Park Commission - Regular Meeting

The hour of 5.30 having arrived, I'd like to call the Park Commission to order, please. Call the roll.

Thanks. Bogue.

Here.

Brower.

Here.

Supervisor Eicher.

Here.

Goforth is excused. Supervisor Postler.

Postler here.

Chair Thorson. Here. Youth and Governance Program Member Sangwon is excused.

Yes.

You have a quorum.

Okay, thank you. The... Next item of business will be the public hearing for Dane County Parks proposed 2027 fees. Jolene, do you want to introduce the fees?

I do, yes. All right, so tonight's public hearing is just one step in a process that the Park Commission began earlier this year. Starting in March, the Dane County Park Commission held its initial discussion on 2027 park fees. At that meeting, staff outlined the rising costs required to maintain current service levels, as well as broader county budget pressures and discuss the potential impacts those pressures could have on park operations, staffing, and service levels. Commissioners were asked for early guidance on whether fee adjustment should be explored as one tool to help address these pressures, and commissioners were supportive of further discussion. At the next meeting, the commission conducted a thorough data review. Staff presented permit sales and reservation history, information on resident and non-resident permit distribution, and comparisons with peer park and rec agencies in the Midwest. That information helped shape the draft proposal that is presented here. The proposal includes increases to annual permits, camping and shelter reservations, and daily fees. It also includes higher rates for non-Dane County residents, including the introduction of non-resident rates for permit categories that do not currently have them. the rationale behind that is that non-residents do not contribute to dane county tax levy through property taxes or through rent in the same way that dane county residents do as a result they do not help fund dane county parks and other county services that are supported by those local tax dollars This proposal maintains discounts for active military members, veterans, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and it preserves the fee assistance program for those experiencing financial hardship. This public hearing was scheduled and a press release was issued to share details on the proposed fees and encourage public participation. The story was covered by several local television and print media outlets, including Channel 3000, WKOW, and the Capital Times. The hearing was also promoted on the Dane County Parks Facebook page, the Dane County Parks online calendar of events, and through our park newsletter, which is emailed directly to more than 2,000 individuals. Tonight, the purpose is not to close the conversation, but to hear from the public before the commission takes action on the 2027 park fees. Written comments received through today have been shared with the commissioners by email and are also available in print for those commissioners here in person. the commission will use this input along with the work completed today to guide the next steps on the proposed 2027 fee schedule this item will likely be included on wednesday june 24th park commission agenda as an action item if the commission directs staff to revise the proposed fees prior to adoption those updates will be posted publicly as part of that agenda packet which can be found online on dane county's legislative tracking website with that i will turn it over to chair thorson to open the public hearing

Okay, thank you, and I really appreciate Jolene Stinson's summary there, and I really appreciate those who have sent their comments and want to speak tonight. I think the best way to handle this is I will call your name and then ask if you want to come up and speak or if you're on virtually to speak. Please hold your comments to no more than five minutes. So with that, I would like to call the first person. I'm not sure that you want to speak, but Chandler, is it Denhart?

Chandler is a participant online. In his original registration, he said that he did not want to speak. So Chandler, could you enter it in the chat if you want to change that opinion and speak? I don't see anything. At any point while the public hearing is still in session, please just enter something in the webinar chat that you want to speak and we'll promote you.

Okay, thank you. The next person who wished to register and speak was Ivan Floyd.

I'm currently promoting him to a panelist.

Excuse me, Tom.

Yes, go ahead.

It looks like Chandler did leave a message in the q&a. In case you didn't see that.

Okay, I didn't. I don't have access to the computer.

Oh, perfect. Thank you for that. Chandler. I see your note in the q&a. Thank you. That's perfect. Ivan, I have I have tried to promote you to a panelist. You'll have to accept that on your phone or your computer, however you're attending.

And then did Ivan want to speak?

He said he wanted to speak.

Okay.

He's also the one from Los Angeles with the phone number 12345678. Why don't we give him another minute?

If not, then we'll go on to the next one.

The next one that wanted to speak was Andrew Carter, we can I can go there. Actually, he's not online.

Okay. So if Ivan comes on later, we'll have him speak his points. The next person is Andrew Carver. Andrew.

Andrew is not currently attending.

He's not currently attending? No. Okay, again, while the meeting is still open, if anybody wants to speak, we'll let them. Then the next, and I don't believe that they're speaking, is Skye Liston?

No, who wants to speak?

Does not want to, okay.

Can I just excuse you again? It looks like also in the Q&A, they said that the chat, someone said the chat was disabled, so.

Yeah. So and say asking in the q&a would be the appropriate way then to because I can see that too. Yeah, that sounds good. So So yeah, if you want to speak if you change your mind and you're participating virtually, please type something in the q&a and we'll get you on the list. Otherwise, we'll continue to go down our registration report for those who do want to speak. So my Clinton here.

The next person, not sure if they want to speak or not, is Joan Wallace. Did Joan send comments?

She said she did not want to speak.

Okay. Let me go through the written...

So here's Clinton. He accepted the promotion.

Oh, great. Okay, great. So Clinton... Please go ahead. I understand you want to say something about the disc golf.

Hi there, can you hear me now? Yes. Yes, I just wanted to reflect some of the things that I've been hearing from the community. I'll just start off saying that I am not a resident of Dane County, just a former resident, but I'm So the way that it would affect me personally is that I would be seeing these increases for a non-resident living in Portage. And it's already something that has been a concern that we pay these fees. We understand the reasons why. And having it increase is not exactly satisfactory just because we don't always see it reflected within the disc golf courses. Um, and some other opinions that I've heard is that, um, as a, as taxpayers that are in the County, there are people walking around the courses that don't have to pay the fees and that we are playing a sport that, um, As far as like when people want to play basketball or play any of the other recreational sports, they don't see these fees. If there's concerns with getting the parks cleaned up or some of the other activities, there are plenty of people that would be willing to volunteer and actually be wanting to take care of some of the issues such as trash and cleaning up the courses. And There's other concerns with some of the staff that are within the park district, seeing online that there's been people that have investigated their increases in wages going up like 500% within the last four years that have been recorded and are on record. And so they're seeing that kind of increase issue with seeing that the courses are not getting as much attention as far as the people that are working there getting paid more. So that's where people kind of have an issue with seeing that, like, where is this money going, actually? And within the area, there are plenty of courses that do not have these fees, and they're well-maintained. and don't have an issue with having to charge for a recreational sport such as disc golf, which actually like has plenty of people, like I said, willing to step up and help maintain these parks. So that's just some of the opinions that I wanted to express and I'll end my talk now.

Okay. Thank you for those comments, Clinton. Let's see. Are there any of the other people who had registered to speak who are now in the queue?

So waiting for Andrew Carver to log in, I don't see his name on the list yet. And then I then I can re invite promote to panelists, he'll have to accept it though.

Okay. Well, Anissa's here, so why don't we call up Anissa Bellins. Yeah. Good, thank you. Could you put the mic on her?

I'm here tonight because Dane County is considering an increase to dog part takes what I'm going. Before asking residents to pay more, I believe the county should first demonstrate that the revenue currently collected is being managed in a way that truly benefits both our parks and the people and dogs that use them. I have repeatedly raised concerns regarding the management of our dog parks. We have seen native trees removed, natural understorage vegetation cleared, extensive use of herbicides, increased mowing, fencing projects that sit unused while other areas remain unaccessible. Meanwhile, conditions that directly impact visitor safety and enjoyment continue to go unaddressed. When I previously expressed concerns about these actions negative affect dogs and their owners, I was told that Dane County Park does not manage park lands for one particular group or one user group. If that is the county's position, then I ask, why are certain groups singled out to pay separate fees for access? If the county does not intend to manage these spaces with their primary users in mind, what exactly are these fees going for? The logic is entirely inconsistent. We don't charge parents a separate fee for each child to use the playgrounds, yet dog park owners, along with other groups, as it was said earlier, are expected to absorb these fees. but their concerns are not management priority. Furthermore, I'm deeply concerned with the financial efficiency of the current practices. The heavy reliance on herbicides, control burning, tree removal, temporary fencing, all comes to a steep cost to taxpayers. Ironically, this management style has forced additional cost mowing and controlled overgrowth the poison ivy, parsnip, burdock, stickweed are all increasing because of this management. So because of these ongoing issues, I along with many others have chose to buy my pass from the city. We are a consumer based economy and I will show my lack of approval here. So I urge the board to focus on accountability, transparency, measurable benefits before asking residents to pay more. Park users deserve to know exactly where their money is going. And if it is going to the park that you're charging, that's fine. Thank you.

Thank you.

So I mean, the other thing is we can't even get workdays posted. So there's a big lack of communication here.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else come on?

Okay, so the only other participant that was registered to speak, Andrew Carver is still not here. He's not on our attendee list. And then Ivan Floyd is here. I will again attempt to promote him to panelist. Ivan, if you can hear me, you're going to have to click that you accept that promotion. Or type something in the Q&A. Okay.

Didn't come on, okay. Okay, well, if anybody still wants to get on, we'll do that while we're in. I want to make sure I read into the record with the names of the people who sent in comments and the short summary of what their letter says. The first one is from Chad Buchan. Basically, overall concern about higher fees, concerned about that being priced out and that the parks are becoming for the wealthy. That would be the short version. Everybody should get a copy of the whole letter. There was into the record we want to have that Kim Hunter sent in her comments. and actually was encouraging a single-use day fee for the parks and to try to offset the other fees. That would be the summary of her letter, and it is something where she's trying to get it so that you pay to park in the park and come. Okay, then the next comment that came in is from Lynn Wallace inter tech, I believe, and in Lynn opposes the non resident fee increases. Um, and wants to have the fee increases shared by residents and non-residents. That's the summary of her comments. Another written comment is from Candice Verberg. And the summary of her letter is, wants to actually have some of the capital expenses transferred to help cover some of the costs. And also wants to have the county to train prisoners to help pick up the trash in the parks. And again, I think all the commissioners will have this letter for weighing into the fee issue. There was another comment or letter from Mark Olson. he suggests that the County create a pass similar to what the DNR does for conservation patron license, uh, a one by all per, uh, permit that, um, allows you to do anything in the park, ride trails, play disc golf, boat launch, and have it be between 150 and 200 a year. That was basically, uh, Mark's comment. Do we, did we get any other letters? Okay. Well, with that, that's all the comments and the people who wanted to testify. Did Ivan come?

Ivan, I'll give you one last chance promoting you to panelist and then Andrew Carver is still not present virtually.

Okay.

He's declined to be promoted to panelist.

Okay. Well, thank you. With that, I'll do a summary to close the hearing. I really appreciate all the citizens who sent in their comments and who came. I think it's important to... What we want is people involved and... we've we've got uh uh comments that are a few more than other years but you know it's really one of the things that i'm always amazed at is people really love and support our park so that's why we appreciate people you know passing their concerns on so thank you for that with that i'll uh close the hearing okay then we're on to the next item, which is consideration of the minutes. Is there a motion?

I'll move. I'll second.

Okay. Any additions or corrections? OK, if if if not, all those in favor of approval signify by saying aye aye. Anyone opposed? OK, thank you. Next is referrals. The first it will be a resolution. 503 authorizing the land acquisition for Bad Fish Creek Natural Area resource area. Is there a motion?

I'll move.

OK. OK.

Yeah, so this is the purchase of approximately 196 acres in the town of Rutland, just southwest of Stoughton on Bass Lake. And this one is one we've talked about before. We worked with the seller to kind of split off a portion of the property. So we get 196 acres and they're keeping some acreage to the east there. just south of Bass Lake. It's a mix of tillable land, wetlands, and lakefront with a stream there. And this purchase would actually open up Bass Lake to the public. It's been a privately surrounded lake, a private ownership, so this would be a great opportunity to get the public in there. As you can see, DNR owns their wildlife area just to the south there. So it's kind of an expansion of the wildlife area and that wildlife corridor across the road. So this would be a purchase for 2.1 million, which is about 10,700 an acre.

Okay. Any questions or comments? I guess my comment would be, I really appreciate us being able to get land to adjacent other land that can be used for the public and then also to the south end of that lake. So I think it's really appreciated that we can expand and get that. Any other comments before we vote or thoughts? If not, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. The next item will be the require the committee action. What we'd like to have is a motion directing the staff to prepare the grant resolutions for these grant applications contingent upon that all the contingencies that are met for that. Is there a motion for that? And then we'll have Shireen go through these.

I'll move.

Second. Second. Okay. Okay, Shireen.

Yeah, so we were privileged to hear from all of these groups at our last meeting, those of you that were here. And those of you that weren't, I hope you were able to go through and watch the video and hear those presentations. There's some really great projects here. So we have six applications for grant funds. We'll start with the first one, E1, which is Groundswell Conservancy for the Pine Quarry parcel. So this one is a little bit different in that there were actually two appraisals because they were actually able to get Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Funds, one of the last grants that's out there. So they're going to be awarded a grant from DNR based on a DNR appraisal, and then we're going to award a grant based on their original appraisal that Gronswell had done. So the appraised value that we're awarding on is 1.8%. Total project costs are coming in at $2 million. And their grant request is $1,595. It's a 50% grant that they're asking for. Recommendation would be to go ahead and award the grant request with the contingency. There is a drainage easement out there on the property, and we're not sure what exactly happened with that drainage easement. We think that there were some drainage infrastructure installed on the property, and that might have caused a navigable waterway to be affected. If that is the case, then there might be some kind of enforcement from DNR. So we want to make sure, one, we know what's on the property, how it's been used, if it's functioning, and two, the DNR, what they're viewing this as, if there is actually an enforcement or if it's okay and the owner and grounds would not be liable for anything in the future. so again um recommendation would be to go ahead with the award based on that contingency for the drainage when when will we know um that it's cleared yeah that's uh not sure we sent a letter to groundswell back in march um letting them know that this is something that would need to be cleared up um if we were to award the grant so

Well, I think I think it's prudent to wait for you know, to get that answer. But I appreciate that because it'd be a great opportunity. So. Okay. Next one.

Next one is the Prairie Enthusiast for the Badgerland Foundation at the Hendrick Grasslands. This one, so this was a parcel that came up for sale in 2025 and the Prairie Enthusiast couldn't act on it so Badgerland Foundation swooped in, saved the day and bought the parcel and held it until TPE could get some funds together. This one appraised at $191,000. They're looking for a 75% grant. Total cost, $214,760. So 75% would be $161,070. This one is actually ready to go. They don't have any contingencies out there. They have an offer to purchase signed, nothing outstanding. So I would recommend, go ahead.

We could see a resolution pretty quick. Any questions from commissioners? Okay, is that the third one?

Okay, third one is the Clean Lakes Alliance and the Committee to Preserve Lot 3 Sunnyside for the ProcNow parcel. This one, this is the neighborhood group that bonded together to form a 501c3 to save this eight-acre parcel next to Lake Kaganza State Park. The appraised value came in at $938,100. They're actually purchasing it for $920,000. And they're asking for a 50% grant for $464,280. The rest of the money they're hoping to fundraise. They have some pledges already. Clean Lakes Alliance is pledging about $45,000. And they have some other grants coming in. So there is a little bit of a funding shortage. So my recommendation would be to award the grant contingent on proof of them getting their 50% match.

Stephanie, you got a question?

You mentioned Sunnyside. Did I hear that correctly? Because there was also Sunnyside out on Highway 14.

across from yeah not okay so so it has nothing to do with that sunny side correct no no i believe this is the sunny side neighborhood oh yeah yeah nope no connection there no connection okay sounds like a great project and then i'll also note that we had a registrant um connie hagan registered support of this application oh yes thank you any other questions on that one

Thanks for reading that in the record.

Okay, number four. So we had Driftless Area Land Conservancy, who's been very busy. They turned in three grant applications, and one was a partner application with Badger Land Foundation. So the first one, let's go with 4A, is the Gansner Trust parcel. It's actually a landlord that they've been working with for quite a while. She has a horse farm and she decided to split off 40 acres and sell the 140 acres to Driftless Area Land Conservancy. So appraised value and purchase price are the same for 1,409,000. Total project costs are 1,424,300. And they're looking for a 75% grant of $1,068,217. They are actually going to get a small, like, scraping the barrel stewardship grant of $350,000. And I think stewardship is done. Like, that's it. um so um yeah so they get the last of it uh we are waiting on an actual accepted offer um stephanie had lunch with ms skansner last week and they think they are like almost there so um i would recommend an award of what they're asking for contingent of on that accepted offer any questions okay go ahead

Could you tell me exactly where that one is again?

Yeah, so that's in the Perry Primrose BCA. Yeah, so do you know where the Shervin unit is? That's kind of the DNR piece. That's kind of what they're building on in the town of Primrose. So this one, so the Shervin unit is kind of right here and the Gansner is like just to the north of it. So it's adjacent. So it's a great, great addition.

Sure.

Yeah, and it's all in grass already.

Oh, lovely.

Yeah. Nice. Yeah. 4B is the David Jelly Conservation Easement. This was our only conservation easement application that we got. So it's 109 acres of mostly grassland, and there's about 40 total acres. So this conservation easement would actually – There's three development rights that would leave him with the one, which is his homestead. And then it would actually keep everything in grass or hay. And it would also protect the stream that is running through the property as well. So the appraised and purchase price are the same 545,000. Total project costs, 559,790. 75% grant would be $419,842. And then Delk would come up with the rest. The recommendation would be to award the ask contingent on an acceptable status review of the farm, meaning we would send one of our land conservation staff out just to make sure that everything looks good with the farm, that there's nothing that they need to fix, that it's in good shape already. And I don't think there's going to be issues with this one. And then on acceptable conservation easement language. So there's in reviewing the easement that they have, there's just a few things missing that we would want that are specific to Dane County ordinances, things like that.

Doreen?

Yeah, go ahead.

Did you say that the fee simple and the easement prices were the same?

Oh, no. No, I'm sorry. The conservation easement appraised value and the purchase price are the same. Okay. Okay.

I thought I heard you wrong. Yeah.

Yeah. Actually, the conservation easement value came in, I think, at 55%. I see. The fee value. Yep.

Okay.

Okay. And then the last one was Driftless Area Land Conservancy and Badgerland Foundation together for the Sarko parcel. Again, this is the Perry-Permos Bird Conservation Area, 74 acres. And... Let's see, appraised value and purchase price came out about the same, $740,000. Total project costs are $770,000. The reason that's so high is because there were quite a few attorney's fees and they are splitting the property up. So there's a house on the property, so they're actually going to do a certified survey map and separate that house and the driveway from the rest of the land and hopefully sell that off. Their grant request is $578,093, so 75% grant, and then they would come up with the rest. Recommendation is to go ahead and award their ask contingent on the approved certified survey map, including a driveway access.

Okay. Any questions on these? Go ahead, Steph.

So where does that leave us with the fund? Is additional money still available?

We do have money available. So this is where it gets tricky because as you know, the conservation fund, I mean, it's just one fund, right? Right. So when we do the math, there is money still available. But there are some projects that we have outstanding that we're having appraised, as you know. So if you do the math and take all of that out, I think we might still have about 2 million left. No. Yeah. So.

Okay. If there's no other questions, the motion was to direct and prepare the grant resolutions once the contingencies are met. So it looks like some of them may be ready for resolution quick and other ones we're going to have to wait. Right. But we'll get those when they're ready. So all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? If not, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

The next item is a presentation on ethics training. And I really appreciate that the county does this. From my many years in government, it's very important to have ethics training, at least periodically. So, Jolene, you're going to do that for us?

Well, this is a new requirement that all committee and commissions and boards take this training annually. It is a video that I will be sharing with you. In just a moment here, I'll hit play. I'm going to switch the audio. Actually, before I do this, I've got to switch the audio over to my computer. So please bear with me while I do this. And then if you all... Will you just let me know for those of you virtually if you can't hear it and I'll mess with the technology. Then I'm also going to shoot the audio off in this room so we don't get feedback.

Can you hear that? Okay. Okay.

They can't hear it.

state law, and then we've also added additional ordinances ourselves. They're straightforward, but again, modern day experiences really change how they apply to your specific case, given all coming from different backgrounds, different employers, different connections in the community. You know, Madison and the Dane County area is not very large, so there's going to be a lot of kind of crossover effect between your role here and your personal roles at home. All right, who? Ethics rules apply to all county officials, that includes you as elected supervisors, as well as county employees. We're only going to talk about those rules that apply to you though tonight. So what? In general, they seek to prevent the county officials from using your office or position to gain, for any personal gain. They try to prevent you to ignore, they want to prevent you from ignoring any conflicts of interest, and they don't, and they want to prevent you from being inappropriately influenced. Alright, so Wisconsin statute 1959 is the code of ethics for local government officials these apply to everyone statewide if you're in a municipality. And the number one that falls underneath is is that you cannot use your office for private gain right the language here specifically says you can't use your office for personal financial gain or for anything of value quote unquote. or for gain of your immediate family member or for an associated organization that state law. You cannot offer or receive anything of value, which means you can't solicit or accept from any person anything of value if it could reasonably be expected to influence a vote or an action. Our ordinance has gone so far to define what it means to be anything of value and essentially breaks down to something, anything at all, that has a value of $13 and above or $39 yearly. So this bar is extremely low, right? And so this goes back to kind of we talked about originally, actually, Supervisor Eicher kind of brought up this idea of disclosures, right? And this idea of it's better safe than sorry to make sure that, you know, if you do feel like there's something of value out there, that you just recognize it as such and you take the action that's required. You also cannot take action on a matter which you have a financial interest, right? So you can't take, you can't vote or take any official action if you or your immediate family member, an affiliate organization has a substantial financial interest in the matter. We define substantial financial interest as anything that you have to disclose in your disclosure forms when you have filed them to the county clerk's office. You cannot use your office to create a substantial benefit for yourself or your immediate family or an organization you're associated with. Immediate family means a spouse or domestic partner or any relative who receives half more of your financial support from the officer that's in question or provides half or more support. And then associated with an organization is actually somewhat limited. It just means you, it implies to you or your immediate family that serves as a director, trustee, or controls at least 10% of a business's equity, or if you serve as an authorized representative. So that's one of those rare situations where your membership in an organization isn't necessarily going to be triggered as something as you have you being associated with under the statute, as long as you're not a board member, a director, or someone that's authorized representative in it. cannot take action on a matter which you have a financial interest. So if you're faced with this, you must not, A, participate in any discussion, deliberation, or vote, And you have to ask to be recorded as abstaining. What often gets missed when there is, when an elected official realizes there is a conflict, they believe that, well, I'm going to go ahead and abstain. But before they do so, they're jumping in and talking about the matter, you know, and putting their two cents in. And that's not really what the statute contemplates. The statute requires it contemplates someone making the decision, okay, I have a conflict here. I need to sort of step back and not get involved. But you have to do that from the beginning. You can't just assume that your abstention is, is in and of itself sufficient to avoid any potential ethical conflicts. We're gonna shift to now our Dane County chapter nine. It's local ethics code and incorporates what we just talked about under statute, but it also adds a few other things. We've added a few years ago, a requirement under ethics code to prohibit elected officials from engaging in sexual harassment or discrimination on a various basis. Interesting quirk that many organizations have is that those sexual harassment policies or that those policies that prohibit sexual harassment, the laws that prohibit kind of discrimination, the organizations tend to focus the application of those, the implementation of those on employees, and often forget that elected officials don't really have a direct connection to it. So in order to remedy that a few years ago, we actually added that as part of the ethics code for county officials. You cannot use or disclose information that you gained in the course of your service. unless it's already in the public record, if it's going to somehow result in you gaining something of value. Again, more than $13. cannot use your office for influence or gain you know this is very common through a lot of ethics codes throughout the country that's kind of sometimes called the don't you know who I am rule you know that someone's going out there saying you know I think you're going to want to do this for me because I'm going to I'm going to I'm a very important supervisor on the county board so that's unlikely perhaps but it is something that a lot of jurisdictions have adopted You cannot use, this sometimes comes up, you cannot use any county property for either partisan or nonpartisan political activity unless that property is available to anyone else in the public. There is not a specific list of property that we have in our ordinances, but it is, there is a list of property we have in our ordinances, but it's not inclusive. Sometimes what comes up is, you know, the use of email, like counties provided email for partisan or nonpartisan activity. that tends to be an issue sometimes, and that should be avoided, because that would be considered a county resource. Anything that you can access because of your role as a supervisor is a county resource. Section 928 deals with a kind of specialized situation with supervisors who happen to represent private interests before a county entity. If anyone falls in that camp, please reach out to me individually. I can sort of guide you through it. kind of acknowledge that that might be a possibility and there's certain exceptions that where we could sort of investigate to see if whether or not you can take advantage of to still sort of meet your private responsibilities, but also not run afoul of the ethics code. This is sometimes called as log rolling. You cannot trade your vote for or against an item for the vote of another supervisor on a different item. or for a modification to an ordinance amendment or resolution or in exchange for a veto or non-veto of an item by the county executive. Similarly, you cannot accept anything of value like fees or expenses for an activity unless you can demonstrate the activity is not related to the use of county time or materials and that there's no relationship to your office. That second one, The big exception to that one are actual and reasonable speaker fees like honorariums. Our ordinances recognize that in many ways those kind of assist the county. Those are for the county's benefit, not necessarily for your own personal benefit. There's also an exception in our ordinances to reflect that certain political committees regulated by Chapter 11 can provide such fees to you. may not accept anything of value which consists of transportation, lodging, meals, food or beverage, or reimbursement. But again, you can accept these items if you can show that it was received primarily for the benefit of the county, like I mentioned. A good example or a good sort of category of those exceptions would be if you were to receive the benefit, if it would actually prevent the county from paying the expense instead. So a good example would be if someone were to say, we want you to attend a conference, we're going to make sure your meals are paid at that conference. The county has a per diem that they would have to pay otherwise, so often our employees kind of take advantage of that so that the county itself doesn't have to pay out for the per diems. That would be permitted under the ethics code. There's also an exception here for payments from political committees, kind of similar to the one we just discussed. Now disclosures. Section 9.36 explains the requirements you must follow if you receive anything of value and how to disclose. I will tell you that the process is somewhat wonky. It requires you, if you decide, I think there's a provision there that says, if you decide to keep it, you need to submit the value of whatever the thing of value was to the treasurer's office and the treasurer's office then needs to keep a record of it. My editorial statement of that is it just looks bad. So really consider whether or not it's worth taking advantage of that process and talk to me or someone from my office if you are considering that. The Incarnate Ordinances 9.60 and 9.61 deals with the Statements of Economic Interest, which I think many of you have already completed. And then this last one is in red because I wasn't sure that their body was going to adopt the changes we just made. to disclosure, so we're going to go to breaking news here, thanks to all of you, and spend a little bit more time about this new ordinance that everyone has passed. I'm going to read it just kind of, I don't want to bore everyone, but I think it's helpful just to sort of read it out loud and then give anyone a chance to sort of ask questions about it. I will be up front and say this is new to us as well. oftentimes these ethics rules we get a good sense as to how they're going to be applied after some unfortunate first issues come up um so but i want to sort of be able to sort of address any kind of generalized questions tonight and then sort of focus my research afterwards if there are some questions that we should kind of look into after after we discuss them today so as we mentioned before so section one deals just with disclosures Right, and it's basically in your case as a supervisor who has or whose immediate family member has a substantial financial interest, right? Let's take that separately. That one we've already discussed, right? That's anything that you've already kind of disclosed in your economic interest or a personal interest. We've also discussed this. That could be anything above a modicum of a contact between a business, political association, family member or whatever. So it's really low bar. in a matter pending before you right then this ordinance requires you to disclose it and again and i really i can't stress this enough i i think the practice should be Better safe than sorry, right? Because even if it's not a real story, the failure to disclose might make it a story, and it's better just to disclose it if you can. I know as this gets kicked in, once this kicks in, and many of you are going to have questions about it because we haven't had to do this before, I'm happy to discuss those with you offline. And if there is some kind of general guidance that comes from those discussions, I will provide it to the board. Number two deals with abstentions. And as we talked about before, this one requires kind of a higher bar, a higher level of inquiry for members of the body. So the county official shall abstain from discussing, deliberating, and voting on the matter under consideration if they or an immediate family member has a substantial financial interest. Again, we know what that is. or a personal interest, but here's the qualifier, right? Both of those, or either of those, I should say, need to be to the extent as judged by you as a supervisor, and again, if you have questions, please reach out to me or someone from my office, that those interests you believe conflicts or appears to conflict with your official duties or would impair or reasonably be expected to impair their independence of judgment or actions. Again, this is a brand new rule. I invite anyone that feels if there's something like in the agenda that's coming up for your first meeting after this one that you feel, hey, this might be something that I need to abstain on, please contact our office. Quite frankly, these discussions have been occurring for many years with me. A lot of members kind of reach out because of their employment or they just want to make sure what should I do here. So I'm happy to answer those questions moving forward. I will invite questions afterwards, I guess, but let's move on, but please write them down if you have any. Okay, no private interest in public contracts. So our ordinances say you cannot participate in the making of a contract in your capacity as a board member if you have a direct or indirect financial interest in the contract. So essentially, if you have any Any skin in the game about a resolution that authorizes a contract, then you should abstain from voting on it. Now, the flip side of this one is a little bit more complicated. However, you cannot, in your private capacity, negotiate, bid, or enter into a contract with which you have a direct or indirect financial interest if you are authorized or required by law to participate in your public capacity in the making of the contract. So the example that comes to mind is one that was written in an AG opinion many years ago where there was a town member, I believe, who was a member of a committee that ultimately kind of would vote on recommending whether or not land should be purchased, right? This town member owned some land that the town was interested in purchasing. This town member negotiated with the agency or not even agency, like the member of the town board that was kind of in charge of kind of soliciting and acquiring that land. Then when the deal came up before the committee that he was in, he abstained. He thought he was fine by doing that. This statute, which is a criminal actual family statute, does prohibits you from doing that. So the way I try to think about it is, is that whereas the one previously comes into place when you just happen to see a contract that you have some direct or financial interest in, you can abstain and step away, because that is affecting you and your public capacity and your official capacity. What you can't do though, is be the initiator of the negotiations or engage in those negotiations at all. And by the time, and if you do, by the time that contract comes back to you as part of your official duties, it's too late. You've already committed the felony violation, honestly. You know I don't I can tell you that this is probably criminal statute hasn't been used in many, many years, but it is puts it will put you at risk. So my big takeaway here is if you have something that you want to negotiate with the county. You you should really think whether or not that is something you want to pursue, because the minute you start negotiating, if it ends up coming back to you. The violation might have already occurred. And again, if this ever is a possibility, please, please, please reach out to me. I am happy to go into a lot of discussion, a lot of inquiry with it about it. My office is here to sort of assist you with all of these. There are other prohibitions that other state laws come into play too, which is one is you cannot be employed or appointed to a new position or an office that was created during your term in office. It seems unlikely given our budget circuit constraints, but if we were to create positions in the 2027 budget and you thought to yourself, I really would, I wouldn't mind doing X for the county. You would not be eligible to apply for that position and hold that position under state law. This other one is another federal, sorry, criminal statute. You cannot intentionally fail or refuse to perform a known mandatory non-secretionary duty within the required time period. You cannot take any action that you know is forbidden by law to do in an official capacity, and you cannot either act or by omission and exercise discretionary power inconsistent with the duties of the office in order to obtain a dishonest advantage. That language is kind of broad, and again, it will have to be a situation where we look at what the circumstances are. And then we kind of go over that statute together to see whether or not it applies to your specific case. But it's essentially trying to prohibit the misconduct in office. And it goes, requires sort of investigation to your intention as to why you took action or you didn't take action. So it's really fact intensive as well. So I imagine all of you are sitting back saying like I've heard a lot of words being thrown at me and I still don't know what to do if something were to come up, and that is a fair fair criticism. There are a few things that we kind of I can try to point to you so guide you a little bit, at least in your initial inquiry one is what's the nature of the decision that you're about to vote on right. The reason why that's important is if you are going to make a decision that's a little bit more quasi-judicial, one where you're applying a specific set of facts to whether or not you're going to take an action, that's a bigger deal. That's a situation where I think you should really reach out to our office sooner rather than later, and so we can discuss it, because there is more of a possibility that's going to be an ethical issue for you. Ask yourself, does the matter involve a public contract in which I have a direct or indirect financial interest? Again, air on the side of being careful. Reach out to our office. We're happy to answer those questions. And then simply, does the action affect myself, a member of my family, or an organization with which my family member or I are associated? Again, all of these, you know, in many cases, if any of these are yes, that I think should inspire you, unless you're confident in your decision to reach out to our office to have a discussion about it. I promised you there is like one piece of practical advice that I've always told people, and it's this one. Does it pass a smell test? Would you be comfortable if you were to imagine maybe a political operative or maybe a political candidate you don't necessarily care for doing what you're contemplating doing and reading about it in the paper? If it makes you feel like, well, I'm not sure if I would like that person or Consequently, I'm not sure if I want people to know I did X if that were to come out. That's the trigger to sort of follow. That's your decision right there. That's your decision to abstain. That's your decision to avoid any further discussions about that matter. And at a minimum, that's your decision to reach out to our office. Again, key thing here is we are here to help. We can provide confidential advice for you. Otherwise, the Dane County Ethics Board can handle complaints and they can also provide an advisory opinion to you as well.

Okay.

Okay, I'm back.

Are we back on? Okay. Okay, thanks everyone for paying attention to that. I guess some of the things is better safe than sorry. That's one of the takeaways. I know from personal experience, when I first started a number of years ago, we had a group that was giving us hats. And Dave Ripp said, well, it's less than $13 you can take. They were giving it to everybody. So it was a matter of knowing you should know that, hey, I can't think of anything of value. So nothing over $13. And of course, the best thing to do is to avoid it to begin with. So anyways, but I wanted to make sure that people knew that. also recuse yourself ahead of time i mean that's another takeaway i know sometimes it maybe you have some property where it's a family member or something that you know so thank thanks everybody um and the other takeaway was ask questions okay the next item is reports to committee And, um, I'll, you know, one of the things, and I'll ask Nan how she wants to report this. We, we want to have a celebration for Nan at our next meeting, cause that'll come up with it. And that is, um, Nan, uh, I think has served us for eight years and she will, her term expires and the County has, has appointed another highly qualified person. And we want to really make sure we appreciate Nan at our next meeting. It'll be in person. You know, she's served the county really well for eight plus years on the commission. And we're going to still see her around. So that's a real good thing too. So I don't know if you wanted to say anything, Jolene or Nan.

Go ahead, Nan. Go ahead, Jolene.

I would just reiterate what Tom said that Nan has been a truly wonderful commissioner for the last eight years. And I'm really looking forward to celebrating her service.

Well, I didn't realize that county executives can appoint new people and shuffle things around. So I now realize that and that there were quite a few, maybe up to a half of People whose terms were up are being replaced by the county exec's appointees now. And I understand that, but I feel really sad. So...

And that's understandable, Nan, because, you know, that's a part of who you are. And we really, you know, it's a matter of you, you were really helpful and did things right. But, you know, the county exec has, you know, they appoint people. So that's what we want. We want to make sure we celebrate you at our next meeting.

Well, I'm, I'm hoping we celebrate everything we've all done in eight years, all of the great things we've done. And, um, Yeah, I'll miss my commissioner team and the staff team and the updates and even the dry ethics training. So I'll see you all at the next meeting.

Okay. Yep. And the next item is the future meetings. It's going to be here at the Heritage Center at the solar shelter. Earlier in the day, we don't know the details yet. I don't know if anything's worked out. We're going to be getting the canoe. Yeah. What do we know more? Anything?

I think it's going to be 4 p.m. We'll have an event, but stay tuned for the invitation on that here at the Heritage Center Solar Shelter earlier, where the dugout canoe will be donated back to Dane County Parks. So like I said, stay tuned as those details get worked out. And then I'll also just note that the next meeting will not be in this room inside. Summer camp will be in session. There will be hundreds of adorable little kids getting checked out in and around the Heritage Center. so the solar shelter that we will be meeting at is the one on the other side of the barn if you've attended the volunteer recognition picnic it's just off of the parking lot over there so not the solar shelter closer to the campground and i can put a sign there that will point people in the right direction but i just want to be clear for you also you know where we're meeting next next meeting

Yep. So yeah, so everyone will be welcome to the event. You know, accepting the canoe, the whole chunk was very grateful to the county. And you know, it's a wonderful relationship, you know, for the with the native peoples that were here for 1000s of years. So and then the next meeting after that will be July 8 at the Shediger forest. And are there any comment public comments on items not on the agenda? Any other business? If not, we're at adjournment. Is there a motion?

Make a motion to adjourn.

Okay.

I'll second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Thanks, everybody.