and the nine other sponsors on this for your leadership on this.

I I also want to thank PP and J and personal and finance for voting yes on this. But, yeah, I think I wanted to go back a little bit for a moment on going back to that smart communications contract, recognizing how it was great to see how this board was really protective of Dane County residents privacy. They made that very well known in voting down that contract. And, yeah, I I think as many of my neighbors here have talked about, recognizing how ripe flock is for abuse, seeing how those numerous law enforcement officers around the country, as well as

those

flock employees, have been fired for using these to stock exits, etcetera. I think it's important for us to recognize, as one of my neighbors mentioned with those audit questions, how many people are going undetected and abusing this technology? And again, wanted to go back to that independent investigative reporting on how easily these cameras have been hacked and put on the internet. While FLoC itself doesn't have facial recognition software yet, it's been super easy for some of these journalists to feed the footage into facial recognition to identify people. And, yeah, going back to that question of ICE, recognizing that FLAC does contract with ICE, we see the sheriff's office tout that it does not have a $2.87 gs agreement in place.

But with this contract, Dane County would still be aiding and abetting modern day brown shirts. It's also, I think, immensely important to recognize that in training police departments on the use of this technology, FLOC has made its ambitions to build a nationwide surveillance network really, really express, and it's just going to keep building from here. So, yeah. So that's all to say by terminating this contract, you, as elected, have an opportunity to fight against the growth of this surveillance state. So please do your part, and please vote yes on this resolution. Thank you.

Next up is Amy Nyland to be followed by Allie Bates. Have Amy online. Is that

Yep. I am here.

Okay. Great. Welcome. You have five minutes to up to five minutes to address the board.

Good evening, chair supervisors and members of the public. I am here in opposition to the resolution and in support of the continued use of automated license plate readers. I wanna begin by acknowledging something important. Many people may be, well, many people are skeptical of this technology and it's clear some strongly oppose it. That skepticism should not be dismissed.

If we pretend these concerns are unreasonable, then we're not having an honest conversation. People are concerned about surveillance, about government collecting data on ordinary citizens, misuse, and many of the issues raised previously. Those are valid concerns. And frankly, if this program had no limits, no audits, no transparency, and no consequences for misuse, I would share those concerns. So let's be clear about what this technology is and what it is not.

An automated license plate reader system is not a substitute for probable cause, is not by itself evidence of guilt, a replacement for constitutional protections, and is not a license for officers to monitor anyone they want. It does not collect facial images, and it is not intended to be used as a tool for generalized surveillance. It is an investigative tool. It helps identify vehicles connected to serious incidents one time matters, and information is limited. That can be a stolen vehicle, a hit and run suspect, a violent crime, a missing or endangered person, missing children, or another urgent situation where a witness remembers only part of a plate number or only a vehicle description.

That may sound simple, but in real investigations, simple details matter. A partial plate, a vehicle color, a make and model, or a timeline can make the difference between finding an endangered person or not. And I think it's important to say this plainly, when a resident is the victim of a serious crime, they generally expect law enforcement to use every lawful and appropriate tool available to help. That's the public safety side of this issue. Let's address the privacy side honestly because that's where the strongest objections come from.

Yes. This technology can capture data about vehicles that are not connected to a crime. That is true. The defense must be that the system is governed by strict rules that prevent it from becoming general surveillance. That means written policy, clear authorized uses, trained and authorized users only, search logs, audits, supervisory review, retention limits, and discipline for misuse.

That means no personal use, no fishing expeditions, and no monitoring of lawful protest activity. No searches based on curiosity and no use of this system to broadly surveil the public. If someone asks what if it gets abused or what if this becomes mass surveillance, the answer should not be denial. The answer should be this. Then we put controls in place to detect abuse, stop abuse, and punish abuse.

That's what responsible government does. Questions and scrutiny do not weaken a program like this. They strengthen it because they force government to earn public trust. We should also be honest about what the public loses if this tool is taken away. Opponents are asking us to give up a tool that can help find the subject of an amber alert, a green alert, or a silver alert, which we have used it for in Dane County.

Solve crime, identify suspect vehicles, recover stolen vehicles, and support searches for a reported suicidal subject. This tool supports time sensitive investigations. And in those situations, time matters. This is a serious decision, and it should be weighed carefully against the needs of victims, neighborhoods, investigators, the public at large. This issue should not be framed as privacy versus safety as if we must choose one and abandon the other. Good government is supposed to protect both. Good government places guardrails around powerful tools and then evaluates whether those tools are effective, proportionate, and consistent with public values.

Amy, you have about 45.

In closing, I would like to ask the board and the public to reject the two extremes, the idea that this technology is automatically dangerous no matter how it's governed, and the idea that it should be used without meaningful limits. The responsible path is in the middle. Use the tool narrowly, govern it strictly, and hold people accountable. If we're willing to do that, then supporting an ALPR system is not a rejection of civil liberties. It's an effort to protect the community while respecting the community. Thank you.

And, Amy, if I may ask, could you, inform some board supervisors may not be familiar. Your role in the sheriff's office?

My position is administrative manager in the Dane County sheriff's office and I am the flock administrator.

Thank you. Hey. Our tenth speaker is Allie Bates. Then we'll pause if there's questions.

Hi. My name is Allie Bates. I am a Madison resident and I'm gonna keep my comments brief because in my view, this is a pretty straight forward issue. I support this resolution to cancel Dane County's flock contract. Flock cameras and other aspects of the surveillance state are actively harmful to each and every person in our community, but pose a particular threat to our immigrant neighbors.

The data that these cameras collect is owned by an unaccountable corporation that regularly collaborates with ICE, DHS, and other agencies. And we are paying them for that privilege. We are in a moment of increasing authoritarianism and government overreach. Let's not further empower entities to harm our neighbors. And it seems like we are all fairly on board with that, because FLoC is an unscrupulous company.

But it does not end here with FLoC. As others have shared, there are great concerns with how accessible the flock data is to outside entities and how data usage is audited. The transparency parency portals are lacking in transparency. And when we are talking about surveillance in our community, the question is who watches the watchers? The sheriff's department should not be able to audit itself, and civilian oversight is imperative.

While there may not be any negative impacts that we know of yet from our use of block and other surveillance tools, let's not wait for harm to occur before we act. And ultimately, this calls into question, what makes us safe? Treating each and every person in the county as a suspect by allowing a surveillance system to watch them and expose them to privacy violations by an unknown number of entities definitely does not make us safe. Please vote yes on this resolution. Thank you.

Okay. So that was our tenth speaker. So does anybody have any questions for our first 10, any of our first 10 speakers? Okay. Seeing no one with a question, we shall move on to the next speaker is Brooke Drost or Drost to be followed by Luke Diaz.

Yes. Oh, okay. So we just not available. So we will move on to Luke Diaz to be followed by Julie Mankowski.

Oh,

go ahead. Yep.

He keep

trying to promote Luke, but he has declined to be promoted. So can we go do you wanna go on to the next one?

We shall move on to is Mark not available? Okay. Julie Minkowski is next to be followed by Erica Buck.

Hello. My name is Julie. I'm here tonight as a concerned resident of Dane County and more broadly as a concerned resident resident of Wisconsin and The United States. While I have a lot to say about all forms of surveillance in our communities, I've tried to distill my remarks down to a few of the most salient points. I hope it will help you understand the severity and scope of my concerns and why I strongly support Res four zero three, and I urge you all to do the same.

Firstly, I have immense concern about the county having any kind of contractor involvement with flock safety in any capacity. Many others have outlined the honestly unethical business practices and questionable decisions that FLAC has made as a company. But a few points of note. In February 2026, FLAC updated its terms and agreements. Among the many changes in the terms are some of particular concern.

It merged the term footage into customer data, which means that now all data collected is subject to all of these other changes. It removed a commitment that FLAC does not own and shall not sell customer data, which now includes all of the footage. It expanded the data license to grant FLAC, quote, a limited, nonexclusive, royalty free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to, a, use and disclose customer data to provide Flock services, and, b, use customer data to support and improve Flock's products and services. So under these changes, Flock now has unrestricted use of any and all customer data, and they no longer promise to sell it not to sell it. Additionally, the changes removed a section 4.3, which had previously detailed guardrails on using data for machine learning.

With this removal, the scope of data available for product development expanded from a small fraction of images, which were stripped of identifying information, to the entirety of customer data, including footage, metadata, license plate numbers, time stamps, and geospatial coordinates. It is of special concern that FLAC's contract terms were moved online in December 2025. It's exceptionally concerning to me that Dane County is involved in a contract that is made exclusively by a vendor. FLAC, in fact, includes the notice. These terms and conditions are subject to change.

Secondly, in addition to my objections to Dane County's involvement with FLAC, I have further concerns about the growth of surveillance in our country, state, and nation. Scientific research into the impacts of surveillance on human beings has shown a clear pattern of psychological and behavioral effects. Included in these documented effects is a cur curtailed ability to engage in spontaneous unfiltered actions, which is considered one of the defining characteristics of personal freedom. This curtailing results in what has been described as a loss of the public realm where individuals no longer engage freely in discourse and action. Constant surveillance is also shown to foster an environment of suspicion and alienation.

It fosters mistrust, and trust is a fundamental element of social cohesion. This not only affects interpersonal relationships, it also undermines democratic participation as individuals may be deterred from political engagement due to surveillance by state authorities or private entities. The unchecked proliferation of surveillance risks undermining the very liberties it aims to protect. This could lead to a society where human autonomy is subtly but profoundly eroded. The establishment of a framework in which every action can potentially be recorded and analyzed places individuals in a context that infringes upon their fundamental need for privacy even in public spaces.

Constant surveillance can have significant impacts on mental health and well-being. It can lead to increased stress, anxiety levels, and feelings of paranoia. Trust, relationships, self esteem, and personal freedom can be affected by the presence of constant surveillance. This can lead to a state of hypervigilance. This heightened awareness leads to mental fatigue and a diminished sense of personal agency.

Julie, you have about ten seconds left.

So in light of these facts, I ask you to not just consider this in this moment with this particular resolution, but all pertaining to surveillance in our county. And I hope that the community coming out to speak to you has shown you that we don't feel this is right for us here. Thank

you.

Next up we have Erica Bach and then we'll circle back to a couple of the others who weren't able to get online. Is Erica online? K. Hey, Erica. Go ahead. You have up to five minutes to address the board.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, members of the board. I just wanna pause for a second to take in what that last speaker just shared. It's it's really time you all that we make Orwell fiction again. This is absolutely incredible what we're discussing, and we're on the precipice of having this be truly one of our biggest errors in governance if we hand this over to technology.

I really appreciate what the flock administrator, Nygard, had mentioned in terms of these arguments about good government government placing guardrails. I I think that that would be a very valid take on this if it were just about people. All every one of us has somehow felt the need to qualify for you all that we we trust the Dane County Sheriff's Office, and we just do we trust our deputies, and we trust doesn't matter if we trust the people. It's that we don't trust the companies, not with this federal administration. And the one supervisor that we have that supports this administration is leaving.

And so it's not as if we have any protections from the way that this software is being used in conjunction with ICE. It is one of the top dozen and a half or so companies that's listed as, like, the biggest threat to our civil liberties, and it's up there with Palantir. It's up there with OpenAI. This isn't this isn't a company that we wanna get into business with. And it's not lost, hopefully, on any of you that 11 of your colleagues came together across all different viewpoints to draft this.

A huge thank you to supervisor Weg Leitner and supervisor Kemp and all 11 of you who co sponsored this collaborative effort. And I also wanna make sure to thank all of you in committee for taking up this really crucial discussion. It made it to this juncture because your colleagues do not think that this is a good contract. And I I do wanna ask you all before you vote on this to just pause and really take in what you're hearing. We're gonna ask you to vote yes on this because as law enforcement officials in other cities have rightfully shared, it is the people's right to say how they'd like to be policed.

And that's a direct quote from the Charlottesville chief of police. There are similar actions happening across the country that are, you know, in in cities and jurisdictions that are similar makeup to Dane County. You can see in the in the letter from the ACLU of, like, the 37 different oh, that's interesting. 37 supervisors, 37 other counties and municipalities. Austin, Evanston, Eugene, they've Verona, they've all successfully canceled and refused to renew their flock contracts.

And so I I know that sheriff Farratt and and the sheriff's office have said it's not if, but when we will be working with ICE, and that should not be happening without this boards of approval. Even though we do not have a two eighty seven g agreement now, the results on these flat cameras can be manipulated. We've seen in Manasha. We've seen in Milwaukee, Kenosha, all across the state where this information is being misused. No matter what guardrails we have in place, we don't get to say what flock can do, and we don't get to say, unfortunately, what the federal government can do.

So I'd wanna point out to you just down south, our neighbors in Illinois, the secretary of state launched an audit after research showed that FLAC gave CPB, the Customs and Border Patrol, access to data in violation of the state laws on privacy. And we often say that we don't wanna get sued. It was a big push for when the county board approved the jail because we didn't wanna get sued. And we know that that is still, even two years later, you know, a possibility that we face. Why would we willingly go into an agreement, a contractual legal binding agreement that would set us up for just that?

Even just earlier today, San Jose just heard arguments about how this is a con unconstitutional use of technology. And further, while the sheriff's office continues to discuss about being short staffed, use of flock in its continued form would be a full time job because it has been ruled in many jurisdictions that this is a public record, that the requests are going to soar, that there would be need for all kinds of redactions when there are other cameras available, when there's other data available currently. A few years ago, you all

had comments. Hundred thirty seconds.

Thank you. I just wanna harken back to a time where you all had comments about not wanting the conversations in the parking ramps to be be overheard for confidential information. This block use is that times 1,000. Please do not set ourselves or yourselves up for any additional lawsuits. Please say yes to removing this funding, and thank you all for keeping Dane County safe in the best way you know how.

And now we have one remaining speaker as back with us, and that would be Mayor Diaz, Luke Diaz. Go ahead.

Thank thank you. Can you hear me okay?

We can. Go ahead.

Excellent. Thank you for bearing with me. I was signed into the Zoom browser and not the app, and apparently, that doesn't allow me to appoint it as a panelist. But, anyway, I'm here to urge you to support this, amendment to the budget and to, get rid of flock. I had a bunch of examples about all the ways that flock data has been abused, but a lot of other speakers covered them. The ACLU in their report to the county board covered a bunch of other abuses. It's clear and obvious that flock data is being abused constantly, and these are the only ones that get caught. You know how it is. If something if if one person gets caught for abusing data, there's probably multiple other people who have used data and just haven't gotten caught. And I would like to point out that all these abuses are happening while there are safeguards and laws even on the book.

As As several people have mentioned, Illinois has a law about data sharing with FLAC and other things. It has been routinely violated. I would also point out that FLAC tells people, and their salespeople tell people, that this data is not gonna be abused. It's not gonna be misused. It's not gonna be used by ICE. That's false. So there are safeguards and laws in place right now, and the data is being abused. If we know the data is being abused, if we know our constituents' rights are gonna be violated, if we know the Fourth Amendment is gonna be violated, we have to be against that. And so I would urge you to support this support this budget amendment. I also just wanna add as a side note, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Dane County Sheriff's Office in the same way when we made our vote with Rohnert to get rid of the flock cameras that had nothing to do with the Toronto Police Department.

I have confidence in both the sheriff and the Toronto Police Department. The problem is is that they don't control the data. FLOC controls the data, and FLOC makes money by selling access to anyone and everyone who will pay them to access the data. Again so I I I just keep saying it over and over again, but if this data is collected, it will be used to violate people's rights. So, again, we shouldn't we shouldn't do it. And then finally, I just wanna thank all the cosponsors of this motion. I really appreciate all the work you're doing and for helping to protect the people of King County. Thank you.

Thank you. K. That was our last registrant. So for the last registrants, are there any questions? Supervisor Kemp.

Thank you, Chair Miles. I have a question, a couple of questions. One, I'll start with Alder Tucker Long, if she could come forward, please. Alder Tucker Long, just to kind of illuminate some of the data that you yes, please. Thank you. Some of the data that you gave to us, you mentioned that just in Verona, which has a population right now over I think we've now crossed over 16,000 people, There was a rather large number that you mentioned on searches. I think it was around 6,000,000. Can you give me the that number again and the time frame in which those searches were done?

Yeah, absolutely. So, it was during the previous twelve months from when I requested the data at the October 2025. So it would have been October that it would have been November 2024 through October 2025.

Okay.

And, the amount of searches that our department did locally was 3,268. And then by outside organizations, nation or worldwide, was 6,175,236.

Okay. And then to follow-up with that, you did you did plenty of work on the council to try and remove the city Of Verona from the contract itself. Correct? Correct. What do you recall the amount that it cost to have the cameras installed in the city of Verona?

I believe it was $3,000.

Okay. So relatively small amount you would

Very inexpensive. Yeah. Because we're not the product, or we're not the customer, we're the product.

When did the contract when did the contract actually end?

The contract was set to end, I believe, 12/12/2025.

Alright. And then in your analysis of the data, did you see, by any chance, that there were searches after the contract ended?

I did not have access to that data.

Okay.

But we did see that the support ticket went in instantly when we covered them, saying that the cameras were not working. So the system was still running.

Do you have a recollection of how many times you had to try and contact FLAC to get them to come out and remove the cameras after the contract ended?

I know that I personally was involved in, two formal written requests to remove it, and I believe our staff made several more. But I'm not sure of the exact number.

Okay. And do you have an idea of over a period of time that that was?

I believe it was about two and a half months.

Okay. And so only after the city of their own, of their own volition covered the cameras did you get a support ticket?

Well, got a we got a maintenance ticket to fix the problem with our cameras and get them working again. And that's when we explained that if they didn't come and take their cameras down by the end of the week, we would take them down and they could collect the their equipment at some future date. And And they finally came and took them down.

So is it reasonable to assume that the cameras were still running even after the contract ended?

A 100%.

Okay. So then would you also then agree then that what's really important here is the data collection? It's not necessarily about the cameras themselves, but the value is in the data. Correct?

Yeah. Absolutely. The value is in the data they can sell to other people.

Okay. Thank you. I have Thank you for being here. I have some questions either for someone in the sheriff's department. And it may be Amy who, I believe, does the audits. I'm not sure if she's still on.

I believe she is. A question for Amy Nyland and the sheriff's

And this could go perhaps to Sheriff Barrett as well, but I'll just ask the question generally. And whoever feels that they could better answer the question, that would be great. So Amy, I wanted to ask you, do you have an idea of how many requests you have denied because you found that they were inappropriate requests? I should clarify I should say, when an outside organization makes a request or a query, it's it's incumbent upon the sheriff's department to make sure that those requests are appropriate. How many have you had to deny?

So you're talking about requests to have access to the data?

Correct.

I have not denied any.

Okay.

We did after the, personnel and finance committee meeting and the concerns that were raised about out of state agencies having access, We looked at the security settings and revoked any out of state agencies.

Okay. I I do appreciate that. To go to go a little further, what control, if any, does Dane County have with the data after an approval? So if it's approved to be uploaded or shared, do we have any control with respect to that data at all?

We do not I guess the I'm sorry. The best answer I can give is that, we do have an audit mechanism of what they're searching, but I can't control what they do with the data anymore than they can control what we do with the data or what any agency does with the, FBI's data or the state's criminal justice data. Once it's been queried, there's no way to track it

Okay.

What they do with that data.

Okay. Thank you, Amy. And this question maybe would be better answered by either deputy chief Nygard or sheriff Barrett. Again, thank you both for being here this evening. To your knowledge, and I want to stress that there are serious public concerns about privacy issues, Fourth Amendment and constitutional violations with this type of surveillance. However, are there other companies or entities that exist that could do the similar type of work that the county, if we so choose, could look to to do this besides flock?

Yes.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. No further questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else with any questions for the speakers? Okay. Okay. Again, what is before us is public protection and judiciary committee recommendation for approval. Is there discussion? Supervisor

oh, hold on.

The supervisor punch back in the queue. Supervisor Kemp. Thank

you, Chair Miles. I think given the amount of testimony we have had here this evening, the serious concerns that the general public has had with this issue, I'm going to ask my colleagues to support this resolution. When I first initially started thinking about this, and, you know, Alder Tucker Long and Mayor Diaz worked diligently in Verona to try and remove the contract, I always thought that there was certainly a balancing act. And Amy made it very clear that there's a public safety issue here, but then there's also a right to privacy issue. However, I think I have severe concerns about the ethics of this company, how they operate, and the risks that we're potentially putting our citizens at while dealing with them.

I don't think that the public safety part should be ignored. However, there are serious concerns about the safety of individuals that could be monitored without their knowledge. There's serious questions about whether or not it's even ethical or constitutional to track people without a proper warrant. And quite frankly, I'm not even sure that the technology and, you know, there's the statement that they can only read license plates. I don't necessarily even think that that's true at this point. So I would, again, ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

Thank you.

Supervisor Dolan.

Thank you, chair. I want to start where I think we all agree. Again, it's been said. We all want law enforcement to have the tools to help solve crimes and to keep people safe. And license plate readers used narrowly and responsibly can absolutely be part of that.

And I do trust our Dane County Sheriff's Department, but that's not the question in front of us. The question is whether this system with these safeguards currently is something we can responsibly stand behind as a county. Because FLAC isn't just a camera, it's a network. It collects and stores vehicle location data at scale and makes it searchable and that changes the conversation from a tool to an infrastructure. And when we're talking about infrastructure, the standard has to be higher.

So I'm looking at a few basic things here. Do we have strict enforceable limits on how long the data is kept? Do we have clear auditable rules about who can access it and who cannot? Do we have real protections against use for monitoring constitutionally protected activity? And do we have meaningful local control, not just in policy, but in practice?

And I would add one more. Are we comfortable outsourcing a core public safety function to a private company? Because policing in our community should be accountable to the public, through our elected officials, through open records, through clear lines of responsibility. And when you bring a private network to collect and manage this kind of data, you're introducing a layer that isn't directly accountable in the same way. That doesn't mean private companies don't have a role, but it does mean we should be very careful about how much authority and access we hand over.

Because if the answer to any of those is not fully, then we're not talking about a small gap, we're talking about a systemic and structural problem. Across the country there have been concerns about this data being accessed beyond the local level, including federal agencies. And once that data exists in a share system, control over it doesn't stay as local as we might assume. In this political climate that matters and we need to stop operating as if we're in ordinary times because we're not. I've also heard the argument that other communities are doing this and that's true, but it's also true that some communities are pulling back.

Thank you, Verona. Or pausing because they've realized the guardrails didn't match the scope of technology. That's not fear. That's due diligence. And for me, that comes down to a pretty simple test. If we wouldn't be comfortable explaining to our constituents exactly how this data would be used five years from now under a different administration, under different priorities, then we shouldn't be approving it today. This isn't about rejecting technology. It's about insisting that policy catches up to the power of the technology. And right now, I don't believe it does. So we either put real enforceable limits on this now or we're building a a surveillance system we won't control later.

So I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution that I am a proud cosponsor of, and I would like a roll call vote.

Okay. And supervisor Merritt.

Thank you chair. My question is not really about the flock. I think we are all kind of feels like we're all on the same page as far as the flock company goes. My question though is what happens to the $80,000 that's in the sheriff's budget now that has been used for this contract? Where does where does that go? What happens with that? I'm not sure who exactly to ask that question of, but what happens with that money?

Is director Hicklin's the one? So we would just revert to the general fund. But Oh, he is here. Great.

That's correct. Yeah. I'm here. Yeah. So that would be you know, that it'll be out of the sheriff's budget, so it won't be available for them to spend on other things that might fall within that line item for support and maintenance. So that will then non spending those funds will fall to the general fund and offset other expenditures. Last year, the sheriff's budget was over budget, spending was over budget, a couple million.

Can I just follow-up? So I guess we're taking a tool granted it is not a tool that any of us seem to want the sheriff to have to be using, but we're taking a tool from the sheriff's department and not replacing it with anything. I guess I would like to see an amendment or I would like to see something brought forward that would allow the sheriff to use at least part of that money for something, I don't know if it's a recruitment program or something else to kind of support what they need to be able to do their jobs. I mean clearly the flock cameras are not what we want them. We don't want to support that, but I feel like we should be giving them some other support to kind of fill that fill that blank fill that position that we're taking from them.

I hope that makes sense.

Supervisor Engelberger.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I as well am not interested in in using these flock cameras. I think they're everything we've heard tonight is self explanatory about why we should not use these things. My concern is what what supervisor Merin just brought up is that my reading of this resolution says that in what Chuck just explained, our controller, we're removing the $80,000 from the sheriff's budget.

I'm not interested in in removing funds from the sheriff's budget. In my opinion, public safety is our most important issue that we deal with on the county board. And so I'm I'm gonna vote no on this resolution unless it's amended that that 80,000 or whatever the dollar amount is stays in the sheriff budget for them to figure out how they can use that money. Thank you. And I would ask, my colleagues to do the same.

Alright. There being no k. So much for that. Supervisor Croning.

Chairman. When I'm looking at this and then listening to the testimony from the alder from Verona, just cutting off the money is one thing, but how do we actually get rid of the cameras that are in Dane County? Who would be responsible to try and do that?

We'll see if the sheriff can answer that question.

Yes. At the end, the conclusion of the contract, which I believe is May 31, we will have we would have Flock come and take the cameras down.

Anything else? I think we're good. Supervisor Peterson.

Thank you, chair. I'd like to make an amendment, if I can. I'd like to add on line 41 actually, let me just read it for you. Be reduced by $80,000 to remove funding for the flat camera system and make those funds available for recruitment, period. I didn't bring any paper, so I need to write

it down for you. You're in.

I can should I email you?

Or This needs to be provided in writing.

Sorry. I

All these pieces of paper being torn off.

Here. Doesn't crash.

Okay. So there's a motion by supervisor Peterson to add at the end of line 41 ahead of the period, I'm assuming.

Hustler seconds.

Okay.

Alright. I I got I was gonna read it again. Alright. So after flat camera system on line 41 and make the funds available for recruitment. And there was a second by Passler. Discussion on the Peterson amendment. Super supervisor Peterson, did you wanna speak to it?

Yeah.

Oops. Sorry. There you go.

Thank you, chair. Yeah. Just just briefly, again, I've heard all the comments, I think, and I've had a lot of emails and phone calls and residents, talk about Flock. I certainly care deeply about privacy, and I think that's gonna become a bigger and bigger issue. And, ultimately, Flock is a software as a service offering. Unless we control it, unless it's within our own computer systems, we're all bound by the contract. And again, I sell software as

a service for a living as well. And I work for a very large

provider. And, again, I I make promises every day to customers, but I myself can't validate. I don't control it. I don't hold it. I can't you know, unless it's not within my scope of control. So but that said, in my district, we care deeply about the sheriff,

and I don't wanna see these funds just go back

to the general fund.

I wanna make them available. And recruitment, as we all know, through this last budget has been, a challenge, and we wanna make those funds available for the sheriff so that he can continue to use those and do the good work that the

sheriff does every day. Thank you.

Supervisor Chablon.

Thanks, Chair Miles. While I understand, like, the the intent and the spirit of the Peterson amendment, I don't know if we can identify recruitment right here on the floor as the sheriff's department's top policy or their top needs. So I think if there is a need to amend the sheriff's budget, think that should be done as part of a separate resolution. I think tonight we should just deal with a flock resolution that's in front of us. And as we go forward, if public protection and judiciary wants to go through a process of identifying where needs would be that potentially are adjacent to some of the same goals of what they were intending to do with the FLAC program that they were ultimately failed with.

I think the committee should determine that and bring that back to the floor. So I think doing that on the floor right now is not the right move, but I do appreciate the spirit of it. So, I'll encourage folks to vote no on the Peterson amendment. Thanks.

Okay, Supervisor Ander.

Thanks chair. I will just make things more interesting by recommending that we, is a motion order for re referral? Yep. So, we refer to PNF and PP and J. Now that the funding is in the budget for $80,000 to do this particular thing.

It sounds like no one is interested in using FLAC. That's pretty clear to me and something I support too. Know, PP and J spent a lot of time on this talking about technology and access and those kind of things. We didn't talk about the funding issues that much. I'm actually hopeful that there are other much better vendors with proactive policy approaches to do this work that would provide more confidence and third party auditing and basically doing this better.

And the budget that we are currently operating under had this funding, so I think it's actually a much bigger move to remove all the dollars to do that instead of just saying is there a different solution here that is appropriate? And at least having that conversation before we move the funding around to do something else, which may be a good use of funding, maybe not. We should have a really serious discussion about that with any single dollar in our operating budget this year and not do that on the floor. So, I would move for a referral to PP and J and PNF.

We have a motion by Supervisor Andre, seconded by McCarville to re refer to PP and J, was

it? NPNF.

NPNF. So let me just provide a point of fact. The the contract ends on May 31, and then the sheriff's office without any other guardrail can extend the contract. To end the contract, there is a requirement for a thirty day notice. So by postponing and re referring, that will create a problem with

that. Okay.

Yep. Thank you, chair. Yep. So, right. What I would suggest we accomplish tonight then is to, and I can work on it in writing, but to strike the removal of the budget line, but instead write that such that the funding is not available to be used in the subsequent contract for this particular vendor. But I'll need to figure out how to write that such that we terminate any future contracting.

We can't.

But I don't know how we accomplish both of those things at the same time. If just the money, I mean, other option is we don't reallocate the money here tonight, but we come back to this and say we wanna spend the $80,000 and still accomplish this same thing. So I will pause for some work on it. Thank you.

So where the county let me just again, another point of clarification. Where the county board has authority is to remove funding, controlling the purse string here. We can't direct the sheriff to do something outside of taking away the funding. The the what is in the board's purview, we cannot dictate to the sheriff what they do administratively in their department. We control the purse string, and so we can remove the funding as a way of controlling how whether this contract is extended or not.

Alright. So, yeah. Then the motion to postpone doesn't make any sense because we need to address the cessation of the contract in time. And then the way to proceed with using those $80,000 or leaving them in the general fund would be a budget amendment requiring three quarters of the county Two thirds. Two thirds of the board to reallocate those dollars to do something with them.

I mean,

this is a amendment in itself. This requires two thirds vote.

Okay.

Alright, undo my motion to refer.

Well,

we have a second for it?

Yeah.

Okay. So just both that down please.

Alright. So there's motion withdraw the motion is there a second? Second by Camp. So if there's I'd like to record that as having passed unanimously if there's

Thank you. I'm sorry.

Okay. So we're back to the Peterson amendment. Supervisor let's see. So the the board has been going all over the place with the so supervisor Glaser is now next in the queue. You wishing to speak to the Peterson amendment? Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Yes. Point of order.

Point of order. You stated a few seconds ago that that this is a budget amendment. Correct. How is a resolution of budget amendment? I mean, this

Well, our budget is a res done by resolution.

Well, this is a budget amendment then. Yes. Okay. Something needs to happen here.

Supervisor Glaser, go ahead.

Yeah. I I mean, it we've we've sort of talked around this and I and I appreciate on the supervisors attempts sort of on the floor to quote save funding for the sheriff's office. And I fully recognize that the sheriff's office has plenty of use for $80,000 But as we've been hearing tonight, the challenge is that we don't have the authority to reallocate it to something else within the sheriff's office. And we can sit here all night and try to figure out whether the thing one supervisor thinks is the right place to put it or not. But it's not our decision to make, and there's a deliberative process for accomplishing that.

So I would agree with the prior suggestion that tonight opportunity we just to in favor of removing the flock cameras and then allow PP and J and the deliberative process to work through on how flock gets replaced with something that is more ethical and less invasive of our citizens' privacies.

Thank you.

Supervisor Kemp on the Peterson amendment.

Yes, thank you, Chair Miles. I'd essentially like to reiterate what Supervisor Glaser just stated and what you stated prior. This body doesn't have the ability to control what what happens with the dollars, and I wanna try and reframe and refocus this discussion. We've spent probably forty five minutes discussing some of the major concerns that we have about this company. And so while I would like to do what we could to make sure that we can maintain that funding, the issue is quite simple.

We wouldn't have any control with the 80 some thousand dollars. And they may choose to allocate that with a different company that's maybe just a step better or a little bit better than FLAC. I have serious concerns about that, and I feel that there needs to be more oversight. So again, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. Also, when we get to actually voting on this, I would like to call for a roll call vote.

That has been done. Supervisor Rheilander.

Thank you, chair. In our I've been told that now that the elections are over very much, the work of the next budget has begun. The Health and Human Needs Committee, we have been getting briefs from the head of the Department of Human Services every week as far as how bad things are gonna be, how how we are scrutinizing every single thing we spend money on. We had a thing on the agenda tonight. It's a lease for Joining Forces for Families.

$1,000 a month for twelve months, $12,000. We agonized over this lease. We we ultimately voted in favor of it, but it was it was close to being something that we recommended we get rid of because we knew how tight things were, and we knew that $12,000 spent in one place is gonna be $12,000 cut in another place. My point is if this $80,000 being allocated to the sheriff's department tonight were a budget amendment, I would have to vote against it. And that is the situation we find ourselves in. So at the moment, I'm a no. Thank you. Anyone

else on on the Peterson amendment? Supervisor Belton?

Thank you, mister chair. Chuck, I just wanna reiterate Hicklin, control Hicklin. Sorry. Or maybe you can, mister chair. We this money goes back. Does it have to go back in the general fund? Because I'm looking at language. Yes. That it said because even though it doesn't say that, it just says that the contract is ended. So the money has to go back.

It's because it's not there's it's not appropriated in any other way. So it's just in the general fund.

Because it was that line in the, budget. Yep. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Alright. So with that, on the Peterson amendment, all in favor? A a roll call has been requested.

So at the end of line 41 yes?

Is Posler on the chat?

Oh, my apologies, supervisor Posler. I mean, you

wish You could disregard. It it's been addressed. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead. At the end of line 41, add and make those funds available for recruitment.

Okay. So oh, okay. Now we have you're wishing to speak to post. Alright.

So point of information If this if this amendment passes, I mean Mhmm. This is ridiculous.

If if the amendment passes, the 80,000 would stay in the sheriff's office budget and be appropriated towards I don't know if there's a budget line for it, but Fails is

my question. Recruitment. If it fails, can we have another amendment to the main motion?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

As long as it's not the same motion. Yes. So before the roll call vote, supervisor Betcher, you

Oh,

was an excellent. Okay. Go ahead with the roll call vote.

Okay. On the Peterson amendment, McCarville. Yes. McCarville, aye. Peters? No.

Peterson, aye.

Peterson, aye. Possler.

Posler, I. Posler, I. Ritt.

This is the amendment. Correct? Yes. No.

No. Rose. Rose, no. Rose, no. Rylander?

Rylander, no.

Rylander, no. Smith?

Smith, no.

Smith, no. Udell? Udell, yes. Brushuk, no. Blazewitz? No. Blazewitz, no. Betcher? Aye. Betcher, aye. Balig? Aye. Balig, aye. Brower? Brower, no. Brower, no. Brower, Chawla, no Dulin.

Dulin, no.