HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2019 (24) Resolution No. 24 (2019)
ST. C}l UN "Y. RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GOALS
"4 C d ,P; 4
" - � REPORT FOR PERIOD JULY 1, 2018 - JUNE 30, 2019
1 WHEREAS, the St. Croix County Board has provided guidance to the County
2 Administrator by establishing annual goals for the rating period July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019; and
3
4 WHEREAS, the County Administrator has prepared a report highlighting the completion
5 of said goals (attached); and
6
7 WHEREAS, Section 11 (B) of the County Administrator's employment agreement
8 (approved December 6, 2016) "Employer at its discretion shall review and evaluate the
9 performance of the Employee from time-to-time, at least on an annual basis and may consider
10 discretionary bonuses."
11
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the St. Croix County Board of
13 Supervisors does hereby approve the County Administrator's Goals Report; establish the next
14 rating period of the County Administrator of July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020, and approves
15 discretionary non base incentive compensation payment of$4,000 as budgeted for the County
16 Administrator to be paid on the anniversary of his contract July 1, 2019.
Legal—Fiscal—Administrative Approvals:
Legal Note:
Fiscal Impact: Any compensation adjustments would be budgeted for in the 2020 budget. We
have$4000 budgeted for discretionary incentive award in 2019.
r
c'ott .'Cox,Corporation C(16nW A1912019
K. sn a Cour A n "x trJ r /T/2 1
W.
Fa ruck Thompson,County Administrator 5/9/2019
05/13/19 Administration Committee NO ACTION
RESULT: NO ACTION
06/04/19 Administration Committee RECOMMENDED
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
RESULT: RECOMMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Peterson, Chair
SECONDER: Dan Fosterling, Supervisor
AYES: Sjoberg, Moothedan, Fosterling, Peterson, Hable
Vote Confirmation.
Daiwidl P 7 Ads (oristration,°"Chiairmari 6/4/201
SL Croix County Board of Supervisors Action:
Roll Call - Vote Requirement— Majority of Supervisors Present
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..................
RESULT: ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roy Sjoberg, Supervisor
SECONDER: David Peterson, Supervisor
AYES: Schachtner, Endle, Miller, Coulter, Sjoberg, Malick, Moothedan, Feidler, Larson,
Hansen, Peterson, Anderson, Achterhof, Hable, Peavey
ABSENT: Dan Fosterling, Dave Ostness, District 13, District 14
This Resolution was Adopted by the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors on June 4, 2019
Cindy Campbell, County Clerk
County Administrator Goals Report
Paae Description
1 Pyramid of Strategic Planning Work Flow
2 Resolution 22 (2018) Establishing County Administrator Goals July 1, 2018—June 30, 2019
-Adopted July 9, 2018 by County Board
4 County Administrator Goals Report July 1, 2018—June 30, 2019
-Report on Success
8 Youth Justice Services Report
-Supporting document for Goal #2
11 CAP Team Report
-Supporting document for Goal #2
15 St. Croix County Sheriff's Office Policy 341
-Supporting document for Goal #3
21 Joint Legislative Council's Report of Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras
-Supporting document for Goal #3
40 Draft Resolution Approving County Administrator Goals Report July 1, 2018 — June 30,
2019 and Authorizing Discretionary Incentive Payment
-Administration Committee and County Board to approve report (June 4, 2019)
41 List of Strategic Initiatives
-Created by Committee of the Whole March 12, 2019
42 Resolution 17 (2019) Establishing Strategic Initiatives
-Adopted May 7, 2019 by County Board
44 Suggested Goals for County Administrator
-Administration Committee and County Board must approve by Resolution
(July—August 2019)
-Administration Committee and County Board to complete County Administrator
Performance Evaluation and Compensation Analysis (July—August 2019)
V)
nlmllwlllwlllwllll
„n6
uiIG 'Eu� o
muull �
IQ c .Q)
IIIVIIIVII@II >, 7 '
CoII `O
Ndl4 0 N u'"' � .
N@� ..�U11II O 'N mI IIIIIIIIIIIIIU W �-
y�IIIII@IIU� U " IIIIIIIIII� N T
H N N
r" S m 3 L O III IIIIIIIIV r-U
7ON �IIIUIIUI N > L . U
O � U @ilulI@U `
ca llllllllllllluC'UN a> _
0
r, muue a) O
0 a o
m .v
m w () IllUlllUllf.. L IIIIIIIIIII�
N �
N
3rOrr. N aaNww >- n0NL.mNN
OC
)
N IIIIIIIIIIIIIU
O IN@
flmm c o
5555;,'%1pi mo p QQ
0 CL/r//� C UNNNgry m j��-
-O
O fn N fn N 7
//� N 1111111 T > Illllll�� N O N
rr m m�� m
CL ��mmu U o 2:1
c N Co mnm¢ _0 _0
c Lmuuo
)I
Um -0 ai ao � uuO m
W/0 CO v
N
O O
O U U UO O �lllll➢
S NT
C) p L
0
N O C U N
'
O)
„i„ NNNBNUN — N
ii U IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,�V O (6 Co
NU
'NO c U 4uuNNNN I Q m y '6 a
L u o m Qc) >
N >, a Q Q
� � b
w
r Ca Q 131
CL CL.
NIC x a n
Uui� dlrel
iy°11 rcN b!mN �W
� ab
eb
ae
y�w
Resolution No. 22 (2018)
T. ROIX UNT�Y RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GOALS
FOR JULY 1, 2018 - JUNE 30, 2019
1 WHEREAS,the St. Croix County wishes to provide guidance to the County Administrator by establishing
2 annual goals; and
3
4 WHEREAS,the Administration Committee has reviewed and recommended goals for the County
5 Administrator for the next year.
6
7 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors does hereby set the
8 following goals for the County Administrator for the period of July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019:
9
10 1. Work with newly established Transit Commission to establish strategic plan that matches the
11 goals of the County and falls within the funding ability of the County.
12 2. Create policy and processes to prepare St. Croix County for the closing of Lincoln Hills Juvenile
13 Correction Facility.
14 3. Create policy and establish best practices with the implementation of the Sheriff Department
15 body cameras.
Legal—Fiscal—Administrative Approvals:
Legal Note:
Fiscal Impact: Setting of goals has no fiscal impact.
cott .Cox,Corporation Co4nW -r'1412018 K si a Cou A in trat6r 6/13/2018
Pa nck Thompson,County Administrator 1 6/15/2018
06/18/18 Administration Committee NO ACTION Next: 07/09/18
RESULT: NO ACTION Next: 7/9/2018 5:00 PM
07/09/18 Administration Committee RECOMMENDED
2
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
RESULT: RECOMMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Roy Sjoberg, Vice-Chair
SECONDER: Shaela Leibfried, Supervisor
AYES: Roy Sjoberg, Dan Fosterling, David Peterson, Shaela Leibfried
EXCUSED: Tammy Moothedan
Vote Confirmation.
Dave 7,"� m(rrrstration,Char an 7/10 018
mid Pe4er'son Ad /2018
SL Croix County Board of Supervisors Action:
Roll Call -Vote Requirement— Majority of Supervisors Present
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Peterson, Supervisor
SECONDER: Lynda Miller, Supervisor
AYES: Schachtner, Nordstrand, Miller, Coulter, Long, Moothedan, Fosterling, Feidler,
Ostness, Larson, Hansen, Brinkman, Peterson, Anderson, Achterhof, Leibfried,
Peavey
ABSENT: Roy Sjoberg, District 13
This Resolution was Adopted by the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors on August 7, 2018
Cindy Campbell, County Clerk
3
STOCIxI
C TY
,, A&
County Administrator
Goals Report July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019
4
Goal 1:Work with newly established Transit Commission to establish strategic plan that matches the
goals of the County and falls within the funding ability of the County.
Find and Procure Engage all Establish Operations
secure staffing stakeholders Develop a Marketing Nuts and bolts
funding business plan
• Identify • Hire transit • Participation • Determine Define • Explore
sustainable coordinator from all long-term target insurance
funding • Staffing- concerned needs markets options
• Identify hiring communities • Determine • Runnings:
funding • Get buy-in service provider of
sources from cities, specs insurance and
• Identify towns, • Determine vehicles
funding villages, which • Establish an
• Take public and options to information
advantage private pursue bank
of Engage • Approve
(proposed) partner with and
new county and implement
capital other service
assistance entities • Educate
program Educate on
• Establish businesses Jumpstart
annual of current Program
budget services (Westcap)
available
and
participation
• Advocate
community
rideshare
Accomplished:The Transit Commission identified Strategic Directions on April 9, 2019.
The Transit Commission concluded strategic planning at its meeting in May of 2019.The strategic plan
lays out the vision and mission statement of the SCC transit commission as viewed by the appointed
Transit Commission.The plan is also intended to set up and determine the path forward in regards to
service possibilities and goals.These will be vetted through the Commission and eventually presented to
the County Board.The strategic plan will highlight that services provided will have to be funded within
the constraints that the County Board identifies, in collaboration with outside funding sources if
available.The final strategic plan should be completed and available this summer.
5
Goal 2: Create policy and processes to prepare St. Croix County for the closing of Lincoln Hills Juvenile
Correction Facility.
Accomplished: Goal established due to 2017 Wisconsin Act 185, which was enacted on March 30, 2018.
Brief overview of this Act includes:
1. Requires the Wisconsin Department of Corrections to close the Lincoln Hill and Copper Lakes
Schools no later than January 1, 2021.
2. Requires counties to establish new secured residential care centers for children and youth
(SRCCCY) by January 1, 2021.
3. Provides$80 million in funding for county secure residential centers, new state-owned juvenile
correctional facilities and expansion of the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center.
After review and consideration of available options for counties, St. Croix County has engaged in work
with existing regional detention centers (Eau Claire and La Crosse)towards implementation of a hub and
spoke model.This model would include contracting for services and outline roles, responsibilities, and
operational and financial obligations.
Since initial planning, Eau Claire County has opted not to pursue the SRCCCY. Eau Claire County is still
operating long term and short-term detention services and St. Croix County maintains a contract for
both of these regional services.
La Crosse County continues planning with several regional counties, including St. Croix County. Facility
design, programming and budget have been points of discussion. Discussion has also included needed
adjustments to 2017 Wisconsin Act 185, some of which include:
• Counties need additional time to design and construct SRCCCY's.
• Additional bonding authority.
• Medical Assistance to cover treatment needs for children.
Additional supporting material from CAP Team and the Wisconsin Counties Association are attached.
6
Goal 3:Create policy and establish best practices with the implementation of the Sheriff Department
body cameras.
Accomplished: Policy 341 Portable Audio/Video Recorders has been created and implemented in the
Sheriff Department. Copy of policy attached.The policy represents the current best practices.
St. Croix County Captain Jeff Klatt is a member of the State Legislative Council Study Committee on the
Use of Police Body Cameras. With a voice at the table, 2019 Senate Bill 50 is in conformity to our existing
policy. A copy of the Joint Legislative Council's Report of the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body
Cameras is attached.
Timeline:
June 18, 2018—Administration Committee reviews proposed goals
July 9, 2018—Resolution 22 (2018) Establishing County Administrator Goals 7/1/18-6/30/19
May 20, 2019—Administration Committee reviews draft of goals report
June 4, 2019—County Board receives final goals report for 7/1/18—6/30/19
Summary:
County Administrator Contract Section II(B) "Employer at its discretion shall review and evaluate the
performance of the Employee from time-to-time, at least on an annual basis and may consider
discretionary bonuses."
Please accept this report as part of my annual evaluation. I look forward to your feedback on my
performance and how together we can make St. Croix County a better place.
WISCONSIN
W C H S %1111111111111111
Couries
ASSOCIATION
YOUTH JUSTICE SERVICES
Secured Residential Care Centers for Children and Youth
2017 Wisconsin Act 185 (Act 185) significantly changes the juvenile corrections system in
Wisconsin. Act 185 closes Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake schools effective January 1, 2021, and
replaces them with two types of facilities:
• State-operated Type I facilities for serious juvenile offenders and youth with adult
convictions;
• County-operated secured residential care centers for children and youth(SRCCCY) for
all other youth with a correctional disposition.
Since its enactment, counties have reviewed 2017 Wisconsin Act 185 and identified several
technical concerns with the legislation. Counties also need additional time to design and
construct SRCCCYs. Failure to resolve these issues in a timely manner may result in counties
choosing not to submit grant applications to operate secured residential care centers for children
and youth.
On the fiscal side, Act 185 provides state bonding authority of$40 million for the construction of
SRCCCYs. Counties have indicated additional bonding authority will be needed. Counties also
identified the need for the state to provide counties with start-up costs for the operation of
SRCCCYs.
17-Year-Olds
Wisconsin state statutes require county governments to operate and fund the juvenile justice
system. County boards are required to authorize human services departments to provide intake
and dispositional services to juveniles who are accused of violating, or have violated, a state law.
Wisconsin law defines a juvenile as any person under the age of 18 years. Prior to January 1,
1996, 17-year-olds were treated as juveniles. Under 1995 Wisconsin Act 27, 17-year-olds are
treated as adults. Since that time, research has indicated that juveniles are best served, and the
interests of the community are best protected from juvenile criminal behavior when the
presumptive age for circuit court jurisdiction is age 18 years. Counties support the inclusion of
17-year-olds in the youth justice system; however, county support is contingent on full state
funding for the provision of services provided to 17-year-olds.
8
Youth Justice Services
Page 2
CURRENT STATUS:
SRCCCYs: The Governor's budget provides $100 million for SRCCCY grants to counties.
The Governor's budget changes the deadline for counties to submit SRCCCY grants from March
31, 2019 to July 1, 2019 and changes the date that the Juvenile Corrections Grant Committee
must submit SRCCCY recommendations to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) from July 1,
2019 to October 1, 2019. The budget also allows counties to submit grants prior to the deadline
and allows the committee to forward early applicants to the JCF prior to the deadline under 14-
day passive review to ensure that counties that are ready to move forward are able to do so
without delay. The Governor's budget removes the deadline for closing Lincoln Hills and
Copper Lake schools and for constructing the new SRCCCYs and new state-run juvenile
correctional facilities.
The Governor's budget provides $3.5 million GPR in FY21 to reimburse one-time start-up costs
for counties that create SRCCCYs. Expenses eligible for reimbursement will be determined by
the Department of Children and Families in consultation with representatives of the counties.
Separate legislation (LRB-1117) is also in the works to make technical corrections to 2017
Wisconsin Act 185, as well as provide counties with an additional six months to get SRCCCYs
constructed and operational.
17-Year-Olds: The Governor's budget reverts jurisdiction of 17-year-olds from adult court to
juvenile court for acts committed on or after January 1, 2021 and provides sum sufficient funding
to Wisconsin counties to cover eligible costs associated with returning these youth to the juvenile
justice system. The sum-sufficient appropriation will start with a base of$5 million GPR in
FY21 and will be used to reimburse counties for the increased costs associated with raising the
age. Expenses eligible for reimbursement will be determined by the Department of Children and
Families (DCF) in consultation with representatives of the counties. The change applies to
violations under the criminal code, as well as violations of civil law or municipal ordinances.
REQUESTED ACTION:
SRCCCYs:
• Support LRB-1117, the technical correction legislation.
• Support the increased bonding authority included in the Governor's budget, as well as the
$3.5 million in start-up funding.
17-Year-Olds:
• Support the public policy change, as well as the creation of a sum sufficient appropriation
to reimburse counties for services provided to 17-year-olds in the juvenile justice system.
• Specify that counties shall be reimbursed for all costs eligible to be reimbursed under the
youth aids program.
9
Youth Justice Services
Page 3
TALKING POINTS:
• Absent technical changes to 2017 Wisconsin Act 185, including a change to the timeline,
counties may choose to forego SRCCCY operation.
• The technical changes represent clarifications to legislative intent.
• The costs associated with moving 17-year-olds to the juvenile justice system are too great
for counties to absorb within current resources. A sum sufficient appropriation is
necessary for counties to have the ability to financially support such a significant policy
change.
• In 2010, counties reported spending over $217.6 million on juvenile justice services. Of
that amount, $100.6 million was funded by youth aids and $116.9 million came from
other county funding sources, primarily property tax revenue.
Since that time, state youth aids funding to counties was cut by 10 percent, or
approximately $10 million annually.
• If the primary purpose for bringing 17-year-olds back to the juvenile justice system is to
provide them with the treatment and services they do not receive in the adult system, then
it only makes sense for the state to provide the funding needed to offer such treatment
and services.
• Failure to fund these costs places the whole juvenile system at risk, as the limited
resources available to counties will have to be utilized on an increased number of
juveniles.
Contact: Sarah Diedrick-Kasdorf, WCA Deputy Director of Government Affairs
608.663.7188
diedrick@wicounties.org
10
'AP
W CA CountyAmbassador Program
SECURED RESIDENTIAL CARE CENTERS FOR.CHILDREN YOUTH
2017 Wisconsin Act 185 significantly changes the juvenile corrections system in
Wisconsin. After reviewing the legislation in greater detail, counties have the following
concerns that need to be addressed legislatively.Failure to resolve these issues in a timely
manner may result in counties choosing not to submit grant applications to operate
secured residential care centers for children and youth(SRCCCY).
Continuation of 365/180 Programs
2017 Wisconsin Act 185 limits the number of beds a county that chooses to continue
operation of its 365/180 program(does not accept a SRCCCY grant)may maintain to the
number of juveniles housed at the juvenile detention facility on January 1,2021.
Concerns have been raised by counties with regard to the use of the arbitrary date.In
particular, counties work with their judges to send juveniles home for the holidays
whenever possible(best practice model).As a result, county detention populations on
January I of any given year will be artificially low. In addition, population numbers in
county long-term programs tend to ebb and flow so the use of a single date does not
reflect the true ADP of the 365/180 programs.
Broom County is currently in a unique position with regard to its juvenile detention
facility.Due to jail overcrowding issues, its usual 50 bed juvenile detention facility is
temporarily down to I5 beds.Brown County's new jail will not be operational prior to
January 1, 2021;therefore,if the January 1, 2021 date remains in place,Brown County
loses its ability to serve as a regional resource if it chooses to maintain its current 365
program due to its current artificially low capacity.
Counties request that the January 1,2021 date be changed to a facility's highest
population day in either CY18,CY19,or CY20.In the case of Brown County,the
number should be either the county's total rated capacity,or a number negotiated
between Brown County and the Office of Detention Facilities within the Department
of Corrections.
WISCONSIN COUNTIES ASSOCIATION
January 2019 -
SRCCCY Issue Paper
Page 2
Use of Medical Assistance
The treatment needs of juveniles who will be placed in SRCCCYs is extremely high.As a
result, the operational costs for SRCCCYs will be extremely high as well.
Counties request that the Department of Health Services be required to submit a
demonstration waiver to the federal
_government to change the definition of
temporarily absent from the home to include juveniles in SRCCCYs and 3651180
programs. In the Alternative, counties request state assistance in identifying
statutory changes that will make the SRCCCYs AIA eligible.
Counties believe that MA eligibility for juveniles receiving services in SRCCCYs is in
line with the core principles of CMS and.will provide better outcomes for juveniles who
will be able to continue to receive care from their own providers (physicians,mental
health professionals, etc.).
Education
The level of educational support school districts provide secure detention facilities varies
greatly from district to district.
Counties request that school districts be required to provide a minimum level of
services to juveniles who are placed in a SRCCCY or 365/130 program.Proposed
changes include requiring programming to comply with DPI curricular and
instructional hours requirements; allowing expelled juveniles to re-enroll while in a
SRCCCY; requiring districts to honor IEPs; and requiring districts to provide
curricula found in a typical public school, such as gym, art,music,etc.
Timeline
The date included in 2017 Wisconsin Act 185 by which counties are required to have
SRCCCYs operational is simply unworkable. Counties will not even know what is
required with regard to programming,g, services, and facility design until mid-late
December 2018. Counties have until March':)1,2019 to submit grant applications to the
Juvenile Corrections Grant Committee(JCGC). According to the Act,the JCGC cannot
recommend a county for a grant unless DOC approves the plans and specifications for the
site and the design and construction of the proposed SRCCCY. After consultation with an
architect,these timelines cannot be met.
.................... ...............
12
SRCCCY Issue Paper
Page 3
Sample Timeline(following receipt of administrative rule):
Activity Time Needed
County approval to move forward with a 2-3 months
rant a lication
RFP to secure an architect 2-3 months
---- ...._._ Architectural design (assumes new __� 8.months ........ .....
construction
Bid and awaro'e
d rct 1-2 months
Construction 12-15 months
This timeline does not consider the time between which an application is recommended
for approval by the JCGC and the time it will take the Joint Committee on Finance to
approve the statewide plan.
Counties request modifications to the statutory timelines to reflect the actual time
needed to complete the tasks required not only to submit a grant application and
construct the facility,but also the time that is needed to train staff once the new
facility is completed. Counties recommend an additional six months to one year.
Bondine Authority
Based on preliminary figures, the$40 million authorized to reimburse counties for 95%
(100%for facilities to house females) of design and construction costs is woefully
inadequate.
Counties request the state allocate adequate funding to address the actual costs
associated with the design and construction of.SJ2CCCYs.
Joint Facilities/Youth.Aids Bonus
The Act seems to provide differing standards with regard to"joint"facilities.In order for
counties to qualify for the youth aids bonus, a county must operate"a joint secured
residential care center for children and youth under s. 46.20 (Im)that was funded by a
grant—","The JCGC"shall encourage multicounty coordination by favoring
applications..."
In discussions with counties that are considering operating SRCCCYs and counties that
are not choosing to operate an SRCCCY,the term"joint"facility causes concern.
Counties will either choose to operate an SRCCCY or purchase services from a county
_.—_�-- that o erates a SKCCCY.The-title of the terms-"joint"-SRCCCY anct"maltcounty -_-- __.
p
coordination"do not reflect what is likely to happen in practice,There are legitimate
13
SRCCCY Issue Paper
Page 4
reasons why a county would not want to operate a"joint"facility;however,that does not
mean that counties are not working together in a regional capacity.
Counties request that the requirement for the operation of a "joint"SRCCCY be
removed from the youth aids bonus language.Instead, a county should qualify for
the youth aids bonus if its SRCCCY serves youth from other counties.
............. ............. ................
Start Up Costs
Counties will incur costs prior to the official opening of a SRCCCY. Such costs include
staff training, administration, IT,utilities,human resources, liability insurance,
consumables, etc. Counties will not be receiving any revenue to offset those costs as
counties cannot accept juveniles for placement until the staff is trained and the facility is
approved by DOC.
Counties request that the state provide SRCCCYs with up to two months of startup
costs prior to the county's placement of juveniles in a SRCCCY. Counties will agree
to an LAB audit of such costs.
Operating Loss Reimbursement Program
The language in Wis. Stat. 301,373 relating to the operating loss reimbursement program
specifies that the"department shall-reimburse a county that operates a-secured residential
care center for children and youth that holds only female juveniles in secure custody,.,"
Counties are concerned that the use of the term "only"excludes co-located facilities with
a female pod or wing(it is not likely that any counties will construct a female-only
facility).
Counties request that the language be clarified by removing the term "only" and
specifying the reimbursement program applies to SRCCCYs that hold females in
secure custody.
Additional Items Counties Need Clarification On (may or may not be legislative in
nature):
0 Judicial discretion on placement
® Grant pay out structure
® What is included in the definition of design and construction costs (land purchase,
"outfitting the facility," etc.)
.......................... ... ........................
14
St. Croix County Sheriff's Office
In Saint Croix County SO Policy Manual
............... ............,_................."I'l""I'll""I'll'll"", -....-........... ........... ..........
Partable Audio/Video Recorders
341.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines for the use of portable audio/video recording devices by
members of this office while in 'the performance of their duties. Portable audio/video recording
devices include all recording systems, whether body-worn, hand-held or integrated into portable
equipment.
This policy does not apply to mobile audio/video recordings, interviews or interrogations conducted
at any St. Croix County Sheriffs Office facility, authorized undercover operations, wiretaps or
eavesdropping (concealed listening devices).
341.2 POLICY
The St. Croix County Sheriffs Office may provide members with access to portable recorders,
either audio or video or both,for use during the performance of their duties.The use of recorders is
intended to enhance the mission of the Office by accurately capturing contacts between members
of the Office and the public.
341.2.1 OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES
The St. Croix County Sheriff's Office has adopted the use of Portable Audio/Video Recorders
Policy to accomplish the following objectives:
A. To enhance member safety.
B. To document statements and events during the course of an incident.
C. To enhance the member's ability to document and review statements and actions for
both internal reporting requirements and for courtroom preparation/presentation.
D. To preserve visual and audio information for use in current and future investigations.
E. To provide a tool for self-critique and field evaluation during member training.
F. To enhance the public trust by preserving factual representations of member-citizen
interactions in the form of recorded media.
G. To assist with the defense of civil actions against members and St. Croix County.
H. To assist with the training and evaluation of members.
341.3 MEMBER PRIVACY EXPECTATION
All recordings made by members on any office-issued device at any time, and any recording
made while acting in an official capacity of this office regardless of ownership of the device it was
made on, shall remain the property of the Office. Members shall have no expectation of privacy
or ownership interest in the content of these recordings.
Copyright Lexilpol,LLC 2018/11/26,All Rights Reserved. Portable AudioNideo Recorders-235
Published with permission by St.Croix County Sheriffs Office 15
�
�� (� ' �m fn �� r�' ��
���. ^���|�� ��wUR^� Sheriff's ��/nce
Saint Croix County SOPolicy Manual
Portable AudiolVideo Recorders
341.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES
Prior t0going into service, each uniformed member will be responsible for making sure that he/she
is equipped with @ portable recorder issued by the [JffiCe' and that the recorder is in good working
order. If the recorder is not in vvQ[hing order Q[the rDB[nbSr b8COOOes 8VVaFe of malfunction at any
time, the member shall promptly report the failure to his/her supervisor and Obtain 8 functioning
device as SUOn as r8@SOD8b|y p[GCtiC8b|8. Uniformed Dl8DlbenS ShOU|d wear the video recorder in
@ CDDSpiCU0US no@OA8F' front facing and above the [O8Rlb8[S belt.
When UGiDQ @ portable PeC0nd8[' the assigned OOerObS[ GhG|| rSCO[d his/her name,
GCSC} identification DUDlbe[ and the CU[nSDt date and time at the beginning and the end Of the '
shift or other period of use, nag@nd|8SS Of whether any activity was recorded. This procedure
is not required when the recording device and related software captures the rnSnnber'a unique
identification and the dote and time of each recording.
Members should document the existence mfarecording inany report orother official record 0fthe
contact, including any instance where the nSCOrdSr malfunctioned or the member deactivated the
recording. Mennbana should include the reason for deactivation.
Member safety shall be the primary consideration for the use and activation of the portable audio/
video recording device.
Deputies assigned to plain C|Oih8G' inveGbg81ore, administrative pSrGOnne|, or undercover work
that could compromise an on-going investigation, shall not be required to wear @ body worn
camera during their dGy-to-d8ywork activity unless working in @ uniformed oa|| response capacity
or are otherwise required by this policy or a command-level directive.
!
341'5 ACTIVATION OF THE AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDER �
This policy is not intended to describe every possible situation in which the portable oCCOnder |
should be used, although there are many situations where its use is @ppn]ph81a. Members should
!
activate the recorder any time the member believes it would be appropriate or valuable to record
an incident. �
The portable video recorder should be activated in any of the following situations:
(o) All enforcement and investigative contacts including etopo, field interview /F|\
situations, Terry Stops of motorist or pedestrian, and aeorohan, seizures or arrests.
(b) Traffic stops including, but not limited to,traffic violations,stranded motorist assistance
and all crime interdiction stops, and vehicle searches.
(o) Self-initiated activity in which u nnannbar would normally notify the Emergency
Communications Center
(d) Any other contact that Uouonmee adveraaria|, inu|udin0, but not limited to, physical or
verbal confrontations and use of force, after the initial contact in a situation that would
not otherwise require recording
Copyright um/vo/.LLC uo1o/11/2s.All Rights Reserved. Portable AudioyVidooRecorders'238
Published with permission uvSt.Croix County Sheriffs Office 16
�
��f Croix
County Sheriff's ��B�
��`. ����|�� ��OU��~� ^�/v���l/, .� ��^/xce
Saint Croix County SOPolicy Manual
Portable Audio/Video Recorders
(8) Anytime the uniformed member is operating an authorized emergency vehicle in
emergency mode, which has the meaning that lights and/or siren are activated'
including but not limited to vehicle pursuits and priority responses.
(O Anytime a member executes a search warrant /n the field.
/0\ Activation when a member is in contact with an inmate in the secured area of the jail,
including but not limited Uothe follow:
1. Tours/rounds for inmate well-being checks/cell checks @tthe pod.
2. Inmate disciplinary procedures.
,
3. Pre-booking of innnateo, including inmate pat searches.
4. Responding to eDlS[g8DCieS within the jail or CDUrt[000.
5. Anytime that an inmate is not following directives or the use of force is possible.
8. When placing on inmate in the restraint chair or using other restraints on an
inmate.
Atnotime is member expected to'aopardiz8 his/her safety inorder tuactivate @ portable recorder
or change the recording media, but such instances of not recording when otherwise required must
be documented as specified in this policy. HOxv8w8r, the recorder should be activated in situations
described above as S0OO as naaG0n8b|y practicable.
341.5.1 SURREPTITIOUS USE OF THE PORTABLE RECORDER
VViaoun3in law permits on individual [Osurreptitiously record any conversation in which one party
t0the conversation has given his/her permission (Wis. Stat. 8B88.31/2\/b\).
Members may surreptitiously record any conversation during the course of a criminal investigation
in which the member reasonably believes that such a recording will be lawful and beneficial to
the investigation. }
K88nnberu shall not surreptitiously r8COnd another office nn8nlber without 8 court order unless �
lawfully authorized by the Sheriff orthe authorized designee. !
341.5.2 EXPLOSIVE DEVICE
Many portable r8Q}rdeno, including body-worn C8nner8e and audio/video transmitters, emit radio
waves that could trigger an explosive device. Therefore, these devices should not be used where
an explosive device may be present.
341.6 CESSATION OF RECORDING
Once activated,the portable recorder should remain on continuously until the member reasonably
believes that his/her direct participation in the incident is complete or the situation no longer fits
the criteria for activation. Recording may be stopped during significant periods of inactivity such
as report writing or other breaks from direct participation in the incident.
Copyright Lex/vo/.LLC eo1m11uo.All Rights Reserved. Portable Audio/Video Recorders-237
Published with permission uvSt.Croix County Sheriff's Office 17
�
�� Croix
County Sheriff's ��
��^. ��R���� ��(�LJR`� ��n /��/ w' �� ��/nce
Saint Croix County SO Policy Manual
Portable AUdiolV}deo Recorders
Recording may be audio muted to exchange information with other members and/or legal counsel.
The intention to mute audio will be noted by the member either verbally on the recording device `
or in avvritten report.
341.7 PROHIBITED USE OF PORTABLE RECORDERS
M8Olb8r8 are prohibited from using office-issued portable FeCOFde[S and recording OQ8diQ for
personal use and are prohibited from making personal copies Ofrecordings created while on-duty
or while acting in their official capacity.
Members are also prohibited from retaining recordings of activities or iDf0[Dl3bOD obtained VVhi|S '
on-duty, whether the recording was created with 0OiC8-iSSued or personally owned recorders.
Members shall not duplicate or distribute such recordings, except for authorized legitimate office
business purposes. All such recordings shall beretained atthe Office.
K88nnbens one prohibited from using personally uxvn8d recording devices while on-dub/ unless
exigent oirounnatanC8G arise. Any nnennbar who uses a personally owned recorder for office-
related activities aho|| comply with the provisions of this po|iuy, including retention and release
nyqu|r8nnenba, and should notify the on-duty supervisor Of Such use as soon as na8GOn8b|y
pn@Ct|oob|e.
Recordings oho|| not be used by any member for the purpose of embarrassment, harassment or
ridicule.
341'8 IDENTIFICATION AND PRESERVATION OF RECORDINGS
To assist with identifying and preserving data and reo0nding3. OO8nnbene should dOvvO|O3d. tag Or
mark these in 8CCOnd8OC8 with procedure and document the existence of the recording in any
related case report.
i
A member should transfer, tag or mark recordings when the member reasonably believes: �
(o) The recording contains evidence relevant to potential criminal, civil or administrative |
matters. /
/b\ /\ complainant, victim orwitness has requested non-diao|oaune.
/o\ /\ oonnp|ainant, vioUnn or witness has not nyquan&*d non-disclosure but the disclosure
of the recording may endanger the person.
(d) Disclosure may be an unreasonable violation of someone's privacy.
(e) Medical or mental health information is contained.
(O Disclosure may compromise an undercover officer or confidential informant.
(g) The recording orportions ofthe recording maybe protected under the Public Records
Law (Wis. Stat. 8 19.31 atoeq.).
Any time a member reasonably believes o recorded contact may be beneficial in o non-criminal
matter (e.g., a hOSU|8 Cont@Cd' the member should promptly notify 8 supervisor of the existence
of the recording.
Copyright um/vo/.LLC eo18/1112a.All Rights Reserved. Portable Audio8/idaoRecorders-338
Published with permission bySt.Croix County Sheriffs Office 18
�
«�f Croix
County Sheriff's y�f�
��^ ����|�� ��QUD` ��x+���l// �� �^,^vce
Saint Croix County SOPolicy Manual
Portable Audio/Video Recorders
541.8.1 iNTEMlFYOMALLY LEFT BLANK
` ^
341.9 REVIEW OF RECORDED MEDIA FILES
When p[8p@hDg written reports, members should review their nBCondiDgS as a resource /See the
Officer-involved Shootings and Deaths Policy for guidance in those cases). However, members
Sh@|i not retain pe[8DD8i COpi8S of recordings. MeDlb8[S should not use the fact that @ recording
was made as a reason to write 8 less detailed report.
Supervisors are authorized to review [8!8V8Vt [8COndiAgs at any time.
Recorded files may also be reviewed: '
(3) Upon @pp[0v@| by @ supervisor, by any noennb8r of the C)Mice who is participating in
an official inveatigoUon, such as a personnel uonnp|aint, administrative investigation
or criminal investigation.
/b\ Pursuant to lawful process or by court personnel who are otherwise authorized to
review evidence in a related case.
(o) By media personnel with permission of the Sheriff or the authorized designee.
(d) In ounnp|ianua with a public records request, if parnmitted, and in accordance with the
Records Maintenance and Release Policy.
All recordings should be reviewed bythe Custodian ofRecords prior to public release and released
pursuant to the Records Maintenance and Release Policy.
341.10 COORDINATOR
The Sheriff orthe authorized designee should designate 8 coordinator responsible for:
/a\ Establishing procedures for the security, storage and maintenance of data and
recordings. /
'
(b) Establishing procedures for accessing data and recordings. |
(o) Establishing procedures for logging or auditing access. !
(d) Establishing procedures for transferring, downloading, tagging or marking events.
341'11 RETENTION OF RECORDINGS
All recordings shall be retained for a period consistent with the requirements of the organization's
records retention schedule but innUevent for uperiod less than 121days. |f8notice ofclaim 0r
litigation hold is reueivmd, all records related 03the incident shall be retained until further notice.
Recordings that are used in 8 criminal, civil or administrative proceeding may not be destroyed
until final disposition is nOoda or until 8 determination or order is provided by the court Or hearing
examiner that the recordings are no longer needed.
341.11.1 RELEASE OF AUO|OyV|OEO RECORDINGS
Requests for the release Of audio/video recordings Sh8U be processed in accordance with the
Records Maintenance and Release Policy.
Copyright um/vol,LLC uo1un1us'All Rights Reserved. Portable Audio8/idaoRecorders-239
Published with permission uvSt.Croix County Sheriffs Office 19
St. Croix County Sheriff's Office
Saint Croix County SO Policy Manual
Portable AudkWO(Jeo RecoiVers
.......... ...........
341.12 EMERGENCY RESPONSE LIN11' (ERU) RECORDINGS
Mernbers of the ICI rnergency Response Unit ShOLAd wear the video o-ecorder lien a
conspicuous rrianner, front facing and above the belt when on a callut, For pre-planned search
warrants, recording shoWd begin during vehicle movement to the target location, For extended
tactical operations, recording should begin prior to anticipated tactical intervention and should
capture any negotiations or other relevant activity when possible. Recording should continue until
the incident is resolved,
Copyright Lexipol,LLC 2018/11/26,All Rights Reserved. Portable AudioNideo Recorders-240
Published with permission by St.Croix County Sheriff's Office 20
Joint Legislative Council's Report of
the Study Committee on the Use of Police
Body Cameras
[2019 Senate Bill 50]
March 12, 2019
JLCR 2019-02
VViSCODAD :If...,e islladve G.::OUDdI
Orme:IEast:MAD Street, Suile 401.
MadiSOD, W11 53703-3382
21 �vww..Ie iS„wiSCODSiem„ OV/IC
STUDY COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF POLICE
BODY CAMERAS
Prepared by:
Dan Schmidt, Principal Analyst, and
Steve McCarthy and Ethan Lauer, Staff Attorneys
March 12, 2019
CONTENTS
PART I:KEY PROVISIONS OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION.................................................................3
2019 Senate Bill 50, Relating to Body Cameras on Law Enforcement Officers...................................3
PART II:COMMITTEE ACTIVITY...............................................................................................................................................5
Assignment.....................................................................................................................................................................5
Summaryof Meetings.................................................................................................................................................5
PolicyRequirements............................................................................................................................................7
Retention..................................................................................................................................................................7
Release......................................................................................................................................................................7
PART III:RECOMMENDATION INTRODUCED BY THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL..........................................................11
2019 Senate Bill 50................................................................................................................................................... 11
Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Description........................................................................................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX 1--Committee and Joint Legislative Council Votes...........................................................................is
APPENDIX2--Joint Legislative Council........................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX 3--Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras...............................................................19
APPENDIX 4--Letter to Members From Chair Testin.............................................................................................21
APPENDIX5--Committee Materials List......................................................................................................................23
22
PART I
KEY PROVISIONS OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION
The Joint Legislative Council introduced the following bill in the 2019-20 session of the
Legislature.
2019 SENATE BILL 50, RELATING TO BODY CAMERAS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS
Senate Bill 50 addresses various privacy and public records issues that may arise as a result
of the use of a body camera by a law enforcement officer. Key provisions include:
• A requirement that a law enforcement agency that deploys a body camera on a law
enforcement officer adopt and administer a written policy governing the use,
maintenance, and storage of the camera.
• A requirement that a law enforcement agency train an officer who wears a body camera
on the use of the body camera, and train an employee who handles body camera data on
proper storage, retention, and release of that data.
• The establishment of a minimum retention period by a law enforcement agency for
"routine"body camera data.
• A requirement for longer retention by a law enforcement agency for certain "critical
incident" body camera data or data that is relevant for administrative or judicial
proceedings.
• The establishment of a public policy presumption against release of body camera data
that shows certain victims, minors, or those having a reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Authority for a law enforcement agency to redact identifying images or sounds from
certain body camera data before public release, and clarification that such a redaction
may be challenged as a denial of release.
23
PART II
COMMITTEE ACTIVITY
ASSIGNMENT
The Joint Legislative Council established the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body
Cameras and appointed the chairperson by an April 9, 2018 mail ballot. Appendix 2 identifies the
membership of the Joint Legislative Council at the time the mail ballot was approved.The committee
was directed to review law enforcement policies regarding the use of body cameras and recommend
legislation to establish uniform procedures regarding the retention and release of body camera
video for state and local law enforcement agencies.
Membership of the study committee was appointed by a June 4, 2018 mail ballot. The final
committee membership consisted of two representatives,two senators, and six public members.A
list of committee members is included as Appendix 3 to this report.
SUMMARY OF MEETINGS
The committee held four meetings on the following dates:
• July 26, 2018.
• September 13, 2018.
• October 17, 2018.
• November 13, 2018.
At the committee's July 26,2018 meeting,the study committee heard testimony from several
invited speakers.
Amanda Essex, criminal justice senior policy specialist, National Conference of State
Legislatures, provided the committee with an overview of other states' consideration and action on
police body camera and data management legislation, including proposals on written body camera
usage policies, studies on body camera best practices, and funding for the use of body cameras. She
noted best practice recommendations by national organizations for data storage, retention, and
disclosure. Following the presentation, Ms. Essex answered committee members' questions about
the cost of body camera data storage, whether states have included criminal penalties in their
legislation for violation of body camera policies, the application of public records laws, and body
camera auditing laws.
Paul Ferguson and Spencer Gustafson,Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), provided the
committee with a detailed overview of the Wisconsin public records law, noting in particular its
presumption of complete public access to public records except in exceptional cases. Mr. Ferguson
24
described the roles of various individuals involved in a public records request and provided an
overview of what constitutes a record. He outlined how DOJ processes a public records request,
including an explanation of the balancing test by which an authority weighs the public interest in
disclosure of the record against the public interest and public policy against disclosure. Mr.
Gustafson provided the committee with a demonstration of video and audio redaction techniques
utilized by DOJ. Following the presentation, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Gustafson answered committee
members' questions about the feasibility of DOJ storing local law enforcement police body camera
data,the adequacy of current public records law for body camera data retention and disclosure,and
an individual's right to privacy, including an individual accused of a crime.
Laken Ferreira,associate government affairs manager,Axon,provided the committee with an
overview of her company, Axon, which sells body cameras, other hardware, and corresponding
software and allowed committee members to inspect a sample body camera. Following the
presentation, Ms. Ferreira answered committee members' questions about the structure of Axon
contracts with its customers, the operation of its body cameras, the security of its hardware and
software, and its training of officers in the technology.
Hector de la Mora and Andrew T. Phillips, attorneys, von Briesen & Roper, described their
experience representing local governments and law enforcement agencies in matters relating to
police body cameras. They reviewed previous legislative proposals and advocated for legislation to
prevent the absence of body camera data from being a presumption against a law enforcement
agency in a court proceeding. Following the presentation, Attorneys de la Mora and Phillips
answered committee members' questions about potential abuse of data collection, advisable limits
on public access to body camera data, and the practicality of their favored legislative proposals.
After the conclusion of the presentations, Chair Testin facilitated a preliminary discussion of
various options for consideration.The committee discussion addressed such issues as the activation
of body cameras,the need for statewide policies,unforeseen implications of future technology, civil
liberties, and the desire not to discourage law enforcement from deploying body cameras.
At the September 13. 2018 meeting, the study committee heard testimony from several
invited speakers and discussed topics summarized in the Legislative Council Study Committee
Memorandum, Potential Discussion Points for September 13, 2018 Meeting(August 30, 2018).
Doug Wiorek, sergeant, and Terrence Gordon, inspector, Milwaukee Police Department
(MPD), described MPD's experience implementing police body cameras. Sergeant Wiorek
demonstrated MPD equipment, explained data storage costs, discussed MPD policy regarding
activation of cameras, and described length of data retention by MPD. Inspector Gordon discussed
the administrative policies associated with retention, redaction, and release of MPD records in
response to thousands of requests per year. Following the presentation, Sergeant Wiorek and
Inspector Gordon answered committee members' questions about access to and release of MPD
records, maintenance and retention of video records, and procedures for activating MPD body
cameras and notifying an individual being recorded.
Heath Straka, president, Wisconsin Association for Justice, presented the position of his
organization on the use of police body cameras. Mr. Straka emphasized that body camera data
should remain a public record, access to the data fosters accountability and dispute resolution, and
25
body cameras do not lead to increased legal exposure for law enforcement agencies. He also made
several legislative recommendations on behalf of his organization in the areas of veto power over
release, retention periods, contemplation of civil litigation, and privacy protections. Following the
presentation, Mr. Straka answered committee members' questions about a victim's ability to
prevent release of data and about maintenance of video footage.
Following the presentations, Chair Testin and Legislative Council staff facilitated committee
discussion regarding the following areas broached by the Legislative Council memorandum: law
enforcement body camera policy requirements, retention of body camera data, and release of body
camera data.
Policy Requirements
Committee members generally agreed that body camera policies prescribed by state law
should preserve local government discretion in addressing the needs of local law enforcement.
Some members preferred merely requiring that a local policy be in place and available to the public,
while others wanted to provide guidance in state law as to when a camera would be activated.
Members discussed funding for camera acquisition and data storage.
Retention
Committee members generally agreed that a retention period of 120 to 180 days is minimally
sufficient for noncritical incident data, with several members indicating that they would like
permanent retention. Members also indicated that critical incident data should be retained at least
three or four years, pending legal or administrative proceedings on the footage.
Release
Committee members were divided on whether to maintain the current presumption of
disclosure of body camera footage when the balancing test was applied under the open records law
or to provide a specific release exemption in order to protect the privacy of a victim or witness.
Members debated whether redaction technology affords sufficient privacy. Several members
indicated that an individual should have the right to refuse to be recorded. Some members indicated
that the open records law is sufficient to handle sensitive information like body camera footage,but
others expressed concern with a lack of uniformity in release by different record holders under
existing law.
Following discussion, Chair Testin indicated that he would work with Legislative Council
staff to draft a bill that reflected the committee's discussion.
At the October 17, 2018 meeting, the study committee reviewed the preliminary bill draft,
LRB-0396/P2, relating to police body cameras,which includes portions of both 2017 Assembly Bill
351 and 2017 Assembly Bill 557, and new material. Among the new material is a provision that
incorporates aspects of current law related to the so-called "Woznicki fix," which provides that
certain specified individuals have a right to be notified and seek judicial review of an authority's
decision to release certain records that may be considered to be of a highly personal nature.A robust
discussion followed the explanation of the bill draft by Legislative Council staff.
26
The committee unanimously agreed to change the bill draft in the following areas: (1)
removal of privacy protection for witnesses of a sensitive or violent crime; (2) removal of language
regarding the "Woznicki fix"; (3) removal of categorical exclusion on release of"routine" footage,
nudity,and matter subject to certain legal privilege; (4) addition of express authority for a requester
to challenge a redaction or refusal to release; and (5) removal of express authority to destroy
"routine" data after the 120-day retention period.
Members discussed minimum retention periods for body camera data that records a
custodial arrest, death, or injury, "Terry stop," or use of force, particularly with regard to whether
the requirement that such data be retained until final disposition of any case or complaint to which
the data pertain would be sufficient in all circumstances.Some members felt that a case or complaint
might not be initiated until after the 120-day retention period and expressed the desire for a period
of the lesser of three years or final disposition of any case or complaint. The committee rejected by
roll call vote a motion to modify the bill draft to reflect that three-year period (Ayes, 4; Noes, 5;
Absent, 1).
Members discussed whether the bill draft should require a law enforcement agency's written
policy to include situations in which it was presumed that a body camera would be activated. A
motion to modify the bill draft in that regard was offered, but then withdrawn.
Members discussed whether the bill draft should require a law enforcement agency's written
policy to include disciplinary measures for violations of the policy. The committee rejected by roll
call vote a motion to modify the bill draft in that regard (Ayes, 3; Noes, 6; Absent, 1).
Chair Testin directed Legislative Council staff to prepare a new bill draft that reflected the
decisions of the committee.
At the final committee meeting on November 13, 2018, the study committee reviewed the
preliminary bill draft, LRB-0396/P4, relating to police body cameras, which incorporated the
changes adopted by the committee at its last meeting.
Members discussed whether to insert the term "investigation" on page 4, line 13, between
"any" and "case" so that body camera data would be retained to the conclusion of an investigation,
without regard to whether a case or complaint had been filed. The committee was unsure whether
"investigation" was already implicit in the bill draft and whether there would be confusion
regarding when an investigation was complete.A motion to modify the bill draft to accomplish the
insertion was offered but then withdrawn.'
The committee discussed whether to replace all forms of the term "censor" with the more
commonly used statutory term "redact." A motion was offered and approved by voice vote to
effectuate those replacements.
The committee discussed the sufficiency of the change it had approved at the last meeting to
insert a provision granting express authority for a requester to challenge a redaction or refusal to
release. Because the bill draft, in the event of data showing a minor, a victim, or an individual in a
location with a reasonable expectation of privacy, allows a record custodian only the binary option
'See Appendix 4.
27
of refusing release or redacting, the members thought it was not clear that a requestor would be
afforded the opportunity to challenge for unredacted data. A motion was offered and approved by
voice vote to merely authorize ("may") rather than dictate ("shall") that binary option.
With regard to data that was used in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, the
committee discussed whether the three prerequisites for destruction of such data—final disposition
of the proceeding, a determination from the court or hearing examiner that the data is no longer
needed, and an order from the court or hearing examiner—should be stated instead in the
alternative. The committee also discussed whether to clarify that "final disposition" included the
appeals process. A motion was offered and approved by voice vote to modify the bill draft in both
regards.
Chair Testin thanked committee members and staff for their service, directed Legislative
Council staff to produce a revised bill draft reflecting the committee's actions during the meeting,
and notified the members that they would be sent a mail ballot to approve the final draft.
28
PART III
RECOMMENDATION INTRODUCED BY THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
This Part of the report provides background information on, and a description of, the bill as
recommended by the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras and introduced by the
Joint Legislative Council.
2019 SENATE BILL 50
Background
Open Records Law in General
Wisconsin's open records law is contained in ss. 19.31 to 19.39, Stats. Section 19.35, Stats.,
essentially codifies case law and generally requires that a record held by an authority remain open
for inspection and copying. Broadly speaking, an "authority" is a state body, local body, or elected
official having custody of a record. Further,an authority usually delegates to a named individual the
responsibilities of acting as a legal custodian who will respond to requests for access to records. [ss.
19.32 (1) and 19.33, Stats.]
Wisconsin's open records law provides that a record must remain open for inspection and
copying unless:
1. There is a clear statutory exception to this requirement;
2. There exists a limitation on inspection and copying under the common law; or
3. On a case-by-case basis, a record custodian decides that the harm done to the public by
disclosure of a record outweighs the public's interest in access to the record.
Release of Records
An authority receiving a record request must either fill the request or notify the requester of
the authority's determination to deny the request in whole or in part, including specific reasons for
the denial. Every written denial of a request by an authority must inform the requester that if the
request for the record was made in writing, then the determination to deny the request is subject
to review by mandamus or upon application to the attorney general or a district attorney. [ss. 19.35
(4) (a) and (b), and 19.37 (1), Stats.]
Law Enforcement Records
Wisconsin courts have generally held that while there may be a strong presumption of
openness under the open records law, law enforcement investigative records are of a category of
records that are particularly sensitive and may have a greater adverse effect on public interests if
29
they are released.z Despite this recognition, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that decisions
against release must be made on a case-by-case basis.3 With this in mind, the Wisconsin attorney
general has indicated that the following policy interests represent some of the arguments against
disclosure of law enforcement records:
• Interference with police business.
• Privacy and reputation.
• Uncertain reliability of"raw investigative data."
• Revelation of law enforcement techniques.
• Danger to individuals identified in the record.
Record Retention in General
Section 19.21 (4) (b), Stats., generally permits a town, city, or village to establish records
retention periods by ordinance unless a specific period of time is required by statute. With the
exception of certain public utility records, the retention period established by ordinance may not
be less than seven years,unless a shorter period is fixed by the Public Records Board (PRB). Section
19.21 (5) (c), Stats., establishes a similar seven-year general retention provision (and exception for
retention periods fixed by the PRB) for counties.
Law Enforcement Record Retention
Section 16.61 (3) (e), Stats., permits the PRB to establish the minimum period of time for
retention of records for any county, city, town, or village (local governmental units) in Wisconsin.
In the case of police body camera video recordings,the PRB has not established a specific minimum
retention period. Rather, the board has encouraged local governmental units to seek appropriate
legal counsel when establishing a retention schedule for PRB approval and directed the local
governmental unit to the state agency retention requirement for monitoring and surveillance
recordings for basic policy guidance.
The monitoring and surveillance recordings schedule requires a minimum retention of 120
days before destruction, but generally permits the retention of such records as long as needed for
legal or program purposes. The 120-day retention period is generally required because this is the
time limit for an individual to file a claim against a governmental body or state employee.4 Legal
counsel is specifically recommended because claims for federal civil rights violations, including
excessive use of force, in particular, may be filed for up to three years after an incident.5
Z See Linzmeyer v.Forcey,2002 WI 84,130.
3 See Id.at 142.
4 See ss.893.80 and 893.82,Stats.
5 See 42 U.S.C.s. 1983 and s.893.53,Stats.
30
Description
The bill addresses various issues related to the use of body cameras by law enforcement
officers, including policies on the use of the cameras, retention by the law enforcement agency of
data collected by the cameras, and release of such data to the public.
Law Enforcement Agency Policies, Training, and Compliance Related to Body Cameras
The bill does not require a law enforcement agency to deploy body cameras on its officers,
but if an agency deploys such cameras,the bill requires the agency to adopt and administer a written
policy addressing the use, maintenance, and storage of the cameras and their data. The policy must
include any limitations imposed by the agency on situations, persons, or encounters that may be
recorded by a body camera. The bill also requires the agency to train officers who wear body
cameras, and employees who handle body camera data, on the proper use of the cameras and the
proper storage and release of the data.The agency must post the policy on the agency's website and
must periodically review the agency's compliance with the policy.
Retention of Body Camera Data
The bill establishes 120 days from the date of recording as the default amount of time during
which body camera data must be retained by a law enforcement agency and clarifies that such
agency is the custodian of data obtained by its body cameras for purposes of the open records law.
Unless the data is the subject of an open records request, the agency is not required to retain the
data beyond the minimum 120-day period except under specific circumstances.
Data that depicts any of the following must be retained until the final disposition of any
investigation, case, or complaint to which that data relates:
• The death of an individual;
• Actual or alleged physical injury to an individual;
• A custodial arrest;
• A search during an authorized temporary questioning (known as a "Terry stop"); or
• The use of force by an officer (other than the use of a firearm to dispatch an injured wild
animal).
Data must be retained if directed by a law enforcement officer or agency, a board of police
and fire commissioners, a prosecutor, a defendant, or a court that determines that the data has
evidentiary value in a prosecution.An entity making the directive must submit a preservation order
within 120 days from the date of the recording.
Data that is used in a criminal, civil,or administrative proceeding must be retained until final
disposition of such proceeding, including appeals, or until a determination or an order by the court
or hearing examiner that the data is no longer needed.
31
Release of Body Camera Data
The bill provides that body camera data is generally subject to release in response to an open
records request,but includes exceptional treatment favoring privacy over public release for data on
certain individuals. To qualify for exceptional treatment, the individual must be: (1) the victim of a
sensitive or violent crime; (2) a minor; or (3) in a location in which the individual has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and must be: (1) visible or audible in the recording; (2) known to the law
enforcement agency; (3) not suspected of committing a crime or violation of law in connection with
the officer's presence at the location that was recorded;and(4) not a law enforcement officer acting
in an official capacity (unless the officer is a victim or alleged victim of a crime or violation of law
while present at the location that was recorded). For such an individual, the law enforcement
agency may refuse to release the body camera data or may redact the individual's face or other
information that would allow the individual to be identified. The bill clarifies that the decision to
redact or to refuse to release data may be challenged under the open records law.
32
APPENDIX 1
COMMITTEE AND JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VOTES
The following recommendation was introduced by the Joint Legislative Council in the 2019-
20 session of the Legislature after being recommended by the Study Committee on the Use of Police
Body Cameras.
STUDY COMMITTEE VOTE
The study committee voted by a November 20, 2018,mail ballot to recommend the following
bill draft to the Joint Legislative Council for introduction in the 2019-20 session of the Legislature.
The vote on the bill draft was as follows:
• LRB-0396/2, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers, passed by a vote
Ayes, 9 (Sen. Testin; Reps. Spiros and Taylor; and Public Members Croninger, Dorl,
Friedman, Hart, Kass, and Klatt); and Noes, 1 (Sen. Larson).
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VOTE
After the final meeting of the study committee, Chair Testin notified members that he would
recommend to the Joint Legislative Council the adoption of an amendment that was offered and
withdrawn during the November 13,2018 meeting.The letter from the chair to members describing
this amendment was included in the materials sent with the mail ballot and is reproduced in
Appendix 4. The amendment, WLC: 0007/1, was introduced before the Joint Legislative Council by
Representative Taylor.
At its February 13, 2019 meeting, the Joint Legislative Council voted as follows on the
recommendation of the study committee:
Rep. Taylormoved, seconded by Rep. Spiros, that WLC,-0007/1
be adopted by the joint Legislative Council. The motion passed
on a roll call vote as follows:Ayes, 20 (Sens Roth, Erpenbach,
Fitzgerald, Jacque, Marklem, Miller, Olsen, Risser, and Shilling;
and Reps. Brooks, August, Ballweg, Billings, Hesselbein, Hintz,
Nygren, Spiros, Steineke, Taylor, and Fos);Noes, 0;and Absent,
2(Sens Darling and Petrowski).
Rep. Taylor moved, seconded by Rep. Spiros, that LRB-0396/2,
as amended, be approved for introduction by the joint
Legislative Council. The motion passed on a roll call vote as
follows: Ayes, 20 (Sens Roth, Erpenbach, Fitzgerald, Jacque,
Marklem, Miller, Olsen, Risser, and Shilling; and Reps. Brooks,
August, Ballweg, Billings, Hesselbein, Hintz, Nygren, Spiros,
Steineke, Taylor,and Fos);Noes, 0;andAbsent, 2(Sens Darling
33
and Petrowski). [LRB-0396/2, and amended, became LRB-
0396/3. LRB-0396/3 was introduced as 2019 Senate Bill 50.]
34
APPENDIX 2
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
SENATE MEMBERS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
Roger Roth,Co-Chair Robert Brooks,Co-Chair
Senate President Assistant Majority Leader
Appleton Saukville
Alberta Darling Tyler August
JFC Co-Chair Speaker Pro Tempore
River Hills Lake Geneva
Scott Fitzgerald Joan Ballweg
Majority Leader Markesan
Juneau
Howard Marklein Peter Barca
President Pro Tempore Kenosha
Spring Green
Mark Miller Dianne Hesselbein
Monona Assistant Minority Leader
Middleton
Terry Moulton Gordon Hintz
Chippewa Falls Minority Leader
Oshkosh
Jerry Petrowski John Nygren
Marathon JFC Co-Chair
Marinette
Fred A. Risser John Spiros
Madison Marshfield
Jennifer Shilling Jim Steineke
Minority Leader Majority Leader
La Crosse Kaukauna
Lena Taylor Chris Taylor
JFC Ranking Minority Member JFC Ranking Minority Member
Milwaukee Madison
Van Wanggaard Robin Vos
Racine Speaker
Rochester
This 22-member committee consists of the majority and minority party leadership of both houses of the Legislature,the co-chairs and ranking
minority members of the Joint Committee on Finance,and 5 senators and 5 representatives appointed as are members of standing committees.
35
APPENDIX 3
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Committee List
Joint Legislative Council Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras
Chair Patrick Testin,Senator Vice Chair Chris Taylor,Representative
5369 Fairview Drive Madison,WI 53704
Stevens Point,WI 54482
Kevin Croninger,District Attorney Catherine Dorl,Attorney Manager
Monroe County Courthouse Office of the State Public Defender
112 South Court Street,Room 2400 17 S. Fairchild,2nd Floor
Sparta,WI 54656 P.O. Box 7923
Madison,WI 53707
James Friedman,Attorney Ben Hart,News Director
Godfrey&Kahn,S.C. WISN-TV
1 East Main Street,Suite 500 759 N. 19th Street
Madison,WI 53703 Milwaukee,WI 53233
Mike Kass,Chief of Police Jeff Klatt,Captain
Brown Deer Police Department St.Croix County Sheriffs Office
4800 West Green Brook Drive 1101 Carmichael Road
Brown Deer,WI 53223 Hudson,WI 54016
Chris Larson,Senator John Spiros,Representative
3233 South Herman Street 1406 E. Fillmore
Milwaukee,WI 53207 Marshfield,WI 54449
STUDY ASSIGNMENT: The Study Committee is directed to review law enforcement policies regarding the use of body
cameras and recommend legislation to establish uniform procedures regarding the retention and release of body
camera video for state and local law enforcement agencies.
10 MEMBERS: 2 Representatives; 2 Senators;and 6 Public Members.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF: Dan Schmidt, Principal Analyst; Steve McCarthy and Ethan Lauer, Staff Attorneys; and
Miranda Machgan,Support Staff.
36
APPENDIX 4
LETTER TO MEMBERS FROM CHAIR TESTIN
Wisconsin Mate Senate. I` �} Servhig Wood Pottage,Adatns,
24th SIInIaLL 0j,1V 1t WauaPtara,Monte a,and Jackson
PATRICK TESTIN
STP.TF SENATOR
November 19,2018
Dear Members of the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras,
Thank you again for your service and work for the study committee.Enclosed is a mail ballot
requesting approval of the committee bill draft.`the bill draft incorporates the changes agreed to
by the committee at our last meeting.Please complete and sign the tnad ballot by November 29,
2018,and return it to Legislative Council staff.
As you may recall from our last meeting, the committee discussed a motion by Representative
Taylor to amend the bill draft by adding the material"investigation,"between the words"any"
and"case"on page 4,line 13. Representative Taylor withdrew her motion to allow for further
consideration by members.
It the committee's mail ballot vote recommends approval of the committee bill draft„I intend to
i
introduce an amendment to the bill draft for consideration by the Joint Legislative Council to add
"investigation,"between the wards"any'"and"case"on page 4,line 13.
E
Please contact my office or Legislative Council study committee staff with any questions.
i_
Sincerely,
Patrick Testin
State Senator
W Senate District
t=
Pct Box 7882•Mladi,tm W153 707-7852•608-266.31.7,3•606.925-7991• Seti.T"6rt91Lgis.wL ov•wivw.Se atorT�tmxow
37
APPENDIX 5
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
COMMITTEE MATERIALS LIST
[Copies of documents are available at eves w.leVis.wisconsin.yov1lcl
July 26, 2018 Meeting
• Presentation, Police Body Cameras: Public Records Law and Retention Considerations,
by Paul Ferguson and Spencer Gustafson, Wisconsin Department of Justice (July 26,
2018).
• Presentation,Axon Presentation for the Wisconsin Study Committee on the Use ofPolice
Body Cameras,by Laken Ferreira,Associate Government Affairs Manager(July 26,2018).
• Handout, Police Body Cameras,by Doug Wiorek, Milwaukee Police Department (July 26,
2018).
• Presentation, State Activity Addressing Police Body Cameras and Data Management
Practices, by Amanda Essex, Criminal Justice Senior Policy Specialist, National
Conference of State Legislatures (July 26, 2018).
• Handout, Police Body Camera Follow-Up Information, from Amanda Essex, Criminal
Justice Senior Policy Specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures (September 10,
2018).
• Staff Brief 2018-03, Study Committee on the Use ofPolice Body Cameras(July 18, 2018).
• Presentation, Regulation of Use ofBodyCameras and Their Data by LawEnforcement,by
Andrew T.Phillips and Hector de la Mora,Attorneys,von Briesen&Roper(July 26,2018).
• Minutes of the July 26, 2018 meeting.
September 13, 2018 Meeting
• Handout, Body Worn Cameras Standard Operating Procedure, Milwaukee Police
Department (September 14, 2018).
• Presentation, Police Body Cameras, by Doug Wiorek, Milwaukee Police Department
(September 13, 2018).
• LC Study Committee Memorandum, Potential Discussion Points for September 13, 2018
Meeting(August 30, 2018).
38
• Presentation by Heath Straka, President, Wisconsin Association for Justice (September
13, 2018).
• Minutes of the September 13, 2018 meeting.
October 17, 2018 Meeting
• LC Study Committee Memorandum, Description ofLRB-0396/P2,Relating to Police Body
Cameras(October 10, 2018).
• LRB-0396/P2, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers.
• Minutes of the October 17, 2018 meeting.
November 13, 2018 Meeting
• LRB-0396/P4, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers.
• Minutes of the November 13, 2018 meeting.
November 20, 2018 Mail Ballot
• LRB-0396/2, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers.
• Results of the November 20, 2018 mail ballot.
• Letter to Members of the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras, from
Senator Testin, Chair of the Committee (November 19, 2018).
Recommendation to the Joint Legislative Council
• WLC: 0007/1, an Amendment to LRB-0396/2.
• Report to the Joint Legislative Council, LCR-2019-02, Study Committee on the Use of
Police Body Cameras (January 7, 2019).
• LRB-0396/2, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers.
Joint Legislative Council Recommendation to the 2019-20 Legislature
• 2019 Senate Bill 50
• Joint Legislative Council's Report of the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body
Cameras.
39
Resolution No.
T. ROIX UNTY RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GOALS
REPORT FOR PERIOD JULY 1, 2018 - JUNE 30, 2019
1 WHEREAS, the St. Croix County Board has provided guidance to the County
2 Administrator by establishing annual goals for the rating period July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019; and
3
4 WHEREAS, the County Administrator has prepared a report highlighting the completion
5 of said goals (attached); and
6
7 WHEREAS, Section II(B) of the County Administrator's employment agreement
8 (approved December 6, 2016) "Employer at its discretion shall review and evaluate the
9 performance of the Employee from time-to-time, at least on an annu 1 basis and may consider
10 discretionary bonuses." 1D
11
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that t County Board of
13 Supervisors does hereby approve the County Administra �;,s Goals rt; establish the next
14 rating period of the County Administrator of July 1, 2 - June 30, 20 nd approves
15 discretionary non base incentive compensation pay t of$Oract
00 (2.5%) s budgeted for the
16 County Administrator to be paid on the anniversary s July 1, 2019.
Legal-Fiscal-Administrative Approvals:
Legal Note:
Fiscal Impact: Any com n adju is would be budgeted for in the 2020 budget. We have
$400 gete r discr nary incentive award in 2019.
JA
Cott .Cox,Corporan /9/2019 K sig a Cou A in ^tr5r 5/7/2019
Pa rick Thompson,County Administrator 5/9/2019
05/13/19 Administration Committee No Action
Vote Confirmation.
Fat- Croix County Board of Supervisors Action:
40
I 0 \
/ § \ a E ƒ : E
) / $ \ / ƒ / ) f \
/
= q ° » U ° G % > u s
/ o % % -0> / E /
ƒ ƒ / § / 2 \ 3 } / 2
\ u ƒ ƒ
>
G ) c / 2 % G
v ( 7 u \ m \ \
2 2 sIN
ƒ 2 \ / $ / \ /
0 2 L k o / s 3 » 3 R 3
«o . . . . .
/ \ / %
/ u a .g §
_ co 2 w e 5 Q
M } / / / » ocu
= s ® ± _ » ° ƒ
2 t = t .g u u /
u / / / = / # 2 0 7 k
2 § ƒ co 0 \ / / \ \ co
E > Y 2 ƒ / G J / / /
2 + 0 0 0
-
% t $ & \
\ $ % e f
k 2 _ ± / § / / } 0 k .2 / \
■ m c E ° c = - c .- 2 c e
o o ° E e Fu a 2 u e 2 ƒ
C § ® :tf � � \ » ® » \
■ 0 u E / \ 2 % / = s 0 k
\ $ ± f 3
0 a) § / y / § \ \ /
o � ■
-
� e
0 o / b o
c \ ƒ \ a � u G g
v 9 % = ut § 0 » 0
2 0 \ y y » ( / = s = y > 2
m o § / ƒ ° u a e a c G o ® e g - e
e � m c E c e . co E u a E u e
D f e \2 = = g e e o % u § > 2 % \ o
& § 2@ § o G u \ \ 2 E = g u g u 2
- v # ® � ° % s s ® E p p § ± f ) s ± s ± 2
= = E x sa)
t .o c a E 0 2 e s s 3 's a 2 .§ \ / \ \
2LLJul - - - - - - - - -
ul 0) § \
ul _ \ 3 ' m = ° \ — % w
/ E ' \ o / ƒ / s o \ & y c
5 > 2 - / o — f ' / $ ° >
— a w ± ^ a — e 5 = - u # o E - o
0 0 M W w i a / f / l a c e ? / — ®5 e 5, t c
= o ■ ® \ ® 2 2 2 .g � .- / s o # ® — ° E
_ - / / e = / / J y § / / * 7 ƒ » » ƒ / ° E
'- � co 2 c E 2 0 \ = 5 c -
■_ = 5 \ c » 5 3 e t = e c w E / ° ¢ ° / s ƒ / e
'� '� s / § � ? § 2 / $ \ $ k / \ f 2 2 J e [ u E \ /
'§ w > k .A 6 .� / > § s f ƒ y s 2 < 2 ƒ 3 � / v a s
0 0 0
a 2 .� - - - - - - - - - - - -
Resolution No. 17 (2019)
ST. CROI?4 ij RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
1 WHEREAS, the St. Croix County Board holds strategic planning as a top priority; and
2
3 WHEREAS, updating the Strategic Initiatives is the first of four steps in the process of
4 establishing policy direction for St. Croix County:
5 1. Strategic Initiatives
6 2. Budget Guidelines
7 3. County Administrator Goals
8 4. Department Work Plans; and
9
10 WHEREAS, the St. Croix County Board wishes to establish the broad Strategic
11 Initiatives of the County to give guidance to employees and policy decisions; and
12
13 WHEREAS, a process for updating the strategic initiatives was implemented with
14 assistance from UW-Extension.
15
16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Croix County Board of
17 Supervisors that it hereby approves the following 2019 Strategic Initiatives.
18
19 • Pursuing innovative strategies to address health and wellbeing issues
20 • Evaluating and prioritizing County services
21 • Adopting effective policies for retention and recruitment
22 • Maintaining and providing for future infrastructure
23 • Adopting zoning ordinance by March 2020
24 • Achieving financial sustainability
Legal-Fiscal-Administrative Approvals:
Legal Note:
Fiscal Impact: Establishing Strategic Initiatives gives guidance for future financial impacts, but the
approval of this resolution does not have a direct financial impact.
cott ,Cox,Corporation Cd6nW ira C o u rK AA i tr 'or 4/10/2019
-7f
Pa rick Thompson,County Administrator t 4/10/2019
04/15/19 Administration Committee RECOMMENDED
42
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
RESULT: RECOMMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dan Fosterling, Supervisor
SECONDER: Nancy Hable, Supervisor
AYES: Roy Sjoberg, Dan Fosterling, David Peterson, Nancy Hable
ABSENT: Tammy Moothedan
Vote Confirmation.
Dave 7,"� m(rrrstration,Char an 4/16 019
mid Pe4er'son Ad /2019
SL Croix County Board of Supervisors Action:
Roll Call -Vote Requirement— Majority of Supervisors Present
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
RESULT: ADOPTED [14 TO 3]
MOVER: David Peterson, Supervisor
SECONDER: Tammy Moothedan, Supervisor
AYES: Schachtner, Miller, Coulter, Sjoberg, Malick, Moothedan, Fosterling, Feidler,
Ostness, Larson, Brinkman, Peterson, Anderson, Peavey
NAYS: Daniel Hansen, Judy Achterhof, Nancy Hable
ABSENT: Jim Endle, District 13
This Resolution was Adopted by the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors on May 7, 2019
Cindy Campbell, County Clerk
43
Suggested Goals for County Administrator
Evaluation Period July 1 , 2019 — June 30, 2020
Based on Board Adopted Strategic Initiatives
Initiative: Pursuing Innovative Strategies to Address Health and Wellbeing Issues:
1. Complete Nitrate Source Analysis (water quality study recommendations 1 B).
Initiative: Evaluating and Prioritizing County Services:
1. Complete mandate service analysis to educate the County on the required services the
County provides, and services the County has elected to provide.
Initiative: Adopting Effective Policies for Retention and Recruitment:
1. Implement findings of McGrath Compensation Study.
2. Create an employee survey to create a metric for employee satisfaction and identify trends
in issues.
Initiative: Maintaining and Providing for Future Infrastructure:
1. Prepare a Space Needs Study for the Government Center Campus to identify future space
requirements and options.
Initiative: Adopting Zoning Ordinance by March 2020:
1. Have zoning ordinance ready for adoption by March 2020.
Initiative: Achieving Financial Sustainability:
1. Increase Health Center Campus bed utilization rate from 68% to 80%.
2. Review and recommend the benefits/feasibility of an on-site or near-site health clinic as
part of our health insurance service offerings.
44